Council on Foreign Relations has this:
Q: When and how was al-Qaeda formed?
A: Al-Qaeda grew out of the Services Office, a clearinghouse for the international Muslim brigade opposed to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the Services Office—run by Osama bin Laden and the Palestinian religious scholar Abdullah Azzam—recruited, trained, and financed thousands of foreign mujahedeen, or holy warriors, from more than 50 countries. ...
I have to say, to argue that regional power aspirants like Hizballah and Hamas are not "intrinsic" threats to the US because their concerns are strictly local is sort of like arguing that the Taliban was not an "intrinsic" threat to the US. So what? 1902. RustlerPike - 6/24/2002 4:53:32 AM
By the way, Pike, I saw Ephraim Sneh on television last week and he was fairly impressive. What does his political trajectory look like?
A bell curve.
1903. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 12:34:13 PM
Andonly? "We may have killed him?"
Do you belong to an organization that kills people. I certainly would never use the phrase. Only the criminal and illegitimate Bush Regime would support assassinating people. If the "we " refers to the USA please leave me out because I do not support an illegitimate unelected regime that commits murder.
1904. Daniel Sickles - 6/24/2002 1:01:30 PM
Clifford
Andonly is a member of KAOS.
1905. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 1:04:03 PM
call agents 86 & 99 immediately.
1906. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 1:47:23 PM
Message # 1866: "I wonder how Hamas would react if Palestine were declared a country, but part of the negotiated agreement was that it couldn't be Islamist?"
It would continue to be what it is now -- rejectionist.
Message # 1871
"In post 1799, I laid out exactly how the Palestinian terrorist organizations are significant present and potential threats to the United States."
No, you did not.
"...pseudo blithely hums his own three-note tune in either the hope of transmogrifying the work of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas and company into mere regional disputes that have little or no effect on American interests"
First of all, you should stick to simpler sentences.
Second, I agreed that a regional conflagration in the Middle East would threaten American interests. Now, tell me, how does the current policy reduce the potential for such a conflagration?
"...after September 11th, we declared war on al Qaeda and, broadly, terror in general. In doing so, we have become more cognizant of how terror waged against our allies may become our very significant problem...."
Talk about mindless repetition. The very question at hand is precisely whether "terror waged against [US] allies may become [y]our very significant problem".
1907. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 1:48:02 PM
Message # 1876
"Now, when the Al Qaeda guy talks of "Jewish interests" - is he momentarily transformed into a Hamas guy? Or can we safely say that the Hamas and Al Qaeda are composed of precisely the same shit, in different beakers? There is much more identity in ideology and interests between Al Qaeda and Hamas than there is between the US and Israel. In fact, I can't see any divergence in their ideologies and interests at all at this point."
Rustler gets dumber and dumber. Al Qaidah can talk their heads off about Jews, Israel and the Jewish state. That doesn't make Hamas a threat to the USA.
Message # 1878: "pseudo has stated that the Palestinian terrorist groups are not a threat to the United States. He proposes as evidence the fact that they have not directly attacked the United States."
And the fact that there are no known links between al Qaidah and the Pal terrorist groups, except for some speculative ones.
1908. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 1:48:12 PM
Message # 1894
"However, having worked at Penn I had no trouble at all believing he could be excluded from that institution purely for his politics."
Pipes didn't get excluded by Penn or Harvard. He was refused tenure by individual departments at those institutions..
"But given the leftist tendencies of many in the field, Pipes' strong rightward bent alone would seen sufficient reason for him to be quite critical. Given that, what convinces you that his motivation is "sour grapes" and that his criticisms of academics therefore can't be trusted?"
(1) I've known him. (2) Penn's History department is not left-wing, unlike the Harvard one.
Message # 1901: "By the way, it is false to claim as PE has done that there are no Palestinians in al Qaeda."
I said there were no Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks and that there are no known links between al Qaidah and the terrorist groups operating in the West Bank and Gaza. Not having a membership list of al Qaidah at hand I never ruled out individual Palestinians amongst the al-Q rolls.
"I have to say, to argue that regional power aspirants like Hizballah and Hamas are not "intrinsic" threats to the US because their concerns are strictly local is sort of like arguing that the Taliban was not an "intrinsic" threat to the US. So what?"
I don't understand the analogy. The Taliban did provide sanctuary to al Qaidah and in fact the Taliban army had become largely al Qaidah.
1909. Daniel Sickles - 6/24/2002 1:56:59 PM
pseudo
No, you did not.
Yes, sir, I did.
First of all, you should stick to simpler sentences.
Agreed.
Second, I agreed that a regional conflagration in the Middle East would threaten American interests. Now, tell me, how does the current policy reduce the potential for such a conflagration
Before I answer, do you maintain that this was a question pending, or are you opening a new discussion?
Talk about mindless repetition. The very question at hand is precisely whether "terror waged against [US] allies may become [y]our very significant problem".
The question at hand is one of assessing threat from Palestinian terrorist groups to the United States, intrinsic or otherwise. I agree that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. are not ETA or IRA or al Qaeda. But your assessment of no intrinsic threat is lacking because it is so narrow (and further weighted down by your excessive focusing on how the Jewish propaganda machine is linking al Qaeda to the Palestinian terrorist groups.
1910. CalGal - 6/24/2002 2:13:27 PM
The Taliban did provide sanctuary to al Qaidah and in fact the Taliban army had become largely al Qaidah.
But isn't that exactly the reason that we wouldn't want Hamas to prevail? If Palestine became an Islamist country, wouldn't they be more likely to offer sanctuary to al Qaedah--and isn't that a threat to the US?
1911. joezan - 6/24/2002 2:19:59 PM
Bingo.
1912. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 2:31:23 PM
Message # 1909
PE: "Now, tell me, how does the current policy reduce the potential for such a conflagration..."
DS: "Before I answer, do you maintain that this was a question pending, or are you opening a new discussion?"
Well, it was sort of pending. After all, what kind of policy the USA has toward the Israel-Palestine issue is affected by whether the USA considers Hamas et al. a threat. But, in the current atmosphere, people just refuse to see the distinction between Hamas et al. and al Qaidah.
Message # 1910
"But isn't that exactly the reason that we wouldn't want Hamas to prevail? If Palestine became an Islamist country, wouldn't they be more likely to offer sanctuary to al Qaedah--and isn't that a threat to the US?"
I find that unlikely since, given whatever kind of independence Palestine gets, Israel will always reserve the right, de facto or de jure, to make military strikes against perceived threats in the West Bank and Gaza.
Nonetheless, the complete Islamisation of the Palestinian resistance is a strong and distinct possibility. That's why the hysterical marginalisation of Yasser Arafat was such a mistake. He remains the centre of non-Islamist Palestinian resistance. What happens if and when the non-Islamists are pushed aside and what remains of the resistance is completely Islamist?
1913. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 2:33:38 PM
The scenario of Palestine as an Afghanistan-like haven for al Qaida is a fantasy.
The major dilemma is SURELY the likelihood that the Palestinian resistance will become completely Islamised.
1914. Daniel Sickles - 6/24/2002 2:42:44 PM
pseudo
Well, it was sort of pending. After all, what kind of policy the USA has toward the Israel-Palestine issue is affected by whether the USA considers Hamas et al. a threat. But, in the current atmosphere, people just refuse to see the distinction between Hamas et al. and al Qaidah.
Affected, yes, but not dictated. I'm sure that Hamas, et al. is a threat, though not of the caliber of al Qaeda. Moreover, I think regular people don't see the distinction, but most regular folk see them all as savage terrorists (and, on this point, the man in the street is correct).
I concede that the politics and geography of the situation doesn't allow us to work with the same force and moral clarity against Hamas et al. as against al Qaeda.
This doesn't necessarily make the Palestinain terror groups intrinsically non-threatening.
1915. CalGal - 6/24/2002 2:42:54 PM
The major dilemma is SURELY the likelihood that the Palestinian resistance will become completely Islamised.
True, and I said that earlier. But you don't regard that as a threat to the US?
1916. jexster - 6/24/2002 2:49:38 PM
NEWS FLASH!
Osama preparing TV Extravaganza!
But when? I'm a atwitter. My bet is an Independence Day Special.
All of which puts me in mind of local TV interview with the widow of one of the United Flight heros. In fact, the guy who yelled "Let's Roll!"
She related a question from her orphaned 4 yo daughter:
"Mommy, has Bush caught that bad Osama guy yet?"
No little one.
1917. jexster - 6/24/2002 2:50:17 PM
NEWS FLASH!
Osama preparing TV Extravaganza!
But when? I'm a atwitter. My bet is an Independence Day Special.
All of which puts me in mind of local TV interview with the widow of one of the United Flight heros. In fact, the guy who yelled "Let's Roll!"
She related a question from her orphaned 4 yo daughter:
"Mommy, has Bush caught that bad Osama guy yet?"
No little one.
1918. jexster - 6/24/2002 2:52:34 PM
OOPS....I guess all this angst has put me in DEEP PINK
1919. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 2:56:39 PM
Message # 1915: Hamas et al. are locked in a war with Israel. Why would they attack the USA?
Well, whatever the case may be, the Palestinian resistance has grown more Islamised in the past year. What does current policy do to stop this process. Absolutely nothing.
1920. Daniel Sickles - 6/24/2002 3:03:37 PM
Moving on --
pseudo, what policy would you recommend to the United States to stop this process?
1921. CalGal - 6/24/2002 3:09:30 PM
Hamas et al. are locked in a war with Israel. Why would they attack the USA?
They probably wouldn't. But suppose Palestine becomes an Islamist nation and decide to harbor al Qaeda members for cash? Is that terribly unlikely?
1922. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 3:22:49 PM
Yes, for the reasons already stated.
________________
Sickles: I really don't know. But the present course of events isn't exactly reducing the radicalism among Palestinians.
1923. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 3:24:39 PM
I think they have been part of Islam all along. I would not say Palestinians have recently been Islamized, I would say moslems hsve been demonized by the administration and by the Bush Regime's unofficial spokemen in the media like Lou Dobbs. All of whom are part of the now secret "Office of Strategery Information."
1924. Andonly - 6/24/2002 3:24:41 PM
"I said there were no Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks and that there are no known links between al Qaidah and the terrorist groups operating in the West Bank and Gaza. Not having a membership list of al Qaidah at hand I never ruled out individual Palestinians amongst the al-Q rolls."
Actually, that's not what you said, but I'll take this as a clarification.
But the issue is hardly confined to the present moment, which none of us really knows much about. You dismiss all links claimed to exist between al Qaeda and Pal groups as "speculative." As far as I'm aware, they are not speculative. Rather, they are unproven, which is a different matter.
"I don't understand the analogy. The Taliban did provide sanctuary to al Qaidah and in fact the Taliban army had become largely al Qaidah."
Yet, until fairly recently it could be argued just exactly as you are now arguing, that the Taliban was no "intrinsic" threat to the US. Even the most strident anti-Taliban voice in the US Congress pleaded for years for the US to cease supporting the Taliban not on the basis of its capacity to do any serious harm to the US, but because of its depredations against the Afghan people. And scarcely anyone listened to Dana Rohrabacher. Even though the State Department well knew of the Taliban-bin Laden alliance, even though the argument could be made that the Taliban's drug operations hurt American domestic interests, nobody could figure out that the Taliban were dangerous in an "international" way. I'm sure every congressman who ignored Rohrabacher, if he thought about Afghanistan at all, thought about these things more or less as you do: bin Laden is trouble, but the Taliban are a local outfit with parochial concerns.
The last paragraph of Sickles' 1909 gets to the issue perfectly well, so I haven't much more to add.
1925. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 3:29:13 PM
some one voted for Dana Rohrabacher
1926. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 3:39:10 PM
Message # 1924
"Yet, until fairly recently it could be argued just exactly as you are now arguing, that the Taliban was no "intrinsic" threat to the US. Even the most strident anti-Taliban voice in the US Congress pleaded for years for the US to cease supporting the Taliban not on the basis of its capacity to do any serious harm to the US, but because of its depredations against the Afghan people. And scarcely anyone listened to Dana Rohrabacher. Even though the State Department well knew of the Taliban-bin Laden alliance, even though the argument could be made that the Taliban's drug operations hurt American domestic interests, nobody could figure out that the Taliban were dangerous in an "international" way. I'm sure every congressman who ignored Rohrabacher, if he thought about Afghanistan at all, thought about these things more or less as you do: bin Laden is trouble, but the Taliban are a local outfit with parochial concerns."
But they are. The Taliban are and were very much a local outfit with parochial concerns. Their concerns never became international and one could hardly call them anti-American in the least until the 1998 cruise missile attack.
The Taliban didn't provide a sanctuary to Usama bin Ladin because their concerns suddenly became international or because they suddenly formulated a policy about the USA. Rather, UbL was a useful ally for the Taliban in the Afghan civil war. And once given sanctuary, UbL did whatever he wanted inside Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, given that an independent Palestine could never be such a sanctuary (because Israel would never allow it), how is Afghanistan in the least relevant to our discussion?
1927. Andonly - 6/24/2002 3:46:20 PM
"I find that unlikely since, given whatever kind of independence Palestine gets, Israel will always reserve the right, de facto or de jure, to make military strikes against perceived threats in the West Bank and Gaza."
The history of the entire region is one of competing forces within states. You're saying "the Palestinians" would just naturally avoid forming any alliances with Qaeda because they would fear Israeli reprisals? Just who are these Palestinians? Which ones would have the power to prevent the others from engaging in exactly the strategy Hamas et al. are employing now (to undermine the existing PA no less than Israel)?
1928. pseudoerasmus - 6/24/2002 3:48:56 PM
I'm saying that (1) Palestinian terrorist groups are not interested in attacking the USA; and (2) they could not provide sanctuary to al Qaidah on the West Bank even if they wanted because of Israel.
1929. Daniel Sickles - 6/24/2002 3:56:51 PM
I thought you were trying to say that Palestinian terrorist groups were not an intrinsic threat to the United States.
1930. Andonly - 6/24/2002 3:59:41 PM
"What happens if and when the non-Islamists are pushed aside and what remains of the resistance is completely Islamist?"
Well, if the non-Islamists are pushed out of the "resistance", then I guess they'll become something other than the "resistance". Like, maybe they'll become conciliators and pragmatists with whom Israel can be pushed to do business. That is not, in the end, what Arafat has been, in spite of his not being an Islamist.
I'm not sure why you're so thoroughly down on the current course of action, which has at least had the salutory effect of generating talk of reform of the PA, claims by Arafat that he is ready to accept the Clinton-Barak proposals in toto, and a recent letter from Pal intellectuals, published in a Pal paper, denouncing suicide bombing as antithetical to Pal interests--which it surely is.
It has been a while since Pal intellectuals made themselves heard, and I'm certain Arafat's marginalization by the US and Israel is what has permitted it now. That can't be bad.
1931. Andonly - 6/24/2002 4:03:22 PM
"But they are. The Taliban are and were very much a local outfit with parochial concerns. Their concerns never became international and one could hardly call them anti-American in the least until the 1998 cruise missile attack."
And yet supporting the Taliban was not in America's interests, and routing the Taliban very well may have been.
1932. Andonly - 6/24/2002 4:06:41 PM
"But the present course of events isn't exactly reducing the radicalism among Palestinians."
Why should exacerbating radicalism be the thing one should most avoid? Perhaps it has its advantages.
1933. concerned - 6/24/2002 4:19:19 PM
What the Palestinians need to be made to realize is that they cannot possibly succeed in destroying Israel or even improving their lot by any extension of their current tactics. This can be probably accomplished by dealing them one territorial setback after another as long as they continue their 'asymmetrical warfare'. Only then will they be forced into considering any constructive resolution of their differences with Israel, given how they are being manipulated by external Islamic forces.
1934. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 4:36:44 PM
They have no intention of destroying Israel. They just want their land back, the Israeli colonists back inside the pre 1967 borders and the two million Palestinian refugees around the world with passports that let them come home. Arafat was never offered that. People will fight if you drive them off their land. It was true in Zimbabwe, it was true in South Africa, it is even true in Florida. We never did beat the Seminoles and they didn't even have guns. Israels 100 nuclear missiles can't win this for them, only create tragedy,
1935. concerned - 6/24/2002 4:41:05 PM
They have no intention of destroying Israel.
A recent poll I've seen indicates that over half the Pallies want exactly that. Israel needs to bring that down below, say 10%, IMO. I would wager that the Pallies would correct their ways big time before Israel would finish reoccupying the entire WB and GS and deporting the first 100,000 Pallies or so.
1936. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 4:55:02 PM
Is "deporting" what the Germans used to call "evacuating" as in they evacuated six million jews.
1937. concerned - 6/24/2002 5:01:41 PM
No, like the US deports illegal aliens.
1938. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 5:11:40 PM
Where do you deport Palestinians to when you deport them out of Palestine?
1939. concerned - 6/24/2002 5:15:58 PM
First off, I should say that I don't think Israel ought to even begin a policy of deportation, except as a last resort to remove the most intrasigent elements of Pally society, and then only to show the Palestinians in terms that even they respect that they'd better cut the best deal they can ASAP. That being said, Jordan and Syria present themselves as destinations.
1940. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 5:24:25 PM
They are not citizens of Jordon or Syria. Jordon and/or Syria have no obligation to take them. What then?
BTW now that you bring up Syria, when is Israel going to return the Golan Heights to it's rightful owners, Syria. Israel already has colonists on the Golan Heights and has redirected the areas water for their benefit. Or does you Biblical Manifest Destiny for Israel let it claim that land too.
1941. Andonly - 6/24/2002 7:01:59 PM
Jordan and Syria want desperately to rid themselves of the Palestinian refugees they already have.
The Golan is strategically important for forestalling attack--not that it would matter, if Syria weren't intransigent where Israel's existence is concerned. But we're not there yet, so the Israelis should probably hang onto the Golan until hell freezes over.
1942. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 8:37:41 PM
The Golan has a lot of water. You will find farming and irrigation is what the Golan is about more than protection from Syrian attack.
It is the same argument Kaiser Bill used when he grabber Alcase-Lorraine, but everyone knew he wanted the iron mines and coal fields.
The Golan was never a palestinian area, I beleive it was mostly Christian, but would have to check.
Anyway Israel does not want to give water rich Golan land to anyone but Jewish colonists so you can't send Palestians there.
Thye are required morally to return it to the Syrians, but the Sharon Regime is not particularly big on morality.
Indeed a lot of Palestinian refugees are in Jordon and Syria and they want to come home.
Israel has repeatly refused repatriation which is why Arafat rejected Barak's offer. The one the USA press keeps saying was so good an offer. Foohey, as Nero Wolfe would say.
1943. joezan - 6/25/2002 6:43:17 AM
Only the most idiotic people would attack their neighbor from an area upon which they are so dependent for water.
Idiotic, that is, unless their intent was to annihilate that neighbor. (Which, granted, was the likely outcome considering all the help Syria had from other countries hellbent on Israel's annihilation).
Never before the '67 War would anyone have viewed a country's taking of such a strategic location in a defensive war as a land grab. Why is Israel different?
That the hated Israelis benefit from the resources of that area is a bitter pill indeed. But if Syria were as interested in regaining the GH as it is in destroying Israel, they would have given some indication that that was the case.
They haven't.
Too fucking bad.
1944. joezan - 6/26/2002 10:49:07 PM
Man.
I've killed a thread or twop in my time, but this is ridiculous.
1945. joezan - 6/26/2002 10:50:03 PM
...or two...
1946. CalGal - 6/26/2002 10:59:46 PM
I don't know that any region in the mideast can be said to have a lot of water, can it?
1947. joezan - 6/26/2002 11:03:39 PM
I'm not really sure - I think Iraq has at least ample water.
Of course, someone's bound to come in now and tell me Iraq's not in the ME, but who cares?
1948. CalGal - 6/27/2002 12:04:42 AM
I have a graph around here somewhere on water in the Mid East; it's depressing. But I believe Iran and Iraq fought an 8 year war at least in part due to water rights.
1949. jexster - 6/27/2002 7:12:10 PM
Now that this Thread has changed title, I'm not sure this is the correct spot for
Bush Terror Adviser Resigns
Move by Downing, whose plan on Iraq was opposed by military leaders, comes as surprise.
1950. jexster - 6/27/2002 7:13:04 PM
Time for Danny Sickles to make his BIG move.
1951. jexster - 6/27/2002 7:13:10 PM
Time for Danny Sickles to make his BIG move.
1952. jexster - 6/27/2002 7:13:33 PM
Eddie the Echo
1953. joezan - 6/27/2002 11:16:30 PM
Yasser Arafat's People:
A picture released by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) June 27, 2002 shows what they allege to be a photo of a Palestinian baby dressed like a suicide bomber. The IDF said they found the photo during a search in a house of a wanted Palestinian man from Hebron, where Israeli army tanks and helicopter gunships have been pounding a Palestinan police building. REUTERS/HO/Israel Defence Forces
1954. joezan - 6/27/2002 11:19:04 PM
What could this kid do with one virgin, let alone seventy anyway?
1955. joezan - 6/27/2002 11:21:03 PM
Hmmmnnn....
Maybe it's just a halloween costume.
...I know - he's a Ninjihadi!
1956. RustlerPike - 6/28/2002 12:01:00 AM
I can imagine Pseudo on a radio show in 1938, explaining why Czechoslovakia had nothing to do with US interests.
Then again in 1939, saying that the US had no need to intervene in the war, because Hitler had said nothing about going to war against the US, nor was Nazi propaganda directed against America.
1957. RustlerPike - 6/28/2002 12:03:26 AM
Simple fact of the matter is, when you see a devil, you kill it. You don't wait for it to kill your allies and then pounce on you.
I believe the head of Mossad was talking about this with the EU leaders yesterday, in a rare kind of speech.
1958. RustlerPike - 6/28/2002 12:28:57 AM
Here.
1959. jexster - 6/28/2002 1:25:50 PM
For all British and U.S. leaders' grand pronouncements of solidarity in the face of terrorism, the "true friendship" between Bush and Blair seems to be in short supply -- at least between U.S. Marines and Royal Marines in the hills of east Afghanistan. Indeed, while politicians at home talk about standing "shoulder to shoulder," their forces on the ground can barely see eye to eye.
Tony and Georgie - Divided They Fight
1960. jexster - 6/28/2002 1:27:51 PM
"Americans: we're all out fighting while you guard the toilets -- something you'll get more medals for anyway."
1961. jexster - 6/29/2002 11:32:59 AM
Time to REinvigorate WOT
A Military source in Washington DC informed a gathering of Christian Pastors last week that America's armed forces have a secret weapon against Muslim terrorists. "Those who practice Islamic Fundamentalism are more terrified of pork than they are of bullets," he said. "If they get near even the oink from swine, they go straight to hell. We'd be fools not to use this against them in combat."
Congress has already outlined a series of proposed military strikes that the Pentagon is taking very seriously. Sources say that plans to load B-1 bombers with bacon, pork chops and pig knuckles are already underway. Hormel Company has graciously donated over 100,000 tons of pig jowls, pickled ham hocks and souse luncheon meat to help reinvigorate a war effort that has clearly stalled.
1962. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 6:33:58 PM
Message # 1956: "I can imagine Pseudo on a radio show in 1938, explaining why Czechoslovakia had nothing to do with US interests. Then again in 1939, saying that the US had no need to intervene in the war, because Hitler had said nothing about going to war against the US, nor was Nazi propaganda directed against America."
Actually, there are those today in Britain and France who do say that they should have cut a separate deal with Germany so that Germany could go after the real prize -- the East. Why should they care if Germany and the USSR locked horns in combat to the death? I don't agree with this view, but it's not totally implausible.
Nonetheless, Rustler's analogy might be more apropos if he had said:
"I can imagine Pseudo on a radio show in 1936, explaining why the Iberian peninsula had nothing to do with US interests and saying that the US had no need to intervene in the Spanish civil war, because Franco had said nothing about going to war against the US or Britain or France, nor was Falangist propaganda directed against America or Britain or France."
1963. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 6:36:51 PM
The most radical of the Palestinian Islamists want to destroy Israel. That may not be a very nice thing, but it's a parochial concern, not an international goal such as the one possessed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
1964. Daniel Sickles - 6/29/2002 6:41:38 PM
Spain in 1936 and Israel today have few historical similarities. Pseudo's use is in a pinch to support his discredited "This is not more than a regional dispute, America. Move on and things will work themselves out. No matter the victor, you'll be in fine shape, as you have no interests in the dispute."
1965. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 6:57:13 PM
"Spain in 1936 and Israel today have few historical similarities. "
Of course they don't. But you're missing the point.
My analogy works on the back of Rustler's analogy. Since Rustler compared the Palestinian intifadah to Nazi aggression in the 1930s in Message # 1956 (to which you did not object at all, despite the complete absence of historical similarities between the two), I argued that a more appropriate analogy -- if we had to make such an analogy at all -- was to compare the Palestinian intifadah to the fascist aggression in Spain.
Pseudo's use is in a pinch to support his discredited "This is not more than a regional dispute, America. Move on and things will work themselves out. No matter the victor, you'll be in fine shape, as you have no interests in the dispute."
Of course that is not my view at all. The USA should stay intimately involved in this regional dispute.
1966. Daniel Sickles - 6/29/2002 7:31:13 PM
Israel is beset by an increasingly hostile threat. The threat is multifarious, but its more popular spokesmen insist is merely wants autonomy, land, co-existence, etc. Some people, mainly hopeful, stupid Americans and pacifist, soft-headed, and/or anti-Semitic Europeans, choose to believe that the moderate voice of these multifarious elements is the one that speaks truth.
But others, including Israelis like RP, know better, as perhaps some knew better about Hitler's aims in 1938. They know that autonomy, land, co-existence, etc . . . are all fronts to buy the time necessary for Israel's enemies to better meet their dominant goals - killing Jews until they are expelled from the region.
As you see, RP's analogy works and works well.
And it is not proper rebuttal, even to what you deem a failed historical analogy, to craft one even more inapposite (as your use of Spain demonstrates). You got lazy. It is no defense to pronounce yourself clever.
1967. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 7:46:37 PM
Rustler's analogy does not work at all.
It is indisputable that a significant proportion of the Palestinian population wants Israel destroyed. However, It is highly disputable that Palestinians are a threat to anyone other than Israelis.
Nazi Germany sought to dominate all of Europe, which would have constituted a threat to Great Britain and France, and eventually to the USA.
Now, in what way was Rustler's analogy successful?
1968. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 7:48:57 PM
"Israel is beset by an increasingly hostile threat."
Israel is reaping the whirlwind, that is all.
1969. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 8:22:43 PM
Did Sickles even read RP's analogy? The analogy was not to argue the Palestinian threat to Israel's security and existence, but the (alleged) Palestinian threat to the security of the USA.
1970. Daniel Sickles - 6/29/2002 8:50:01 PM
PE
Which we've established. Even with your fig leaf of whether the threat was intrinsic. I do, however, prefer pseudo the amnesiac to pseudo the clever boy.
As for RP's analogy, I've established how it works from an Israeli perspective. From an American perspective, one need only do as you suggest (i.e., nothing, ala' the Spanish Civil War, for no one side threatened the United States intrinsically) and the reverberations will be extreme.
Given that I previously asked you what you prescribed for the United States, and you demurred with a decidedly marjoribanksian "I don't know, but something other than what is being done now", I'm not sure you have even offered the ante to evaluate the analogy.
1971. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 9:19:26 PM
Message # 1970
"Which we've established."
Where?
"As for RP's analogy, I've established how it works from an Israeli perspective."
And that perspective was not what was contained in RP's analogy. His was to argue that a threat against one small state (Czechoslovakia; Israel) is also threat against the major powers and by extension the world. You apparently didn't perceive this rather simple point.
1972. Daniel Sickles - 6/29/2002 10:09:52 PM
In September 1938, the Munich Agreement was signed, which allowed Germany to occupy the Sudetenland. In return, Hitler promised that the Sudetenland would be the "last territorial claim I have to make in Europe." In March 1939 Hitler tore up the Munich Agreement and occupied all of Western Czechoslovakia.
I understand a threat thereafter developed against major powers and by extension the world.
pseudo, every threat to the world (and we were only discussing threats to the United States, so desperate is your need to make RP's analogy inapposite) starts with one country.
Apparently, you have yet to perceive this rather simple point.
1973. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 10:35:40 PM
No, I understand RP's point completely. But I dispute it.
During the second half of the 1930s, the same people who warned against the Nazi threat (while most people were bent on appeasement) also warned against a fascist victory in Spain. After all, Germany and Italy were actively helping out the fascists in Spain and everyone expected Spain under Franco to be a German ally (and thus a threat to France). But the fascist victory in Spain turned out to be not so threatening to the west.
I am saying that Palestinians are more like Spain than like Germany. They are a threat to Israel, not to the USA let alone to the "whole world".
"I understand a threat thereafter developed against major powers and by extension the world."
Actually, Hitler invaded Poland, not the "rest of the world". The UK and France were the ones who declared war.
1974. Daniel Sickles - 6/29/2002 11:33:59 PM
One minute, Spain is on point, then inapposite, now on point again. It is dizzying.
Regardless, in a very narrow sense, the Palestinian terrorist groups may be more like Spain than Germany. After all, were the Palestinians to defeat Israel, it is unlikely they would next find a Poland and threaten the region or world with Blitzkreig.
But, in the larger scheme, the threat to Israel would be more like the loss of Czechoslovakia than the loss of the Republicans in Spain. It would implicate the United States in a war far from its shores, energize the Arab world, and potentially set off a devastating conflagration. After all, nuclear weapons were not part of the equation in 1938.
Moreover, from an Israeli perspective, appeasement of the Palestinian terrorist groups would encourage their violence, much as appeasement of Hitler pushed the Soviet Union to Germany and convinced Hitler that Britain and France were toothless.
The narrowness of your thinking is exemplified by your earlier language, wherein you stated that Nazi Germany had international goals. The threat to Israel by the Palestinian terrorist groups may be a local concern, but that threat has international implications and it is insufficient for you to state in response, "Well, all will be well because the Palestinians only have the parochial goal of eliminating Israel."
1975. RustlerPike - 6/29/2002 11:54:08 PM
Actually, Hitler invaded Poland, not the "rest of the world". The UK and France were the ones who declared war.
Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way round.
1976. pseudoerasmus - 6/29/2002 11:56:03 PM
Message # 1974
"One minute, Spain is on point, then inapposite, now on point again. It is dizzying."
Don't be so silly. You're the one insisting on the 1930s analogy. I'm saying that if you must use a 1930s analogy at all, then Falangist Spain, not Nazi Germany, is the more apposite one.
"But, in the larger scheme, the threat to Israel would be more like the loss of Czechoslovakia than the loss of the Republicans in Spain. It would implicate the United States in a war far from its shores, energize the Arab world, and potentially set off a devastating conflagration."
(1) There is no chance of Israel ever going the way of Czechoslovakia. That's the fatal flaw of any 1930s analogy. Israel is the one with the power.
(2) Why would the USA be "implicated" in a war in the Middle East? Israel can defend itself against all comers.
The narrowness of your thinking is exemplified by your earlier language, wherein you stated that Nazi Germany had international goals. The threat to Israel by the Palestinian terrorist groups may be a local concern, but that threat has international implications..."
Such as?
"Moreover, from an Israeli perspective, appeasement of the Palestinian terrorist groups would encourage their violence, much as appeasement of Hitler pushed the Soviet Union to Germany and convinced Hitler that Britain and France were toothless."
That's very nice, but it is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
1977. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 1:47:44 AM
Over the last couple of weeks, PE has tried to sell a couple of rather dubious points in this thread about Islam and Middle East Terrorism.
Dubious Point #1) Israel and the United States -- not the West, in general -- are the two sole targets of Islamist terrorists. As PE writes in Message # 1514:
By the way, let's get one thing straight. The rhetoric of Islamists is often anti-western but in practise they are anti-American and anti-Israeli. No militant in the Muslim world agitates against Canada, Australia and Germany. The "west" in general is not at threat from Middle Eastern terrorism; specifically the USA and Israel are. So let us not tendentiously call "anti-western" that which is more properly "anti-American and anti-Israeli".
But contrary to PE's narrow definition, Middle East terrorists have killed German, French, British, Swiss, and Italian tourists without much regard to their nationality or any contrition once the nationality of their dead was publicly released. Since 9-11, I'm sure that more Europeans have been killed by Middle East terrorists than Americans (though not Israelis). Apparently, looking even vaguely Western is enough to put you in danger in some parts of the Middle East.
In addition, we now know that some targets in Europe were selected and considered legitimate if they had some connection to the U.S. The fact that hitting these targets would almost certainly kill more Europeans than Americans doesn't seem to have been of great concern to the terrorists.
continued ... 1978. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 1:50:07 AM
Dubious Point #2) A Palestianian terrorist and an Al Qaeda terrorist are two separate beasts and never the twain shall meet. Therefore, the U.S. has nothing to fear from Palestinian terrorists because they have their hands so full killing Israelis, they're unlikely to get around to killing Americans. And don't be fooled by the fact they cheered so lustily when the Trade Towers were hit by Al Qaeda terrorists -- so did the Italians.
But the Washington Post today published an article addressing this very point. While "Terror Alliance has U.S. Worried" doesn't deal in depth with the Palestianian-based Terror groups, it does mention them and it also shows that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has until recently had little in common with Al Qaeda, is now engaged in nearly full cooperation with it. As the WP article reports:
The Lebanon-based Hezbollah organization, one of the world's most formidable terrorist groups, is increasingly teaming up with al Qaeda on logistics and training for terrorist operations, according to U.S. and European intelligence officials and terrorism experts.
The new cooperation is ad hoc and tactical and involves mid- and low-level operatives. It mutes years of rivalry between Hezbollah, which draws its support primarily from Shiite Muslims, and al Qaeda, which is predominantly Sunni. It includes coordination on explosives and tactics training, money laundering, weapons smuggling and acquiring forged documents, according to knowledgeable sources.
continued ... 1979. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 1:50:37 AM
What's more, at the end of the article, there is this:
Administration and intelligence officials also say they have multiple confirmations of a meeting in March in Lebanon between al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah figures.
The new alliances challenge the traditional analysis of militant Islamic-based groups, which were seen as competing and noncooperative, divided by their personalities and each group's particular brand of Islamic militarism.
Understanding the workings of a more diffuse network of terrorists may determine whether the CIA and FBI can adapt quickly enough to the post-Sept. 11 world to prevent more attacks, said terrorism experts and operatives far from Washington.
European and U.S. intelligence operatives on the ground in Africa and Asia said they have been trying to convince headquarters of the new alliances but have been rebuffed.
"We have been screaming at them for more than a year now, and more since September 11th, that these guys all work together," an overseas operative said. "What we keep hearing back is that it can't be because al Qaeda doesn't work that way. That is [expletive]. Here, on the ground, these guys all work together as long as they are Muslims. There is no other division that matters."[my emphasis]
1980. Andonly - 6/30/2002 1:57:05 AM
"(1) There is no chance of Israel ever going the way of Czechoslovakia. That's the fatal flaw of any 1930s analogy. Israel is the one with the power."
What does "the one with the power" mean? Israel undeniably has military power, but as you surely know the country is being strangled economically and transformed politically by its conflict with the (worse off) Palestinians. When people speak of the destruction of the Israeli state they are not referring exclusively to a military conquest. They are referring to Israel's reduction to a little, crippled, paranoid, erstwhile democracy in many respects more resembling Lebanon than...well, Israel.
You assume Israel will succeed in crushing any military assault against it, but this is not the only threat. The threat is paramilitary/terrorist. The threat is a war of attrition, by proxy, courtesy Iran and Syria and others. How useful is "the power" against a determined threat of this nature?
Moreover, in the absence of US support Israel cannot win that kind of war or any other. In the event of a relentless campaign of suicide terror that lasted for another ten or twenty years, Israel's fate as a nation would certainly be imperiled. Should conventional war erupt, Israel would survive, but severely damaged, and this would likely have at least regional consequences as militants were encouraged by their success; and these might affect American interests. Should a conventional war turn nuclear, Israel would be the battered victor for about 24 hours, after which it would become an absolute international pariah for the next 100 years. Granted, it would not have been annexed to an Arab country. But it will have been conquered.
1981. Andonly - 6/30/2002 1:57:23 AM
As I think anyone else reading here will agree, these outcomes are all gruesome enough to fit generally into Rustler's Czechoslovak analogy, which you've dismissed by expecting a degree of parallelism which rarely exists between historical events. And this is all the odder since you know very well that Rustler habitually speaks in generalities intended to describe a larger point, as opposed to sketching out minutiae intended to prove that one conflict is precisely like another.
He means: the fall of Czechoslovakia to Hitler is analagous to Israel's subjugation to terror. If Israel can't beat it, Islamist terror will be proven effective in the eyes of actors intending to strike elsewhere, particularly the US (as victory in Czechos. emboldened Germany). This will be the case wrt the US especially because the US is Israel's ally; any retreat from our alliance now will prove US weakness, not make the US less of a target. Moreover, parochial and international terrorists don't have to be formally linked in any way for this to be the case.
"(2) Why would the USA be "implicated" in a war in the Middle East? Israel can defend itself against all comers."
Because Israel can defend itself against all comers only so long as the US continues to sell Israel weapons, defend its government's policies against European boycotts and UN pressures, permit Israel to wage war and/or maintain occupation, and prop up its economy, all of which infuriates Arabs and implicates the US.
*****
By the way, check out what Egyptian intellectuals have to say about their government in general and Mubarak's relationship with Arafat in particular.
1982. Andonly - 6/30/2002 2:16:02 AM
Hello Pincher.
The Lebanon-based Hezbollah organization, one of the world's most formidable terrorist groups, is increasingly teaming up with al Qaeda on logistics and training for terrorist operations, according to U.S. and European intelligence officials and terrorism experts.
This is presumably the sort of thing PE refers to as a "speculative" connection between parochial and international Islamists.
I will go ahead and anticipate a reponse from him (which I would consider irrelevant): al Qaeda may be teaming up with Hizballah to carry out terror attacks against Israel, but Hizballah is no threat to Americans on US soil.
My preemptive counter-response: Permitting al Qaeda, which is at war with the US, to assist the foes of any American ally strengthens al Qaeda whether or not Hassan Nasrullah's men ever set foot in America. Therefore the US naturally aligns itself against Islamist groups working with al Qaeda for any purpose.
(Anyone who does not understand this political reality is a Buddhist.)
1983. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 2:17:01 AM
PE can't be faulted too much for not knowing that cooperation between terrorist groups is rapidly increasing. If the article is correct, that's news that, until recently, even U.S. and European policy-makers either didn't know about or didn't care about. But he could have guessed that based on al Qaeda's makeup of Saudis, Chechens, Uighers, Pakis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, etc, ruling out such cooperation was misplaced.
But why he would try to narrow the goals of the terrorists to such minor issues as unhappiness over U.S. Foreign Policy and the desire to see a Palestinian state? Quite plainly, even the terrorists with more local concerns want to see an Islamic resurgence, a return to Islam's empire in one fashion or another, and a complete remaking of their societies that -- should it succeed -- would have strong reverberations in almost every country in Asia, Africa and Europe. That these groups have simply prioritized their goals doesn't mean they don't have other more distant ones on the horizon. Which also doesn't mean they will disappear (or mend their ways and settle down) once they have accomplished whatever is their immediate priority.
1984. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 2:19:43 AM
Hi Andonly,
According to the article, they are in the U.S. securing supplies and God knows what else.
Court documents in the United States and Canada say Hezbollah members in both countries have tried to procure military equipment, including laser-range finders, aircraft-analysis software, global positioning gear, night-vision goggles, blasting equipment and mine-detection machinery for fighters in Lebanon.
U.S. law enforcement officials and terrorism experts fear the infrastructure and personal relationships established to facilitate illicit arms and document purchases could easily be used to launch attacks on U.S. soil.
"It gives you an infrastructure you can potentially build on," Pillar said. That is what analysts believe happened in Argentina in 1996, when Hezbollah, which had longtime financial and logistics networks in Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina, bombed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.
1985. Andonly - 6/30/2002 2:36:23 AM
"PE can't be faulted too much for not knowing that cooperation between terrorist groups is rapidly increasing. If the article is correct, that's news that, until recently, even U.S. and European policy-makers either didn't know about or didn't care about. But he could have guessed that based on al Qaeda's makeup of Saudis, Chechens, Uighers, Pakis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, etc, ruling out such cooperation was misplaced."
Well, not only that, it was reported months ago in Die Zeit (just after the Karine A affair, whenever that was) that al Qaeda fighters were thought to be in the process of being smuggled into Gaza. Then, figure that monies for Palestinian arms shipments purchased from Iran were allegedly provided by highly placed Saudis, and you begin to realize that the financing of international and local conflicts might be coming in part from identical sources, which could plausibly serve as facilitators of cooperative efforts between mideast terror groups and al Qaeda. And then consider the allure and the political glory of al Qaeda post 9-11, which would tend to motivate "parochial" groups to form alliances with it where possible.
All of these things, even if only speculative, are ample reason not to rule out the likelihood of cooperation.
1986. Andonly - 6/30/2002 2:38:52 AM
Court documents in the United States and Canada say Hezbollah members in both countries have tried to procure military equipment, including laser-range finders, aircraft-analysis software, global positioning gear, night-vision goggles, blasting equipment and mine-detection machinery for fighters in Lebanon.
Dang.
1987. Andonly - 6/30/2002 2:50:06 AM
(Good link, incidentally.)
1988. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 3:01:54 AM
Thanks, good to see you again.
1989. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 3:18:39 AM
Message # 1977: "But contrary to PE's narrow definition, Middle East terrorists have killed German, French, British, Swiss, and Italian tourists without much regard to their nationality or any contrition once the nationality of their dead was publicly released."
Muslims died in the World Trade Centre attacks. It doesn't mean they were being targetted. It just means that the terrorists don't care who is incidentally killed as along as the principal target is successfully achieved. Of course there are many cases in which Europeans are taken hostages or murdered -- such as in Kashmir or in the Philippines. But that doesn't change the fact that no Middle Eastern terrorist group has ever conducted a terror campaign specifically against a non-US western country.
I wish Message # 1978 and Message # 1979 contained more information about Hamas. Hizballah is not even a Palestinian organisation.
One comment I would like to make regarding this passage from the WP:
"Unlike al Qaeda, Hezbollah has never targeted Americans on U.S. soil. But its operatives have killed nearly 300 Americans overseas in the last 20 years, including 241 service members in a Marine barracks in Beirut."
The article fails to mention that the US navy had been shelling Shiite positions in the mountains, as part of an effort to support the Christian Lebanese government and the Israeli occupation. The attack on the Marines was retaliation for that U.S. involvement. 1990. CalGal - 6/30/2002 3:19:23 AM
Serves me right for not reading the Post this morning; I could have linked it in as a neener neener. Instead, Pincher gets all the fun. Great link.
It's been almost a month since I changed the thread title; I have become very conscious of the terms used. For example, that article doesn't once use the term "Islamist" to describe Hezbollah and al Qaeda; militant Islam is mentioned only once, and even the quoted speaker says "as long as they are Muslims" (which will no doubt earn them squawks of outrage from CAIR and the like).
But why he would try to narrow the goals of the terrorists to such minor issues as unhappiness over U.S. Foreign Policy and the desire to see a Palestinian state?
He seems very resistant to broader explanations on this matter. I suspect some deep-rooted psychological trauma.
1991. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 3:28:32 AM
Message # 1980: "Should conventional war erupt, Israel would survive, but severely damaged, and this would likely have at least regional consequences as militants were encouraged by their success; and these might affect American interests. Should a conventional war turn nuclear, Israel would be the battered victor for about 24 hours, after which it would become an absolute international pariah for the next 100 years."
(1) A conventional war between Israel and whom would erupt? (2) And why would Israel be "severely damaged" in such a conventional war when it has trounced a larger collection of enemies several times in far less auspicious circumstances than today?
Message # 1982: "Permitting al Qaeda, which is at war with the US, to assist the foes of any American ally strengthens al Qaeda whether or not Hassan Nasrullah's men ever set foot in America. Therefore the US naturally aligns itself against Islamist groups working with al Qaeda for any purpose."
Yes, it would be natural for the USA to work against regional Islamist groups working with al Qaidah. It does this already in the Philippines.
1992. CalGal - 6/30/2002 3:31:51 AM
But that doesn't change the fact that no Middle Eastern terrorist group has ever conducted a terror campaign specifically against a non-US western country.
I thought Germans had been targeted at least once, in Tunisia.
1993. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 3:37:02 AM
Message # 1983: "But he could have guessed that based on al Qaeda's makeup of Saudis, Chechens, Uighers, Pakis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, etc, ruling out such cooperation was misplaced."
But it's precisely because the thorough-going internationalism of al Qaidah has not included significant Palestinian participation that I have so far ruled them out.
Message # 1983: "But why he would try to narrow the goals of the terrorists to such minor issues as unhappiness over U.S. Foreign Policy and the desire to see a Palestinian state?"
Which terrorists are you talking about? Palestinians or al Qaidah? If you're talking about the Palestinians, then those issues aren't minor at all.
As for al Qaidah, I have already said that al Qaidah seeks to destroy the USA and install Islamist regimes everywhere in the Muslim world. Its goals are far more than to change US foreign policy. But its ability to recruit people would be far less in the presence of different US policies.
"Quite plainly, even the terrorists with more local concerns want to see an Islamic resurgence...."
Hamas, yes. But why would Fatah or the FPLP want to see an Islamic resurgence?
1994. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 3:38:25 AM
Message # 1990: "He seems very resistant to broader explanations on this matter. I suspect some deep-rooted psychological trauma."
I resist "broader explanations" because they are totally unnecessary. Given the level of US involvement in the Middle East -- from conditional support of Israel to propping up unpopular regimes to the Gulf War to covert operations like the Mossadegh coup -- why do you need elaborate, psycho-claptrappish explanations of widespread anti-Americanism in Muslim countries? I appeal to Ockham's Razor. What needs explanation that cannot be explained by resentments against actual US behaviour?
1995. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 3:42:30 AM
Message # 1992: "I thought Germans had been targeted at least once, in Tunisia."
The terrorist attack at Djerba was aimed at a synagogue. It so happens that Tunisia is a major tourist destination for Europeans, and several Germans were killed in that attack.
1996. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 3:43:53 AM
....UNconditional support....
1997. RustlerPike - 6/30/2002 5:26:43 AM
Look.
1998. RustlerPike - 6/30/2002 5:27:03 AM
What I'm saying this:
1999. RustlerPike - 6/30/2002 5:27:24 AM
This is a millennial struggle.
2000. RustlerPike - 6/30/2002 5:27:43 AM
And I won it.
2001. joezan - 6/30/2002 7:01:30 AM
...no Middle Eastern terrorist group has ever conducted a terror campaign specifically against a non-US western country.
Didn't Hezbollah blow up a French barracks, killing a bunch of French soldiers around the same time as the Khobar Towers attack?
2002. sakonige - 6/30/2002 7:09:59 AM
(1) A conventional war between Israel and whom would erupt?
I would assume, the countries into which millions of Palestinian refugees would be forced, Jordan and Lebanon. Why wouldn't other Arab nations which voice bitter opposition to Israel, then take the opportunity to pile on and support their Arab allies? Wouldn't the US get involved at some point, and inflame further Arab retaliation against Israel?
(2) And why would Israel be "severely damaged" in such a conventional war when it has trounced a larger collection of enemies several times in far less auspicious circumstances than today?
Because the war would be conducted in a more densely populated urban environment, and the weapons are potentially much more deadly. A very high number of civilian casualties is more likely to fuel hostilites spiraling out of control, with Israel sitting at ground zero.
2003. sakonige - 6/30/2002 7:12:10 AM
'Reap the whirlwind' is a fine phrase. Can someone tell me where it originated?
2004. sakonige - 6/30/2002 7:58:00 AM
Hezbollah, Al Qaeda Seen Joining Forces
2005. joezan - 6/30/2002 9:00:36 AM
You like that, eh Sak?
Hsa 8:7 For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
2006. jexster - 6/30/2002 9:54:19 AM
Hezzbollah & Al Q Operatives Cooperating in Secret Chatrooms -Allons a Baghdad Lets Get Those Bastards, Let's Roll!
Baghdad IS the capital of Iran right?
Mommy has Bush caught that Bad Osama guy who killed my daddy yet?
2007. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 10:05:41 AM
Message # 2001
"Didn't Hezbollah blow up a French barracks, killing a bunch of French soldiers around the same time as the Khobar Towers attack?"
Saudis were killed at Khobar Towers as well. But the clear target was the USA. The vast majority of the killed at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were Kenyans and Tanzanians, but the target was obviously the USA. I repeat: the Islamist terrorists don't care who is killed incidentally in any of their attacks, but they are not systematically targetting anyone but the USA.
Besides, couldn't you have used the recent terrorist attack at a Sheraton Hotel in Karachi, which was clearly aimed at France, as a better example?
2008. joezan - 6/30/2002 10:08:04 AM
The point being, pe, that it was a French barracks - not incidental at all.
2009. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 10:28:48 AM
I think you're confusing Lebanon 1983 with Khobar Towers 1996. The attack on the French barracks was in 1983 in Lebanon.
But at the time the French, like the USA, were heavily involved in propping up the Christian Lebanese government, which Hizballah was fighting.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot find a campaign of terrorist attacks by radical Islamists against any country other than the USA and Israel. When ever other westerners are killed, it takes place either incidentally as part of an attack on the USA /Israelis, or on the ground in a Muslim country where a non-US western country might be involved politically.
And the few attacks that have taken place against French targets only reinforces my point: it is behaviour which incites terrorist attacks. The French had troops in Lebanon. They were attacked (in Lebanon). The French participated in the war in Afghanistan. Their citizens were attacked in Pakistan.
2010. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 10:34:01 AM
I said:
"The fact of the matter is, you cannot find a campaign of terrorist attacks by radical Islamists against any country other than the USA and Israel."
Against Russia too. But Islamists have cause in their minds.
2011. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 10:41:12 AM
Anyway, the larger point made earlier to Calwhore is this:
For whatever reason, Americans want to ascribe vague, abstract motivations to the terrorists (e.g., "they hate the West"). I say they have concrete ones. They target those countries which have been directly involved in conflicts with Muslim peoples. In practise, this means that their primary targets are the USA and Israel -- not "the West". To the extent that secondary powers like Britain, France and Russia have also been involved in Muslim countries, they too are occasionally attacked by terrorists. Which reinforces the following point: if you get involved in the affairs of Muslim peoples, you will become targets of radical Islamist terrorism. It is not some amorphous "hatred of the West" that is driving the terrorism.
2012. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 1:02:12 PM
It's really not all that large a point. We are necessarily involved in the affairs of all peoples. We have unpopular military bases in Spain, but the Spaniards don't target our civilians or otherwise perpetrate violence against us. We support Taiwan vis-a-vis China. China is content to keep its terrorism intramural.
In determining why representatives of the Muslim peoples attack us, rather doggedly, it is fair to ascertain a certain cultural bias, which has been loosely described as anti-Western.
Is it the root of radical Islamist terrorism? Who knows? To argue the point is to enter a definitional morass I'd prefer to avoid. It is certainly a factor.
Thus, anti-Western (or cultural or religious) bias is relevant in assessing future diplomacy. For if the extremist action is bred by extremist indoctrination, and hatred of the West is widespread and dug in, then that fact educates the players as to future diplomacy. It's a First-World meets Third-World issue, and the Third-Worlders are engaging in an international temper tantrum of barbarism. The best responsive diplomacy is by bomb.
So, yes, it is not solely some amorphous "hatred of the West" that is driving the terrorism.
Nor, however, is it as linear as the presence of an American military bases in Saudi Arabia.
2013. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 1:16:35 PM
Message # 2012
"We are necessarily involved in the affairs of all peoples. We have unpopular military bases in Spain, but the Spaniards don't target our civilians or otherwise perpetrate violence against us. We support Taiwan vis-a-vis China. China is content to keep its terrorism intramural."
That's specious. The USA hasn't rained bombs on Spain, nor does it currently support an unpopular dictatorship in Spain, nor does it unconditionally support a third country which has dispossessed ethnic Spaniards and occupies Spain. The same applies to China.
Before the 1990s, there were terrorist attacks against US targets in Latin America (Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru, Central America), including kidnappings & murders of US diplomats. These were carried out by left-wing terrorist groups who reasoned that the USA had an imperialistic grip over Latin America. True or not (I would say false), that's what motivated them.
"In determining why representatives of the Muslim peoples attack us, rather doggedly, it is fair to ascertain a certain cultural bias, which has been loosely described as anti-Western....Thus, anti-Western (or cultural or religious) bias is relevant in assessing future diplomacy."
I didn't say anti-westernism wasn't a pertinent question. I just don't see any need to invoke it as an explanation of why the "representatives of the Muslim peoples" attack the USA (and Israel).
The best responsive diplomacy is by bomb.
I'm not addressing policy implications of what motivates anti-American terrorist attacks. The motivations I cite may be correct, but that doesn't mean the USA ought to change its behaviour.
2014. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 1:27:12 PM
I ask again: why is "hatred of the West" required as an explanation in the behaviour of Islamist terrorists? It seems to be it can be more than adequately explained by the behaviours of the targetted countries' involvement in the affairs of Muslim peoples.
2015. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 1:33:24 PM
It was you who were being specious when you stated that the motivation was American involvement in Muslim affairs. You obviously did not mean it. What you meant was that if we bomb Muslim countries, we can expect Islamist extremism in return.
Of course, that doesn't help you with the World Trade Center and bin Laden's objection, which was not to American bombing of Muslim peoples.
Regardless, if the meat of your musings is simply that Islamist terrorism is not soley derived from anti-Western sentiment, I agree.
Of course, I don't know of one person who doesn't. You have effectively made a case that Santa Claus does not exist.
2016. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2002 1:36:42 PM
I ask again: why is "hatred of the West" required as an explanation in the behaviour of Islamist terrorists?
It is required in order to give the necessary moral justification for "the war on terrorism". The US wants to be seen (once again) as the saviour of the west.
2017. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 1:49:09 PM
Message # 2015
"It was you who were being specious when you stated that the motivation was American involvement in Muslim affairs."
Why is that specious?
"What you meant was that if we bomb Muslim countries, we can expect Islamist extremism in return."
Bombing is not involvement?
Muslims have plenty of specific grievances that they can cite against the USA:
(1) The USA unconditionally supports Israel.
(2) The USA props up corrupt dictatorships in the Muslim world.
(3) The USA killed Muslims by the thousands in Iraq.
(4) The USA has stationed troops in Saudi Arabia.
"Of course, that doesn't help you with the World Trade Center and bin Laden's objection, which was not to American bombing of Muslim peoples."
Bin Ladin supposedly objects to the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. But his individual motivation is not the same as the motivation of others. Who knows what motivated the dead hijackers, and who knows what motivated the dozens or hundreds of other operatives who must have been involved in the implementation of the 9/11 attack.
"Regardless, if the meat of your musings is simply that Islamist terrorism is not soley derived from anti-Western sentiment, I agree."
The "meat of my musings" could be one of the following:
(1) Anti-western sentiment in general is completely unnecessary as an explanation for terrorist attacks against the USA; or
(2) Islamist terrorism is not primarily derived from anti-Western sentiment; or
(3) Islamist terrorism is not at all derived from anti-Western sentiment.
2018. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 1:49:38 PM
"Of course, I don't know of one person who doesn't [agree that Islamist terrorism is not soley derived from anti-Western sentiment]."
Could have fooled me. "They hate us because they hate our values". "They hate us for our wealth and power" [a paraphrase of Calwhore]. A "clash of civilisations". I mean, is it not an article of faith that "they" started it?
2019. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 1:50:51 PM
I can't imagine a nation less interested in how it is seen than the United States.
Regardless, the strain of anti-Western sentiment is prominent in al Qaeda and palpable in Palestinian terrorist organizations. Most Americans don't make the distinction, so they can be forgiven the lack of precision.
2020. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 1:52:39 PM
PE -- Message # 1989
Muslims died in the World Trade Centre attacks. It doesn't mean they were being targetted.
Yes, but any reasonable person could expect that such a target would be far more ripe with U.S. citizens than with Muslims or anyone else. But with many targets selected by Middle East terrorists, that is not the case at all. Clearly, they are not overly concerned with killing non-U.S. citizens or non-Israelis or even Muslims who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. This makes them a threat -- even an intrinsic threat -- to the West.
It just means that the terrorists don't care who is incidentally killed as along as the principal target is successfully achieved.
There is no principal U.S. or Israeli target involved in many of these attacks. A British banker's car explodes in Saudi Arabia, killing him. How are U.S. and Israeli targets successfully taken out by this? A synagogue in Tunisia is attacked, killing German tourists and presumably Tunisian Jewish citizens. How are Israeli and U.S. interests hurt by this?
When such tangential targets are considered U.S. and Israeli interests, and when even you concede that Islamist rhetoric is anti-Western, plainly it is an unimportant distinction to say that Muslims radicals really only have it out for the U.S. and Israel, not the West.
continued ... 2021. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 1:53:01 PM
Of course there are many cases in which Europeans are taken hostages or murdered -- such as in Kashmir or in the Philippines. But that doesn't change the fact that no Middle Eastern terrorist group has ever conducted a terror campaign specifically against a non-US western country.
So what. It's a matter of priorities. Why directly and consistently attack German interests, when you perceive the greater enemy to be the U.S.? It didn't take the Muslims radicals in Afghanistan very long to decide that the U.S. was the new enemy after the Soviets retreated and then disappeared. 2022. CalGal - 6/30/2002 1:53:09 PM
"They hate us for our wealth and power" [a paraphrase of Calwhore].
Not at all. I'm the psychobabbler. I think they hate us because they've failed so miserably at any attempt to emulate us.
2023. CalGal - 6/30/2002 1:55:58 PM
And even that was flip and not particularly accurate--but much closer than you got.
Quick, now: tell me that you never read my posts anyway and ignore me when I point out the contradiction. It's a ritual I'm growing fond of.
2024. iiibbb - 6/30/2002 1:57:04 PM
(2) The USA props up corrupt dictatorships in the Muslim world.
And the alternatives wouldn't be corrupt?
(3) The USA killed Muslims by the thousands in Iraq.
Saddam has killed more of his own than we have.
2025. CalGal - 6/30/2002 1:58:18 PM
I mean, is it not an article of faith that "they" started it?
No.
I don't think America has an article of faith about this, yet. We're currently trying to avoid saying anything mean about Muslims; it will take us a while to figure that out.
2026. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 1:59:20 PM
I wish Message # 1978 and Message # 1979 contained more information about Hamas. Hizballah is not even a Palestinian organisation.
There's enough in the article to strongly suggest Pal terrorists have no compunction working with other terrorist groups to further their interests. What's preventing them from doing so? Al Qaeda may have been a Johnny-come-lately to the Palestinian cause, but they are definitely a supporter now. They are all Muslims, and if Sunni terrorist groups, like al Qaeda, can work with Shiite terorrist groups, like Hezbollah, there seems to be no sacred line that prevents any of them from working with each other.
2027. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:00:34 PM
Message # 2020
"There is no principal U.S. or Israeli target involved in many of these attacks. A British banker's car explodes in Saudi Arabia, killing him. How are U.S. and Israeli targets successfully taken out by this?"
Well, as I've said before, Britain, France and Russia are secondary targets because they are involved in the affairs of Muslim peoples.
I repeat: The USA and Israel are primary targets because they are the ones most involved in the affairs of Muslim peoples. The general point, however, is that countries are targetted by Islamist terrorists in direct proportion to their involvement in the affairs of Muslim countries.
That's why the few attacks launched against non-US western targets have usually been against Britain and France, who have now and then intervened in the Middle East and elsewhere.
"A synagogue in Tunisia is attacked, killing German tourists and presumably Tunisian Jewish citizens. How are Israeli and U.S. interests hurt by this?"
Radical Islamists don't distinguish Israeli from Jewish.
2028. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:00:52 PM
Message # 2021
"It's a matter of priorities. Why directly and consistently attack German interests, when you perceive the greater enemy to be the U.S.?"
Well, you interpret the fact that German or Australian or Canadian or Swiss interests are not regularly attacked as a matter of priorities. I interpret it to mean that those countries which haven't had their hands dirtied in the politics of Muslim countries do not become targets of Islamist terrorism. Tell me why your interpretation is better than mine.
2029. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 2:01:52 PM
CalGal -- Message # 1990
He seems very resistant to broader explanations on this matter. I suspect some deep-rooted psychological trauma.
I suspect a "divide and conquer" strategy. Convince the Europeans they have no interest in the U.S-led War on Terror, and then convince the U.S. it has no interest in supporting Israel.
2030. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:02:35 PM
Message # 2024
"And the alternatives wouldn't be corrupt?"
Of course they would be.
"Saddam has killed more of his own than we have."
Absolutely. As a partisan of the Kurdish cause I couldn't agree more.
2031. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 2:02:44 PM
pseudo
Why is that specious?
Because you immediately withdrew the claim and replaced it with American bombing as the source, not mere American involvement.
Bombing is not involvement?
Don't ever castigate CalGal again. When pressed, you do the same dance for which you deride her.
Muslims have plenty of specific grievances that they can cite against the USA:
(1) The USA unconditionally supports Israel.
(2) The USA props up corrupt dictatorships in the Muslim world.
(3) The USA killed Muslims by the thousands in Iraq.
(4) The USA has stationed troops in Saudi Arabia.
Melded with barbaric anti-Western, religious cuckooism, one's specific grievances can become messianic. Indeed, your list can be transferred to South America. But minus the anti-Western and religious aspects, our office workers aren't dodging psychotic Chileans.
2032. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 2:04:06 PM
Bin Ladin supposedly objects to the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. But his individual motivation is not the same as the motivation of others. Who knows what motivated the dead hijackers, and who knows what motivated the dozens or hundreds of other operatives who must have been involved in the implementation of the 9/11 attack.
Ah, who knows? You slide into safe and fair lack of certitude when it benefits you, but when there is a suggestion that there exists anti-Western sentiment in al Qaeda or extremist Muslim groups, then, you are dead positive: it cannot be!
The "meat of my musings" could be one of the following:
(1) Anti-western sentiment in general is completely unnecessary as an explanation for terrorist attacks against the USA; or
(2) Islamist terrorism is not primarily derived from anti-Western sentiment; or
(3) Islamist terrorism is not at all derived from anti-Western sentiment.
I suppose it could be anything, given the elasticity of your rhetoric. It could be, even from your writings, that anti-Western sentiment is a factor with al Qaeda and Islamist terrorist organizations, a factor with varying potency.
This is where I expect you'll end up.
Could have fooled me. "They hate us because they hate our values". "They hate us for our wealth and power" [a paraphrase of Calwhore]. A "clash of civilisations". I mean, is it not an article of faith that "they" started it?
I imagine you were similarly fooled when Hoover did not produce a chicken in very pot, Bush did not show you 1000 points of light, and Clinton did not construct an actual bridge to the 21st century.
I thought debating the simplistic excesses of political rhetoric was reserved for Chomskyites.
2033. CalGal - 6/30/2002 2:05:17 PM
One would think that the billions of dollars that the US has given would show up as a mitigating factor somewhere in their thinking.
2034. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 2:06:19 PM
2035. CalGal - 6/30/2002 2:07:02 PM
toy check
2036. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:07:24 PM
Message # 2029: "I suspect a "divide and conquer" strategy. Convince the Europeans they have no interest in the U.S-led War on Terror, and then convince the U.S. it has no interest in supporting Israel."
The first part ("convince the Europeans") is definitely false, though the second contains some truth.
But PIncher, are you trying to say something more insidious?
2037. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:14:25 PM
Message # 2031
"Because you immediately withdrew the claim and replaced it with American bombing as the source, not mere American involvement."
I have always meant American involvement in all its manifestations, from the support of Mubarak to the bombing of Iraq. I think everyone has understood that from the beginning except you.
"Melded with barbaric anti-Western, religious cuckooism, one's specific grievances can become messianic. Indeed, your list can be transferred to South America. But minus the anti-Western and religious aspects, our office workers aren't dodging psychotic Chileans."
No, but American diplomats, businessmen and other targets have been attacked by left-wing terrorists in Latin America.
Message # 2032: "Ah, who knows? You slide into safe and fair lack of certitude when it benefits you, but when there is a suggestion that there exists anti-Western sentiment in al Qaeda or extremist Muslim groups, then, you are dead positive: it cannot be!"
Nonsense. Firstly, I have never denied the anti-western rhetoric in Islamic thinking. Secondly, my argument has always been negative: there is no reason to invoke anti-western sentiment as a motivation in terrorist attacks, because targets have almost always been those countries which have been involved in Muslim affairs. That is, interventionism and involvement are sufficient explanations for Islamist terrorism.
Message # 2033: "One would think that the billions of dollars that the US has given would show up as a mitigating factor somewhere in their thinking."
Why? Particularly when most of those billions have gone to support the regime in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
2038. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 2:21:09 PM
I resist "broader explanations" because they are totally unnecessary. Given the level of US involvement in the Middle East -- from conditional support of Israel to propping up unpopular regimes to the Gulf War to covert operations like the Mossadegh coup -- why do you need elaborate, psycho-claptrappish explanations of widespread anti-Americanism in Muslim countries?
Spoken like a true Muslim radical. Nothing mentioned about the fact the Gulf War was supported by the vast majority of Muslim nations, that Muslim Somalis were to be the prime beneficiaries of an U.S. operation to feed them, or that Muslims in Eastern Europe would probably be an endangered species right now without U.S. intervention.
Broader explanations are not necessary to understand the nature of Islamic radicalism, but instead of looking to U.S. actions, look to the Muslims themselves. Your goal here seems to be to excuse the Muslims hatred as a natural byproduct of certain U.S. actions, which apparently are unprecedented anywhere else. Nonsense. The U.S.'s level of involvement is no more than it has been in numerous other regions around the world, and it is less than many others. Indeed in many other areas around the world, the U.S. is disliked, even hated. But only in the Muslim world has this hatred manifested itself into a cultural-wide movement that attracts so many people, who generally loathe the West (they have no respect for any other culture other than their own, and even their respect for their own culture is narrow and qualified), and are willing to do almost anything to hurt U.S. interests.
You say look to U.S. actions to understand Muslim rage; I say look to the Muslims themselves.
2039. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 2:22:15 PM
pseudo
No, but American diplomats, businessmen and other targets have been attacked by left-wing terrorists in Latin America.
Do you find anty differences in the terrorism perpetrated by leftist South Americans versus Islamist terror groups?
Nonsense. Firstly, I have never denied the anti-western rhetoric in Islamic thinking. Secondly, my argument has always been negative: there is no reason to invoke anti-western sentiment as a motivation in terrorist attacks, because targets have almost always been those countries which have been involved in Muslim affairs. That is, interventionism and involvement are sufficient explanations for Islamist terrorism.
Your argument is malleable. No reason suggest political and diplomatic tactics. I'm not interested in discussing political and diplomatic tactics with you at this time.
But you do reveal your sophistry. Yes, I imagine terror strikes from all sources against foreign agents because, in the broadest possible sense, the foreign agent is involved in a particular region. So what? This is akin to saying that terror occurs to those who can be reached. It is a point wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
We are discussing the component of anti-Western thought in Islamist terrorism, and you've yet to take a firm position. Understandably so.
2040. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 2:24:14 PM
Though I don't ascribe your fluidity to insidious motives (yet).
I just think you are confused.
2041. CalGal - 6/30/2002 2:25:44 PM
Particularly when most of those billions have gone to support the regime in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
I thought the Saudis got a great deal of money and freebies. It was somewhere around $20K per capita at its height, although now it is much less.
2042. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 2:37:24 PM
I write:
But why [would PE] try to narrow the goals of the terrorists to such minor issues as unhappiness over U.S. Foreign Policy and the desire to see a Palestinian state?"
PE responds: Which terrorists are you talking about? Palestinians or al Qaidah? If you're talking about the Palestinians, then those issues aren't minor at all.
They are minor. The Pal terrorist groups want far more than just a Palestianian state. They want the extinction of the Israeli state. To suggest that the Palestinian terrorists' goal is simply to carve out their own state is to ennoble their aims far more than they deserve. To do this in conjunction with stating that Palestinian terrorists are no threat to the U.S. seems to be a coordinated effort on your part to heighten their role as sympathetic victim -- just a few groups doing what they can to be independent, but really no threat to anyone who doesn't have a foot on their neck.
2043. Daniel Sickles - 6/30/2002 2:42:16 PM
Pincher
Well said. pseudo starts from the proposition that terrorist groups are really just Muslim equivalents of lobby firms.
And the mood of their clientele, the Palestinians?
8. Do you think that there is a chance for peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis?
Yes 32.6
No 60.2
Not sure 7.2
11. Do you support or oppose military attacks against American targets in the region?
Support 72.9
Oppose 21.7
Not sure 5.4
12. In the case of establishing an independent Palestinian State, would you view a friendship between a Palestinian and an Israeli positively?
Yes 30.7
No 64.8
Not sure 4.5
13. Do you support or oppose military attacks against Israeli targets at the present time?
Support 80.0
Oppose 15.1
Not sure 4.9
14. If you support military attacks, what should be the target of these attacks?
11.7 Support only against military targets
03.0 support only against settlers
33.1 against both military & settlers
00.4 against civilians in the 1948 proper
62.3 against all Israelis regardless
2044. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:51:54 PM
Message # 2038
"Spoken like a true Muslim radical."
Many non-Muslim non-radicals say the same thing.
"Nothing mentioned about the fact the Gulf War was supported by the vast majority of Muslim nations...."
But not by the majority of Muslim masses; and Jordan, if you recall, opposed the war because King Hussein feared unrest in the population.
"....that Muslim Somalis were to be the prime beneficiaries of an U.S. operation to feed them, or that Muslims in Eastern Europe would probably be an endangered species right now without U.S. intervention...."
Yes, I agree. What do this have to do with anything?
"Your goal here seems to be to excuse the Muslims hatred as a natural byproduct of certain U.S. actions..."
Not excuse, but explain.
2045. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:52:05 PM
Message # 2038
"The U.S.'s level of involvement is no more than it has been in numerous other regions around the world, and it is less than many others. Indeed in many other areas around the world, the U.S. is disliked, even hated. But only in the Muslim world has this hatred manifested itself into a cultural-wide movement that attracts so many people, who generally loathe the West..., and are willing to do almost anything to hurt U.S. interests. You say look to U.S. actions to understand Muslim rage; I say look to the Muslims themselves."
It is irrelevant to my point that radical Islamists are more willing than other anti-American elements, to translate their hatred into anti-American violence. That fact does address the fact that anti-American violence has not occurred in the absence of provocation. Without that provocation it wouldn't exist, is my point.
Besides, your claim is not totally true. Non-Muslim, left-wing terrorists have also attacked US targets. During the 1980s, there were American businessmen, soldiers and diplomats killed or kidnapped in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Germany by left-wing extremists.
2046. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:52:21 PM
Message # 2039
"Do you find anty differences in the terrorism perpetrated by leftist South Americans versus Islamist terror groups?"
Yes. Less financing, inability to operate outside the region, and lack of willingness to commit suicide in order to carry out terrorist attacks.
"Your argument is malleable."
It's been the same since this topic was introduced several weeks ago.
"But you do reveal your sophistry. Yes, I imagine terror strikes from all sources against foreign agents because, in the broadest possible sense, the foreign agent is involved in a particular region. So what? This is akin to saying that terror occurs to those who can be reached. It is a point wholly irrelevant to the discussion."
??? I don't understand. I'm saying that the USA is targeted by Islamist radicals because it intervenes in the affairs of Muslim countries.
2047. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 2:53:09 PM
Message # 2042: "The Pal terrorist groups want far more than just a Palestianian state. They want the extinction of the Israeli state. To suggest that the Palestinian terrorists' goal is simply to carve out their own state is to ennoble their aims far more than they deserve."
But I have never stated that the Palestinian terrorists simply want to carve out their own state in coexistence with Israel. Where did I say that???. I have said from the very beginning that the Palestinian terrorists want to destroy Israel. (Well, Hamas and Islamic Jihad do, but not the al-Aqsa Brigades.) They want to destroy Israel. There, I said it again.
2048. CalGal - 6/30/2002 2:54:55 PM
Oh, but that will all change once they have their own country.
Then the numbers against Israel will go up.
2049. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 3:07:17 PM
errata (Message # 2045):
"That fact does address the fact that anti-American violence..."
should be
"That fact does NOT address the ARGUMENT that anti-American violence...."
2050. transient1a - 6/30/2002 3:58:48 PM
I accidently came across this site:
Patriots for the Defense of America: A national organization dedicated to supporting America's defense against foreign enemies. The Threat of Palestine: Creating a Palestinian State means creating a new terrorist state. America must not support a Palestinian State of any kind.
Apparently the site is run by Alexi Khanovsky (not his real name, a code name he appropriated after a brief clandestine operation in Russia). And anyone foolish enough to respond to the pleading on the site is summarily assassinated.
2051. iiibbb - 6/30/2002 4:28:57 PM
from the site
Currently, Patriots for the Defense of America does not have a published telephone number. If you would like to speak with an Patriots representative, send your phone number to xxxx@defenseofamerica.org and we will call you back.
That certainly seems kinda strange. Same sort of stuff that you find on get-rich-quick real estate scam sites.
2052. iiibbb - 6/30/2002 4:32:33 PM
However... you'd think if we know about assasinations... that our gov't might know something about it.
It's the internet equivalent of that alleged gang initiation where an initiate drives down the highway at night with their lights off and the first person to flash their high beams to let them know... they follow and kill.
2053. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 7:38:04 PM
Actually, I disagree with Pincher's and Sickles's argument that US "involvement [in Muslim countries] is no more than it has been in numerous other regions around the world, and it is less than many others". Yes, the USA is literally involved everywhere, from Latin America to Western Europe to the former Soviet Union to East Asia. But since the end of the Cold War, American intervention & involvement in the Middle East has been more intense and (in the perception of Muslims) less benevolent than in any other region.
After all, nowhere else does the USA maintain a relationship like it does witih Israel. Nowhere else since the cold war has the USA conducted military operations as extensive as those directed against Iraq. Nowhere else has the USA succeeded in enforcing sanctions as ruinous as those which have been imposed on Iraq. During the cold war it was routine for the USA to prop up dictators who were pro-American, but today the Middle East is the only region where the USA continues to actively prop up dictators and refrains from pressurising them to democratise.
2054. jexster - 6/30/2002 8:15:45 PM
From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire.
Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor of your progenitors.
"But if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in intestine strife.'
Urban II, Proclamation of Crusade, Clermont, 1095
2055. jexster - 6/30/2002 8:15:49 PM
From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire.
Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor of your progenitors.
"But if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in intestine strife.'
Urban II, Proclamation of Crusade, Clermont, 1095
2056. ivan osokin - 6/30/2002 8:24:32 PM
interesting to see the last posts from jexster as i was about to ask if anyone thinks that the US relations with the muslim world are related to the christian infatuation with rooting out members of the "accursed race."
before 9/11 i thought that the american theocracy was waging war against the poor (economically, that is) muslims in the world and supporting regimes that would ensure that large numbers of poor muslims would suffer.
after 9/11, in the days when W and co. bounced around terms like "crusades" in regards to "islamist terrorists", i had even more suspicions.
i suppose it wouldn't be so speculative if jexster was prez, but so much of the bush coup has been about enforcing certain types of conservative christian values into the state, and furthering a theocratic agenda.
2057. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 9:05:37 PM
Yes, the USA is literally involved everywhere, from Latin America to Western Europe to the former Soviet Union to East Asia. But since the end of the Cold War, American intervention & involvement in the Middle East has been more intense and (in the perception of Muslims) less benevolent than in any other region.
With the large, but single exception of Iraq, U.S. involvement in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War has been no more intense than in any other region.
And why now pick the end of the Cold War as your baseline? You didn't have that narrow of a perspective before when you brought up CIA meddling in Iranian politics in the 1950s.
Since the 1950s, the U.S. has been involved in two huge wars in East Asia, still stations tens of thousands of troops in several countries across the region, while still intimately involved in two civil wars here (China/Taiwan; North and South Korea), and has meddled in the domestic affairs of nearly every country in East Asia. And yet while millions of people in this area hate the U.S. government, and even Americans, there is no equivalent to Middle East terrorism in the region.
continued ... 2058. PincherMartin - 6/30/2002 9:12:45 PM
After all, nowhere else does the USA maintain a relationship like it does witih Israel. Nowhere else since the cold war has the USA conducted military operations as extensive as those directed against Iraq. Nowhere else has the USA succeeded in enforcing sanctions as ruinous as those which have been imposed on Iraq. During the cold war it was routine for the USA to prop up dictators who were pro-American, but today the Middle East is the only region where the USA continues to actively prop up dictators and refrains from pressurising them to democratise.
That's because the Middle East is the only region in the world where the average citizen's views is more frightening than the average dictator's. You yourself have implicitly recognized this in your own prescription for the region: that of benevolent dictators to guide the region's countries through their modernization.
And the accusation of ruinous U.S. sanctions on Iraq is worthy of Sakonige.
The U.S. has done everything in its power -- short of abdicating its responsibility to prevent the buildup, once again, of Iraq's armed forces -- in trying to make the sanctions humane and workable. It has been its European and Arab allies that have pushed the U.S. not to do what should have been done and rid the Middle East of Saddam. They still continue to do so now. 2059. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 9:50:27 PM
I think Pincher Martin is totally confused.
I, Pseudoerasmus, think the overthrow of Mossadegh was a great thing. I have repeatedly argued against all comers (usually left-wing) that Mossadegh was a menace and the Shah of Iran was a great man.
I, Pseudoerasmus, supported the Gulf War. And I, Pseudoerasmus, would support the USA again if it went in and destroyed Saddam Hussein once and for all.
I, Pseudoerasmus, also support most of the Arab regimes that the USA supports (Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, etc.)
And while I think the USA could be more balanced in the Palestinian situation, I support the US guarantee of Israel's existence.
The overthrow of Mossadegh, the Gulf War, the Iraq sanctions, the unconditional support of Israel, the support of Arab dictators, etc. are not my grievances. They are the grievances of the majority of Muslims, whether moderate or radical.
My argument has been that Islamist terrorists have specific and concrete grievances against the USA -- not that those grievances are legitimate. Pincher does not need to defend US actions in the Middle East, because I am not criticising them (well, at least not all of them). Pincher should stick to the argument about whether real and specific grievances exist, or whether terrorism occurs as a psychological manifestation of deep-seated general hostility to the West. I think it's the former, not the latter.
2060. joezan - 6/30/2002 9:51:55 PM
Al Qaeda may have been a Johnny-come-lately to the Palestinian cause, but they are definitely a supporter now. They are all Muslims, and if Sunni terrorist groups, like al Qaeda, can work with Shiite terorrist groups, like Hezbollah, there seems to be no sacred line that prevents any of them from working with each other.
Exactly, Pincher.
This is one thing that worries me.
If these reports are true, the Islamist, terrorist elements of the Sunnis and Shiites have finally come to at least a detente with one another.
Not that we can't still whip their asses - but I don't think anyone can argue that these two groups united against the US will be capable of much more carnage.
Also, you may recall all the pooh-poohing from the ME "experts" when it was suggested al-Qaeda were fleeing to Iran after the rout in Herat and other western Afgh areas - No way, they said -...that'd be like oil and water, so perish the thought. The Shi'a have no truck with the Sunni al-Qaeda.
I don't trust the Iranians - not even a little bit.
2061. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 9:52:53 PM
Message # 2058: "That's because the Middle East is the only region in the world where the average citizen's views is more frightening than the average dictator's."
Irrelevant. That does NOT change the fact that Muslims, both moderate and radical, hold the US support of corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East as a grievance against the USA.
Message # 2057: "And yet while millions of people in this area hate the U.S. government, and even Americans, there is no equivalent to Middle East terrorism in the region."
I repeat: The fact that radical Islamists are more willing than other anti-American elements to translate their hatred into violence, is irrelevant to the argument that anti-American violence responds to American actions.
2062. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 10:08:15 PM
Message # 2057: With the large, but single exception of Iraq, U.S. involvement in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War has been no more intense than in any other region."
Well, the Gulf War and the sanctions regime are pretty big exceptions. But I repeat: in no other region of the world is there anything like the Palestinian situation. Nor anywhere else in the world does the USA continue to support dictatorships.
Perhaps "intense" is not the word. Let's put it this way: since about 1990, US policy around the world has been transformed. It has switched from active, aggressive interventionism in every part of the world -- which included support for dictators, overthrowing governments, engaging in wars, influencing elections, financing anti-communist terrorists & insurgents, etc. -- to a much less interventionist stance such that US policy in most of the world now consists of encouraging democracy, promoting trade relationships, participating in drug interdiction, and other less aggressive actions. Except in the Middle East.
2063. RustlerPike - 6/30/2002 10:12:46 PM
The Muslim world is divided between Shi'ites and Sunnis, true. But the Judeo-Christian world is divided between she-ites and he-ites. Don't forget that.
2064. joezan - 6/30/2002 10:16:08 PM
Pike:
You're obsessed, but focused.
2065. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 10:18:20 PM
"...your own prescription for the region: that of benevolent dictators to guide the region's countries through their modernization."
But I've always advocated benevolent dictatorship for most (not all) countries in the Third World, not just for the Middle East. I think democracy in developing countries is highly overrated; and I've also never understood why some neoconservative types (ranging from you to Sickles to Calgal to Andonlyl) have suddenly become so pious about it.
2066. RustlerPike - 6/30/2002 10:19:44 PM
So the thesis behind about a million words Pe has written in the past month is that the Islamic fanatics don't just hate the West without a cause, they hate the West with a cause, but the cause sucks.
Well - what can I say. I'm flubberghusted.
2067. RustlerPike - 6/30/2002 10:22:00 PM
Joe:
You're obsessed, but focused
I couldn't resist the play on words, sorry.
2068. joezan - 6/30/2002 10:27:43 PM
PE:
never understood why some neoconservative types (ranging from you to Sickles to Calgal to Andonlyl) have suddenly become so pious about it.
Because when neocons make suggestions like that, they're called fascists, racists, etc, etc.
Pike:
That was a joke.
You apologize to me again, I'll kick your ass.
2069. pseudoerasmus - 6/30/2002 10:28:25 PM
Message # 2066: "So the thesis behind about a million words Pe has written in the past month is that the Islamic fanatics don't just hate the West without a cause, they hate the West with a cause, but the cause sucks."
No. The thesis - which was originally couched in no more than a few dozen words -- is that the West as a whole is not targetted by Islamist terrorists. Those who involve themselves in the affairs of Muslim peoples -- which is to say, primarily the USA and Israel -- are the targets.
2070. transient1a - 6/30/2002 11:09:56 PM
pseudoerasmus,
Message # 2059 (Plus all others.) Especially Message # 2069
I guess Andonly had it right:
Message # 1899
"sometimes these conversations are sort of absurd"
2071. RustlerPike - 7/1/2002 12:08:42 AM
No. The thesis - which was originally couched in no more than a few dozen words -- is that the West as a whole is not targetted by Islamist terrorists. Those who involve themselves in the affairs of Muslim peoples -- which is to say, primarily the USA and Israel -- are the targets.
Ah. So if we just butt out of the affairs of the Muslim people, the Muslim people will forget about us?
How about this: Israel and the US don't target the Arab world as a whole. We target the radical, Pan-Arabist, Islamic fundie elements, always have and always will, because we recognize that they are baddies, just from the way the set oil wells ablaze, eat live puppies at military parades, disembowel their lynch victims and celebrate when their children commit suicide and kill babies.
We won't target Morocco, Tunisia or the Gulf emirates as long as they butt out of Israeli and American affairs. But as long as Arab countries and organizations insist on doing everything possible to provoke us, they will have no peace. If they continue striving to annihilate us, they will die by the dozens of millions.
How's that?
2072. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:27:17 AM
PE: "(1) A conventional war between Israel and whom would erupt?
I did not argue that a conventional war was likely; you are the one who argued that Israel was strong enough to beat all challengers. My answer was, a) not without suffering serious damage, b) conventional military strength and nuclear weapons are not so effective against a terrorist/proxy war of attrition; so the common argument about Israeli strength is specious.
2073. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:28:40 AM
CG: "One would think that the billions of dollars that the US has given would show up as a mitigating factor somewhere in their thinking."
Even in the mid-'60s, the US fed forty percent of the Egyptian population with wheat subsidies. The US today spends--what is the figure, $2 billion?--per annum on economic aid to Egypt. US "involvement in Muslim affairs" has likely stalled or postponed war in the region as often as it has caused it, and benefitted Muslims (Kuwait, Saudi) even if at the expense of others (Iraq). In Afghanistan and the Balkans, the US materially assisted mujaheddin fighting for Muslims' freedom or survival. But none of this matters: what matters is Israel. Why? Colonialism paranoia, hysterical Jew hatred, and mundane megalomania.
2074. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:29:27 AM
PE: "Those who involve themselves in the affairs of Muslim peoples -- which is to say, primarily the USA and Israel -- are the targets."
What is involvement in the "affairs of Muslim peoples"? Territorial confiscation? Bombing? Cultural pollution? Modernization? Economic assistance? The US and/or Israel have interfered in all these ways. But so have countries whom radicals do not at the moment target. So one assumes that you mean certain kinds of interference beget a violent response and all other kinds of interference are ignored. Which seems to imply that radicals have no aims emerging purely out of their own ideologies, but simply emerge to react to the US and Israel.
2075. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:30:24 AM
PM: "You say look to U.S. actions to understand Muslim rage; I say look to the Muslims themselves."
I agree. Further to your point, there are Muslims who are enraged at the US but who are not radicals. But radical Islam's would-be despots thirst for personal power. The US and Israel are to some large extent foils for those aspirations, which would not cease to exist in the absence of US or Israeli 'interference'.
2076. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:31:55 AM
PE: "[T]here is no reason to invoke anti-western sentiment as a motivation in terrorist attacks, because targets have almost always been those countries which have been involved in Muslim affairs. That is, interventionism and involvement are sufficient explanations for Islamist terrorism."
Prima facie evidence does not require a reason for being, it just is. Anti-western sentiment manifestly is a motivation in terrorist attacks, as is evidenced by the rhetoric of the attackers. Your argument sounds unnervingly like the sort of thing one might hear a sociopathic murderer say to absolve himself of a crime no one has the slightest doubt he committed: "I couldn't have done it because I didn't have any reason to harm her."
2077. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:33:01 AM
PE: "anti-American violence has not occurred in the absence of provocation. Without that provocation it wouldn't exist, is my point. ... My argument has been that Islamist terrorists have specific and concrete grievances against the USA -- not that those grievances are legitimate."
Whether or not they were legitimate, O.J. Simpson had specific and concrete grievances against his wife. So he butchered her. The proper explanation for O.J. Simpson's behavior--not an excuse-ridden apologia, mind you, just an explanation--is that if his wife had not provoked him, he would not have murdered her (and her friend, who was not really the target, but like a German tourist, just happened to be in the way). Had Nicole Brown Simpson not provoked O.J. Simpson by appearing to be unfaithful, the whole disruptive murder trial and polarizing of white and black America over jury nullification, not to mention the advancement of Johnnie Cochrane's career, could have been avoided. Clearly, Mrs. Simpson erred, even if she was not wrong. And just as clearly, it was her error that led to her death, and not any deep-seated hostility toward, or sense of entitlement to control, women, on the part of O.J. Simpson. Therefore, O.J.'s next wife needn't worry, just so long as she avoids challenging his authority.
2078. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:34:17 AM
"Let's put it this way: since about 1990, US policy around the world has been transformed. It has switched from active, aggressive interventionism in every part of the world -- which included support for dictators, overthrowing governments, engaging in wars, influencing elections, financing anti-communist terrorists & insurgents, etc. -- to a much less interventionist stance such that US policy in most of the world now consists of encouraging democracy, promoting trade relationships, participating in drug interdiction, and other less aggressive actions. Except in the Middle East."
This is true. But well before 9-11 the US was plotting the ouster of Saddam and replacing him with a democratic government; meanwhile, we have improved life immeasurably for northern Iraqis, a fact often overlooked in the press. Now, George Bush has essentially demanded the end of Yassir Arafat's reign and the reform of Palestinian society along democratic norms. I don't see the regional radical Islamists jumping for joy, do you?
2079. Andonly - 7/1/2002 1:34:35 AM
"But I've always advocated benevolent dictatorship for most (not all) countries in the Third World, not just for the Middle East. I think democracy in developing countries is highly overrated; and I've also never understood why some neoconservative types (ranging from you to Sickles to Calgal to Andonlyl) have suddenly become so pious about it."
I'm not, nor have I ever been, pious about mideast democracy. Certainly, the US should have supported democratic ideals and defended advocates of press freedoms and economic reforms and so on. But I've never said democracy could successfully be implanted in societies that haven't a liberal social tradition.. What I'm pious about, and what I argued with you about only recently, is societal liberalization, which I advocated under a benign, extremely powerful regime. I don't care what form the regime takes, so long as it is not immediately democratic (or at the very least not fully so).
2080. CalGal - 7/1/2002 1:47:18 AM
I don't know that anyone other than Betty and Ivan have advocated mideast democracy.
2081. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:31:52 AM
Message # 2071: Ah. So if we just butt out of the affairs of the Muslim people, the Muslim people will forget about us?
Well, it's a bit hard for Israel to do that.
Message # 2073: "what matters is Israel. Why? Colonialism paranoia, hysterical Jew hatred, and mundane megalomania."
There you go again, reducing anti-Israel sentiments to nothing more than "Jew hatred".
Message # 2073: "Even in the mid-'60s, the US fed forty percent of the Egyptian population with wheat subsidies. The US today spends--what is the figure, $2 billion?--per annum on economic aid to Egypt. US "involvement in Muslim affairs" has likely stalled or postponed war in the region as often as it has caused it, and benefitted Muslims (Kuwait, Saudi) even if at the expense of others (Iraq). In Afghanistan and the Balkans, the US materially assisted mujaheddin fighting for Muslims' freedom or survival. But none of this matters...."
Message # 2074: "So one assumes that you mean certain kinds of interference beget a violent response and all other kinds of interference are ignored."
If John raped and murdered Peter's daughter, would it somehow make the earlier murder go away if John rescued another of Peter's daughters from a burning fire? I don't think some foreign aid to Egyptians, actions in the Balkans, etc. undo what is regarded as deeply unfriendly actions (such as the Gulf War).
2082. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:32:18 AM
Message # 2074: "What is involvement in the "affairs of Muslim peoples"?
I think I've already named them: the Gulf War, Iraq sanctions, the unconditional support of Israel, propping up Arab regimes, stationing troops, etc.
Message # 2074: "Which seems to imply that radicals have no aims emerging purely out of their own ideologies, but simply emerge to react to the US and Israel."
To the contrary, the role of ideology is that it justifies war against the USA including its civilians well outside the Middle East.
Message # 2075: "Further to your point, there are Muslims who are enraged at the US but who are not radicals."
Which only reinforces my point. Resentment at the USA is not based on some Islamist hallucination, but on resentment at concrete and specific actions taken by the USA.
"But radical Islam's would-be despots thirst for personal power. The US and Israel are to some large extent foils for those aspirations, which would not cease to exist in the absence of US or Israeli 'interference'."
Radical Islam would not have the recruitment it is able to muster were it not for these "foils". They would be voices screaming in the wilderness, as they were in the 1950s and 1960s.
2083. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:33:33 AM
Message # 2076: Prima facie evidence does not require a reason for being, it just is. Anti-western sentiment manifestly is a motivation in terrorist attacks, as is evidenced by the rhetoric of the attackers. Your argument sounds unnervingly like the sort of thing one might hear a sociopathic murderer say to absolve himself of a crime no one has the slightest doubt he committed: "I couldn't have done it because I didn't have any reason to harm her."
Complete nonsense. You're deliberately blurring the rhetoric of terrorists and the rhetoric of ranting clerics. The latter may sympathise with the former but are not the same thing.
The prima facie evidence is that the rhetoric of actual terrorists -- as opposed to the clerics who are ranting in the mosques but are not actually conducting terrorist acts -- usually has a laundry list of grievances. Those are the prime facie, "manifest" motivations.
Message # 2077: The only reason to compare an individual action with a large social phenomenon, is the unwillingness to explain the latter in favour of solely making moral judgements.
2084. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:33:50 AM
Message # 2079: "I'm not, nor have I ever been, pious about mideast democracy."
I wasn't referring to our recent discussion about liberalisation, democracy, etc. in the Middle East. I called certain people newly and suddenly pious about democracy (in general, not the Middle East) because I have noticed since 9/11 that those people who were the most likely to justify American support for dictatorships in the Third World during the cold war (and to criticise, for example, Carter's human rights orientation), now appear to be the same people who vigourously criticise countries for not being democratic. I was amazed that a solid Republican like Sickles was citing human rights abuses in present-day Iran. During the Carter administration he would surely not have deriding that adminstration for such an emphasis.
2085. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:36:41 AM
Message # 2057: "And yet while millions of people in [East Asia] hate the U.S. government, and even Americans, there is no equivalent to Middle East terrorism...."
Not today, but there was during the cold war.
The New People's Army, the guerrilla branch of the Philippines Communist Party, staged for decades various terrorist operations against US targets, ranging from bombings of the offices of the US Information Agency to kidnapping of Peace Corps volunteers and assassinations of US servicemen. There were dozens every year, for decades. You can find such incidents as recently as the early 1990s.
Of course let's not forget the Japanese Red Army and the other Japanese left-wing extremist group, Chukakuha, which have staged numerous attacks against US citizens and installations since the 1960s. There have also been attacks against American targets in South Korea by radical students and trades unionists.
I said before that during the cold war, left-wing terrorists used to attack American targets regularly, particularly in Western Europe and Latin America. Even some of the most notorious anti-Israel terrorism was carried out by non-Middle Easterners. For example, the massacre at Lod Airport in Israel in 1973 -- which Rustler may or may not remember, he is in his late 40s is he not? -- was carried out by the Japanese Red Army faction!
2086. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:36:49 AM
The one reason Islamist terrorists have been attacking US targets outside the Middle East is that they have been comprehensively defeated at home. In Egypt, Algeria, Syria and elsewhere, the Islamists have been largely repressed & crushed as a military threat to those countries' governments. So they have been encouraged by their defeat to go abroad. They were only helped by the fact that they were able to build an international network during the 1980s (thanks in part to US help with this) on account of the Afghan war.
That's a major reason there's no equivalent today to Middle Eastern terrorism.
2087. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:37:53 AM
A reason, not "the one" reason
2088. jexster - 7/1/2002 9:56:53 AM
Moderate Muslims Under Siege - NyT OpEd
2089. jexster - 7/1/2002 10:00:31 AM
Since Sept. 11, moderate American Muslims have been fighting an exceedingly difficult battle on many fronts. They have been struggling to deal with the proponents of a clash of civilizations, who seem intent on transforming Islam into the enemy of the West after Communism; with the fanaticism of some supporters of Israel, who seem to deal with every manifestation of Islamic activism as a direct threat to Israel's existence; with fanatic religious leaders who have unabashedly maligned Islam, even going as far as calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile; with fellow Muslims who believe there is a worldwide conspiracy against Islam and even insist the Sept. 11 attacks were part of an effort to frame Muslims by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Mossad; with other Muslims who accuse moderates of being sellouts to the West and traitors to the Islamic tradition for not adhering to Islamic "authenticities."
2090. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 11:12:41 AM
pseudo
I called certain people newly and suddenly pious about democracy (in general, not the Middle East) because I have noticed since 9/11 that those people who were the most likely to justify American support for dictatorships in the Third World during the cold war (and to criticise, for example, Carter's human rights orientation), now appear to be the same people who vigourously criticise countries for not being democratic. I was amazed that a solid Republican like Sickles was citing human rights abuses in present-day Iran.
I don't think I've ever used the terms democracy and Iran in a paragraph. My citation was in response to your declaration that Iran was a hamlet of moderation. I have always maintained that most of the Muslim world is at present too immature for democratic government.
Don't pound the facts of squares into the necessity of your holes.
2091. RustlerPike - 7/1/2002 11:19:02 AM
For example, the massacre at Lod Airport in Israel in 1973 -- which Rustler may or may not remember, he is in his late 40s is he not? -- was carried out by the Japanese Red Army faction!
I'm 37, but my sagacity, bearded face and flatulence throw a lot of people off.
The massacre was in 1972, I believe.
And don't call it a massacre, please. It was a suspected reported act of militancy, in which seven - meaning one - people died. And it belongs in Social Issues, or Sex.
2092. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 11:27:27 AM
Message # 2090: "My citation was in response to your declaration that Iran was a hamlet of moderation."
I said that Iran's fundamentalism was much more moderate than Saudi Arabia's. So "don't pound the facts of squares into the necessity of your holes".
The fact remains unchangeis that countries which are not democratic and which frequently violate human rights, including the Middle Eastern ones, today get criticised for those reasons by the same people who derided or would have derided any emphasis on democracy and human rights in previous years. Again, just think Carter.
2093. sakonige - 7/1/2002 12:01:39 PM
Daniel Sickles -
Message # 2090
I have always maintained that most of the Muslim world is at present too immature for democratic government.
Does this mean you agree that the Bush administration's demand for Paletinians produce a democratically elected government before they are granted foreign aid is unreasonable?
2094. sakonige - 7/1/2002 12:02:20 PM
Palestinians to produce
2095. transient1a - 7/1/2002 12:13:10 PM
Message # 2090
I have always maintained that most of the Muslim world is at present too immature for democratic government.
Whereas the mature confederation of states in North America in 1776 were ripe for democracy?
The End of Something (as already noted on the 'Israel and Palestinians' thread) should be read again and again.
In the bitter end it is an ideological struggle in which demographics will play a decisive role -- with greed and the lust for power thrown in for good measure.
AND
There is no garantee that major players will not just simple annihilate perceived threats.
cont'd
2096. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 12:18:19 PM
pseudo
The fact remains unchangeis that countries which are not democratic and which frequently violate human rights, including the Middle Eastern ones, today get criticised for those reasons by the same people who derided or would have derided any emphasis on democracy and human rights in previous years. Again, just think Carter.
Actually, the criticism to which you refer comes largely from the neo-cons, and it is the same duality that occurred during the Cold War. It is called rhetorical icing. Thus, we propped up dictators and repressive regimes, downplaying their human rights abuses, while simultaneously opposing the Soviet Union and its internal and external repression. In our opposition, we often emphasized the cruelty of the Soviet union to its own people and the peoples of its satellite states.
You act as if the emphasis has changed. It has not. It is incongruous, but such is the nature of balancing interests and ideals. We targeted Iraq as butchers of Kuwait and threats to the great, noble people of Saudi Arabia. What we really did was put a regional animal back in his cage so he could no longer menace the tamer animals of the region who were our pals. It is facile for you to accept the rhetoric and thereafter "expose" the inconsistency.
You are disturbingly enamored with this Chomskyite "Aha!", as if the hypocrisy is telling and new. It is neither. Moreover, you are setting up a faux dual standard, as if the poor, victimized Muslim world is somehow now getting the short end of the United States' inta-democracy stick as a result of American unfairness to Allah.
2097. transient1a - 7/1/2002 12:19:03 PM
cont'd
ALSO
How will countries and political systems fare as high technology becomes ubiquitous? Will 'maturity' prevail?
An open ended, but pesimistic analysis is given in:
Was Democracy Just a Moment?
...... Christianity made the world not more peaceful or, in practice, more moral but only more complex. Democracy, which is now overtaking the world as Christianity once did, may do the same.
The collapse of communism from internal stresses says nothing about the long-term viability of Western democracy. Marxism's natural death in Eastern Europe is no guarantee that subtler tyrannies do not await us, here and abroad. History has demonstrated that there is no final triumph of reason, whether it goes by the name of Christianity, the Enlightenment, or, now, democracy. To think that democracy as we know it will triumph -- or is even here to stay -- is itself a form of determinism, driven by our own ethnocentricity. Indeed, those who quote Alexis de Tocqueville in support of democracy's inevitability should pay heed to his observation that Americans, because of their (comparative) equality, exaggerate "the scope of human perfectibility." Despotism, Tocqueville went on, "is more particularly to be feared in democratic ages," because it thrives on the obsession with self and one's own security which equality fosters.
con't
2098. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 12:20:31 PM
transient
Yes. The 1776 confederartion was mature enough.
sakonige
The thrust of the requirement is actually undemocratic - they must elect anyone but Arafat, a pre-condition that is necessarily masked and happens to be proper.
2099. transient1a - 7/1/2002 12:20:39 PM
con't
Precisely because the technological future in North America will provide so much market and individual freedom, this productive anarchy will require the supervision of tyrannies -- or else there will be no justice for anyone. Liberty, after all, is inseparable from authority, as Henry Kissinger observed in A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822 (1957). A hybrid regime may await us all. The future of the Third World may finally be our own.
And that brings us to a sober realization. If democracy, the crowning political achievement of the West, is gradually being transfigured, in part because of technology, then the West will suffer the same fate as earlier civilizations. Just as Rome believed it was giving final expression to the republican ideal of the Greeks, and just as medieval Kings believed they were giving final expression to the Roman ideal, we believe, as the early Christians did, that we are bringing freedom and a better life to the rest of humankind.
ALSO
See the URL's quoted in the side bar.
2100. sakonige - 7/1/2002 12:49:43 PM
Message # 2098
Necessarily masked? You mean surreptitious? Underhanded? Dishonest?
2101. Wombat - 7/1/2002 12:55:33 PM
Sickles:
No, the 1776 Confederation was not mature enough. That's why we have a constitution, without which the United States may well have fallen apart.
2102. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 1:07:41 PM
In Message # 2096, Sickles does something which he is quite apt to do and which is highly reminiscent of when he babbled months ago about how the USA's exercise of "imperial" power was crucial to its material prosperity. It's a habit of appropriating left-wing rhetoric by a conservative. By candidly and cynically embracing certain left-wing arguments, a right-wing boob like Sickles can simulate sophisticated realism and transform himself into one of those neo-con pundits on television.
2103. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 1:10:20 PM
"Actually, the criticism to which you refer comes largely from the neo-cons, and it is the same duality that occurred during the Cold War. It is called rhetorical icing. Thus, we propped up dictators and repressive regimes, downplaying their human rights abuses, while simultaneously opposing the Soviet Union and its internal and external repression. In our opposition, we often emphasized the cruelty of the Soviet union to its own people and the peoples of its satellite states.
You act as if the emphasis has changed. It has not. It is incongruous, but such is the nature of balancing interests and ideals. We targeted Iraq as butchers of Kuwait and threats to the great, noble people of Saudi Arabia".
This is complete nonsense. During the cold war, the actual neo-conservative argument -- not the politicians' rhetoric for consumption by the rabble -- was to accept Jeanne Kirkpatrick's moral distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships. The USA supported authoritarian dictatorships because they were open to reform and behaved much less atrociously than the totalitarian regimes supported by the USSR. The secondary neo-con argument (one which is embodied in books such as this one, for which yours truly was a research assistant) was that pro-American dictatorships were preferable to the alternative, which might be chaos or pro-Soviet dictatorships. The present US support for the dictatorships in the Middle East is merely a continuation of both those arguments, with "Islamist" substituted for "communist". In short, the neo-con argument claims to be principled and not cynical, Sickles's frenetic attempts to be a dignified "realist" analyst notwithstanding.
2104. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 1:10:43 PM
Message # 2096: "Actually, the criticism to which you refer comes largely from the neo-cons..."
I thought that's what I said.
"You are disturbingly enamored with this Chomskyite "Aha!", as if the hypocrisy is telling and new. It is neither."
Actually, Chomsky does what you do: say the rhetoric about democracy is for public consumption while the USA exercises its power to advance its own interests. The difference between the "national interest" right and the anti-nationalist left (which Chomsky embodies) is that the former thinks the "rhetorical icing" is good while the latter thinks it's bad.
I subscribe to neither. I openly support benevolent dictatorship in the Third World or at least Turkish-style controlled democracy in the Middle East.
"Moreover, you are setting up a faux dual standard, as if the poor, victimized Muslim world is somehow now getting the short end of the United States' inta-democracy stick as a result of American unfairness to Allah."
I am merely pointing out that the very people who subscribe to certain neo-con views criticise those countries for failing to be democracies.
By the way, in order to be a true Chomskyite, one has to be an American who hates America and believes that his own country is the source of all evil in the world, and that evil is perpetuated in the name of advancing corporate interests. The self-hatred and anti-nationalism are the keys.
2105. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 1:16:17 PM
Wombat
The 1776 Confederation was mature enough to broach democracy, which included, eventually, a constitution.
2106. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 1:20:51 PM
pseudo
In Message # 2096, Sickles does something which he is quite apt to do and which is highly reminiscent of when he babbled months ago about how the USA's exercise of "imperial" power was crucial to its material prosperity. It's a habit of appropriating left-wing rhetoric by a conservative. By candidly and cynically embracing certain left-wing arguments, a right-wing boob like Sickles can simulate sophisticated realism and transform himself into one of those neo-con pundits on television.
This from the chump who, while fronting for Islamist extremism, occasionally announces a credential like his love of the Shah, all while doing the heavy lifting of scrutinizing public consumption-ready rhetoric like "It is a war against the West."
2107. CalGal - 7/1/2002 1:25:33 PM
I am merely pointing out that the very people who subscribe to certain neo-con views criticise those countries for failing to be democracies.
But your observation is inaccurate, as has been noted by several.
2108. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 1:30:27 PM
pseudo
The USA supported authoritarian dictatorships because they were open to reform and behaved much less atrociously than the totalitarian regimes supported by the USSR. The secondary neo-con argument (one which is embodied in books such as this one, for which yours truly was a research assistant) was that pro-American dictatorships were preferable to the alternative, which might be chaos or pro-Soviet dictatorships. The present US support for the dictatorships in the Middle East is merely a continuation of both those arguments, with "Islamist" substituted for "communist". In short, the neo-con argument claims to be principled and not cynical, Sickles's frenetic attempts to be a dignified "realist" analyst notwithstanding.
The United States supported many an authoritarian dictatorship with only passing interest in reform, and your concept that the United States was choosing authoritarian regimes based on a standard of behavior less atrocious than those propped up by the Soviets is fanciful (we may have supported less cruel authoritarians, but we certainly didn't set Soviet choices as a bar).
Only when some of the cookies started to crumble (Nicaragua under Ortega is a good example) did the United States start to laud true democracy, a reasonable fallback position.
The neo-con argument always claims to be principled and not cynical, and the present support of authoritarian regimes in the Middle east is selective and colored by an understanding that many of those governed in the Middle East are by and large savages and thus, better controlled by authoritarian regimes.
The poll I linked on the mood of the Palestinians is an excellent example. When 2/3 support suicide bombings of any target, anywhere, it is understandable that one would be wary of democracy.
2109. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 1:31:42 PM
By the way, in order to be a true Chomskyite, one has to be an American who hates America and believes that his own country is the source of all evil in the world, and that evil is perpetuated in the name of advancing corporate interests. The self-hatred and anti-nationalism are the keys.
You are Chomskyite in style, not substance.
2110. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 1:34:37 PM
Message # 2106
"This from the chump who, while fronting for Islamist extremism...."
So you are now accusing me of being a supporter of Islamist extremism?
....occasionally announces a credential like his love of the Shah..."
I think I've been in the Fray-Mote for nearly six years (since August 1996). I can't count the number of times I've defended the Shah of Iran.
By the way, you've now accused me of being a Chomskyite twice. I can point you to a massive threat at the Guardian forum where in which I debate several dozen leftists who end up accusing me of being (1) a Zionist shill who ains to undermine the Palestinian cause; and (2) an imperialist stooge of the USA who wants to undermine ______, etc. How about that for more credentials announcements?
2111. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 1:35:29 PM
Message # 2106
"....all while doing the heavy lifting of scrutinizing public consumption-ready rhetoric like "It is a war against the West."
Well, I consider Pincher Martin the very opposite of the rabble who accepts public consumption rhetoric, yet he has defended that proposition. In fact, Daniel Pipes, the Middle East historian and pundit, constantly argues for that view. You're the only one who seems to think that it's a bone for the rabble.
Message # 2107
"But your observation is inaccurate, as has been noted by several."
It is accurate. I remember Andonly criticising Turkmenistan (or maybe some other Central Asian state) for not being a democracy.
2112. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 1:36:00 PM
In this debate about why Arabs are pissed at the US, I think Pseudo is missing a few key points, and is misunderstanding what I see as some sound arguments.
First, I think Pseudo's position is interesting because one of the first arguments I had with him in the Fray was over whether US support for tinpot dictators in Latin America was a strong cause of Anti-American sentiment there. He insisted that it wasn't, and that research on the sources of anti-Americanism pointed to other problems. He has evidently changed his mind (quite possible, as this was 6 years ago).
Pincher and Sickles are arguing that the US is involved everywhere, but the anti-American reaction is disproportionate in the Middle East. I think Pseudo is missing the point in his responses. While some recent US actions may be disproportionate to the middle east, such as the Gulf War, this doesn't explain *why* the Gulf War was unpopular with the Arab masses. After all, Iraq attacked another Arab state. The answer requires something more than just "well, the US attacked an Arab state", as Iraq did the same, but Hussein wasn't finding himself the victim of actions by Arab terrorists.
The point I believe Sickles and Pincher are making is that the reaction among the Arab masses is so disproportionate in response to actual US actions that it defies any simple statement that US actions the cause of the reaction.
2113. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 1:36:12 PM
continued
The US supports repressive regimes in Latin America in the 80s, and in the Middle East in the 90s. In the first instance, terrorist reaction exists, but is almost incidental (Hell, the Shining Path also bombed the Chinese Embassy, and the MRTA's big standoff was in the Japanese Ambassador's residence). But in response to Middle East policy, thousands get killed by dozens of terrorists willing to kill themselves to accomplish their goals.
This is not to say that US actions are irrelevant to the problem, but it is simplistic to say that the terrorist actions wouldn't have occurred if not for US policy, as many of the actions also wouldn't have occurred if there was not something unique about the Arab mindset.
2114. Wombat - 7/1/2002 1:37:30 PM
Sickles:
You are not in the same league with PE, as you continue to demonstrate. You have forgetten--if you ever knew--the difference between analysis and explanation (occasionally provocative, but always interesting and informative) on one side, and advocacy on the other.
2115. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 1:39:29 PM
pseudo
I'm accusing you of nothing but intellectual softness and unintentional shilling. And I've accused you of Chomskyite tactics.
Clearly, you hold no love for Chomskyite doctrine. The charge would be absurd.
2116. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 1:41:58 PM
Wombat
Don't kowtow to pseudo in his hour of need. I'm sure he doesn't need it. And it is unseemly.
2117. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 1:43:02 PM
Message # 2108
"The United States supported many an authoritarian dictatorship with only passing interest in reform, and your concept that the United States was choosing authoritarian regimes based on a standard of behavior less atrocious than those propped up by the Soviets is fanciful (we may have supported less cruel authoritarians, but we certainly didn't set Soviet choices as a bar)."
I was not speaking of the US government, but of the neoconservative argument. And the neocon argument certainly set the pro-Soviet regimes as a "bar".
"The United States supported many an authoritarian dictatorship with only passing interest in reform.....Only when some of the cookies started to crumble (Nicaragua under Ortega is a good example) did the United States start to laud true democracy, a reasonable fallback position."
I did not say that the USA had an active interest in reform, only that the neoconservative argument was that authoritarian dictatorships were open to reform.
Your claim is nonetheless FALSE. During the Cold War, the USA actively encouraged reforms in various countries, ranging from Taiwan & South Korea to Central America (El Salvador specifically) to the Philippines to South Africa to countless other places. Do you actually know anything?
Your remarks about the poll among Palestinians is a nonsequitur, as it responds not at all to any of my claims. By the way, where did you find that poll?
2118. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 1:45:43 PM
Message # 2109: You are Chomskyite in style, not substance."
Double standard arguments are commonplace, among the left and the right. It's hardly unique to Chomsky. You should read at least one thing written by him, just to get an idea of what he's like. Something short.
2119. jexster - 7/1/2002 1:46:25 PM
KABUL (Reuters) - At least 30 members of an Afghan wedding party were killed and many more wounded when a U.S. plane bombed a village in the central province of Uruzgan on Monday, Afghan officials and residents said.
The bombing happened at 1 a.m. Monday in a village in the rugged, mountainous region 105 miles northeast of the southern city of Kandahar, residents said. They told the local Pashtu service of the BBC at least 120 people had been either killed or wounded.
A Defense Ministry official said celebrants were firing into the air, as is traditional in Pashtun weddings.
"There was no-one to help last night," resident Abdul Saboor told the BBC. "We managed to transfer some of the wounded to Kandahar in the morning. Some of the foreigners' choppers also came to help.
"There are no Taliban or al Qaeda or Arabs here. These people were all civilians, women and children."
2120. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 2:04:50 PM
pseudo
I apologize for having batted you about like a small rubber ball. Perhaps you could bring up a subject that is better suited to your skills. In Movies, you could, again, discredit Pulp Fiction.
Your claim is nonetheless FALSE. During the Cold War, the USA actively encouraged reforms in various countries, ranging from Taiwan & South Korea to Central America (El Salvador specifically) to the Philippines to South Africa to countless other places. Do you actually know anything?
I'm happy to list the nations, but again, I have no interest in letting you spout generalized inanities or, worse, declare yourself offended as you waltz off.
Perhaps you should spend less time in half a dozen chat rooms proving your credentials and more time analyzing history.
One way would be to list, one by one, the countless authoritarian nations where the United States
1) encouraged democratic reform, explaining how that was done;
and
2) used the Soviet Union's authoritarian satellites as a gauge.
We can use 1945 to 1990 as the time period.
I've no doubt it was done. But for each example, I will provide you an example of the United States discouraging democratic reform and brazenly backing an authoritarian regime (at the expense of democratization) to further its interests.
2121. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 2:10:43 PM
Message # 2112: "First, I think Pseudo's position is interesting because one of the first arguments I had with him in the Fray was over whether US support for tinpot dictators in Latin America was a strong cause of Anti-American sentiment there. He insisted that it wasn't, and that research on the sources of anti-Americanism pointed to other problems."
I do very much recall having an argument perhaps three years ago with some in the international thread that Arab anti-Americanism would not diminish even if the Palestinian dispute were resolved. I do recall that.
What I recall about my views on Latin American anti-americanism was that its basic tenet -- that the USA caused Latin America's economic underdevelopment -- is fundamentally untrue and does not stand up to the least scrutiny. I do not recall saying specifically anything about anti-Americanism and US support for dictators.
"While some recent US actions may be disproportionate to the middle east, such as the Gulf War, this doesn't explain *why* the Gulf War was unpopular with the Arab masses. After all, Iraq attacked another Arab state. The answer requires something more than just "well, the US attacked an Arab state", as Iraq did the same, but Hussein wasn't finding himself the victim of actions by Arab terrorists."
I don't understand why that observation undermines my argument. The oil-rich Arabian peninsula sheikhdoms are deeply unpopular with the masses in the big Arab countries. The Gulf Arabs are simply hated. Saddam Hussein knew this when he invaded Kuwait and knew that booting out its corrupt royal family would have deep populist resonances.
2122. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 2:12:27 PM
Message # 2112: "The point I believe Sickles and Pincher are making is that the reaction among the Arab masses is so disproportionate in response to actual US actions that it defies any simple statement that US actions the cause of the reaction."
Message # 2113: "The US supports repressive regimes in Latin America in the 80s, and in the Middle East in the 90s. In the first instance, terrorist reaction exists, but is almost incidental... But in response to Middle East policy, thousands get killed by dozens of terrorists willing to kill themselves to accomplish their goals."
I think I've already addressed this. The major difference between your "incidental" terrorists and Islamist terrorists is that the latter are more willing to realise their hatred than others -- to the point of committing suicide. Moreover, they are better financed (thanks to Saudi Arabia) than most other terrorist groups elsewhere, to the point that they can strike in multiple continents and at targets far from home. Few terrorists have had such a reach.
"This is not to say that US actions are irrelevant to the problem, but it is simplistic to say that the terrorist actions wouldn't have occurred if not for US policy, as many of the actions also wouldn't have occurred if there was not something unique about the Arab mindset."
Well, I agree with the trivial proposition that 9/11 would probably not have happened if the terrorists didn't have a mindset which made them willing to commit suicide. But the less trivial proposition of mine is that their extreme action was in response to concrete & specific provocations (in their perception).
2123. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 2:12:55 PM
Message # 2115
"I'm accusing you of nothing but intellectual softness and unintentional shilling."
In the Mote, I get called an unintentional shill for Islamist terrorists.
At the Guardian I get called a "self-hating Muslim", an intentional "Zionist shill", and a "stooge of imperialism" who has "internalised his oppression and now believes that the imperialists and the Zionists" are better than me!
2124. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 2:14:45 PM
The Mote is a gentler place. I assume all of your faults are unintentional. But I expect you to strive for better.
2125. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 2:19:56 PM
pseudo
Birzeit Poll
2126. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 2:22:30 PM
Message # 2120
Sickles: The US role in the democratisation of Taiwan and South Korea, the easing-out of Marcos and the restoration of democracy, the sponsorship of elections during a civil war in El Salvador, etc. are all well known. The USA also encouraged restoration of democracy in Greece and Turkey.
"But for each example, I will provide you an example of the United States discouraging democratic reform and brazenly backing an authoritarian regime (at the expense of democratization) to further its interests."
Well, I don't know what the proportion would be between "reforms encouraged" and "reforms discouraged", but sometimes both happened in one country but at different times. For example, the USA at the very least encouraged a coup in Chile in 1973, but starting in mid 1980s the USA began pressuring the military government to begin restoring democracy. Pressures were sometimes exerted through conditions attached to US votes at the World Bank and the IMF. The plebscite held (and lost) by Pinochet emerged partly out of US encouragement.
2127. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 2:23:04 PM
The June 2002 poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre showed that a large majority - nearly seven out of 10 people - supported the suicide operations, about 60% of those expressing their "strong" support
2128. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 2:30:05 PM
What is so newsworthy about the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians support suicide operations against Israeli targets? Why wouldn't they?
2129. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 2:32:02 PM
(Hell, the Shining Path also bombed the Chinese Embassy, and the MRTA's big standoff was in the Japanese Ambassador's residence.)
Japan was a big big backer of Peru in the Fujimori years, and in the left-wing imagination Japan literally replaced America as the imperialist economic titan with a grip over the country. The Shining Path bombed the Chinese embassy because the PRC sold arms to Peru and because "it deviated from Maoism".
2130. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:33:56 PM
Why wouldn't they?
Perhaps they wouldn't if they realized that XX% of everyone else will resist the creation of a Palestinian state as long as they continue to support suicide bombings and terrorism..
2131. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:37:41 PM
XX% apparently being significant enough percentage to have thusfar reduced their leverage with the rest of the world in creating a P. state.
2132. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 2:37:55 PM
Pseudo:"I think I've already addressed this. The major difference between your "incidental" terrorists and Islamist terrorists is that the latter are more willing to realise their hatred than others -- to the point of committing suicide."
I think this is more than trivial, but there also seems to be a much greater frequency of terrorist acts, of greater ambition, which result in more American deaths.
"Moreover, they are better financed (thanks to Saudi Arabia) than most other terrorist groups elsewhere, to the point that they can strike in multiple continents and at targets far from home. Few terrorists have had such a reach."
But this simply asks a different question: why is there a much greater degree of financing? Why are Saudi Arabian bazillionaires willing to fund terrorist groups that bazillionaires in South Korea, Japan, Peru, Chile, Taiwan, Russia, India, etc. were not?
In most countries, the elites tend to support a status quo that has made them rich, and find it counterproductive to blow up their customers.
"Well, I agree with the trivial proposition that 9/11 would probably not have happened if the terrorists didn't have a mindset which made them willing to commit suicide. But the less trivial proposition of mine is that their extreme action was in response to concrete & specific provocations (in their perception)."
But the argument is that many of these "provocations" are not ones that are immediately understandable and rational. It is pretty easy to see why support for a regime (Israel) that is deemed oppressive to Arabs would make you unpopular among other Arabs. But the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia? Containment of Iraqi expansionism?
2133. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 2:38:04 PM
Hell, even the US position on Israel has become more pro-Palestinian in the past 10 years (we used to refuse to even talk to the PLO because of their stance on terrorism). Yet anti-American terrorism seems greater than it was several decades ago, when Israel wasn't just oppressing Palestinians - it was defeating Arab armies and seizing land.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism really jumps out at me here as an explanation for many of these curious exceptions in the Arab world, and I don't see strong arguments for saying that it is US actions that have led to the rise in fundamentalism.
2134. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 2:43:01 PM
"Japan was a big big backer of Peru in the Fujimori years, and in the left-wing imagination Japan literally replaced America as the imperialist economic titan with a grip over the country. The Shining Path bombed the Chinese embassy because the PRC sold arms to Peru and because "it deviated from Maoism". "
Yes, I know this. My point was that attacks on the US seem similarly incidental. It happened occasionally, but attacking the US doesn't seem to have really been a major priority of these terrorists groups, despite our support for the regimes they were fighting against.
2135. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 2:44:42 PM
psuedo
I'll meet your generalized list with one of my own. As you say, we destabilized democracy in Chile. We funded authoritarian military leaders in Liberia, Honduras, Nicaragua, et al. We propped up the Shah. We backed Duvalier in Haiti. We backed Suharto in Indonesia.
And your claims regarding Marcos are debatable. Yes, we encouraged democracy, but only when the writing was on the wall. Much like our support for democracy in Panama, it is not quite the entire picture to read the history from the ouster of Noriega.
Is the trend democratic? Yes. Is the democratic trend proof that we were working all along to inspire these nations to enact representtaive government? No. Is the democratic trend a lesson that democracy is appropriate in all areas? No. With the end of the Cold War, our reliance on dictatorship naturally declines.
In many nations in the Middle East, where your man on the street thinks Jackie Mason crashed the planes into the WTC, perhaps things are not quite ripe for democracy.
2136. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 2:50:30 PM
pseudo
What is so newsworthy about the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians support suicide operations against Israeli targets? Why wouldn't they?
I suspect it is statements like these that get you in so much trouble on your myriad other forums. But the figure (and I imagine it is replicated by men on the street in most Muslim countries) speaks not only to the danger of democratization (a democratization you lambaste the United States for denying the good people of the Muslim world) but the vast chasm that separates the Muslim and non-Muslim populations of nations with whom we are involved.
2137. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 3:04:28 PM
I said: "The rise of Islamic fundamentalism really jumps out at me here as an explanation for many of these curious exceptions in the Arab world, and I don't see strong arguments for saying that it is US actions that have led to the rise in fundamentalism."
I should also add that this too is not an immediate cause, as fundamentalism does not occur in a vacuum. My point is that many of the Arab grievances seem driven by concerns rooted in fundamentalist thinking, and that there are therefore two primary causes of anti-Americanism: 1) The immediate US policies that piss off the Arabs (I do see this as important). 2) The same socio-economic factors that are driving fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the more pernicious route to anti-Americanism, but it also seems that the underlying causes can create anti-Americanism without causing fundamentalism as well.
What are these causes? I can't claim immediate expertise, of course, but the ones Bernard Lewis mentions seem persuasive. I know you have pooh-poohed his essays as misinformed on several key points, but you were more successful at arguing that his thesis was incomplete than you were in arguing that he was wrong in identifying plausible causes of "Muslim rage" that did not stem from US policies toward the Middle East.
2138. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 3:31:01 PM
WHEN TO CODDLE BAD REGIMES, Cost Benefits by Lawrence F. Kaplan
2139. stostosto - 7/1/2002 4:47:31 PM
I do think the Islamists are like the Nazis in that their totalitarian ideology is a reactionary response to modernisation. What I don't agree to is the proposition that Islam as a religion, or Muslims in general are totalitarian. I still think Bush's finest hour as a President so far was his public appearance in an American Mosque with Ameircan top Muslim clerics, declaring that the WTC terrorists were not representatives of Islam, indeed their act was anathema to Islam.
2140. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 4:48:30 PM
Message # 2135: "In many nations in the Middle East...perhaps things are not quite ripe for democracy.
Why do you keep making this point? I never said they were ripe for democracy. I've said the opposite in fact.
Message # 2136: "But the figure...speaks not only to the danger of democratization (a democratization you lambaste the United States for denying the good people of the Muslim world)..."
???
I have never lambasted the USA for "denying" democracy to the peoples of the Muslim world. (The USA is not the one denying it, anyway.) Where do you get this idea? I have said exactly the opposite. I support the USA's support of Arab dictatorships. I am, in general, an opponent of democracy in the Third World and particularly the Middle East. Haven't I said this by now several times? I have recommended, at most, the sort of army-guided and -monitored quasi-democracy that Turkey has got (in which free elections are held to a parliament and the army stands in the background to restrict the government's actions within certain limits). Do you not remember the long discussions with Andonly et al. during the week before last about Islamism, liberalisation, democracy, Turkey, etc.?
"....But the figure...speaks not only to the danger of democratization but the vast chasm that separates the Muslim and non-Muslim populations of nations with whom we are involved..."
I don't think so. How does the Palestinian resistance differ in any substantive way from any other national resistance movement? National resistance movements use guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks against an occupation force. Well, the only difference is that Israel is a lot nicer than other governments which have faced (and decisvely crushed) national resistance movements.
2141. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 4:49:13 PM
Stostosto, are you participating in the discussion or saying something unrelated?
Message # 2135: Sickles, get back to me after you've read a book like
2142. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 4:49:50 PM
"(and I imagine it is replicated by men on the street in most Muslim countries)"
I think it would be replicated in Egypt and Jordan, but that's it.
2143. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 4:57:47 PM
I repeat to Sickles what I said to Pincher:
The complaint that the USA supports corrupt and dictatorial Arab regimes is not mine, not my complaint, not my grievance, but the complaint and grievance of most Muslims.
2144. stostosto - 7/1/2002 5:01:17 PM
Pseud, my #2139 was actually a reflection on Rask's comments about the nature of Islamic terrorism as opposed to other kinds of terrorism, and his remarks on the rise of fundamentalist Islam as a proximate cause requiring the existance of some root cause to do with Arab/Muslim social developments. That's where the Nazi analogy fits, I think. Modernisation, economic misery, a feeling of national/civilisational/cultural humiliation.
All these, PLUS Israel, and concrete American actions factor in.
2145. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 5:03:50 PM
I do agree that Sickles consistently seems to be confusing Pseudo's descriptions of Muslim grievances with an agreement with those grievances.
2146. stostosto - 7/1/2002 5:04:52 PM
Incidentally, the Gulf War was fought by a coalition with contributions from many countries, and Britain in particular has been highly active in backing USA in places like Iraq. But Britain doesn't seem to have become the object of general Muslim resentment to anything remotely the degree the USA has. Which points to Israel as the main focal point for Arab/Muslim anger.
2147. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:06:08 PM
psuedo
I think it would be replicated in Egypt and Jordan, but that's it.
The Men on the Arab Street
2148. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:11:40 PM
To the extent I have confused psuedo, it is because what he does state without equivocation is so pedestrian.
Yes, Muslims have grievances. As I believe Andonly said, so did O.J.
Yes, "hatred of the West" is not the sole source of Muslim antipathy. No one said it was, save for pseudo, as he reads political truism as gospel.
No, pseudo does not agree with Islamist excesses. No one has made the charge. Rather, the charge is that pseudo's contortions into making Islamist savagery just the rational response of any nation intertwined with the United States is so stupid as to arouse some suspicion.
2149. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:17:50 PM
The complaint that the USA supports corrupt and dictatorial Arab regimes is not mine, not my complaint, not my grievance, but the complaint and grievance of most Muslims.
This paints a picture of the majority of the Muslim world, wholly dissatisfied with their current leadership, directing their primary fury at the United States because the United States oppresses them through support of client shills. The people of Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and Kuwait, and Pakistan, desiring true democracy, which is muzzled by the U.S., with the help of Arab stooge leaders.
So, you see, this is what they discuss (very hush hush) when they're not talking about how the Jews rammed two planes into the WTC.
Your claim is pure fantasy.
2150. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 5:18:53 PM
Message # 2147: Where is the replication? The questions in that poll are not even the same as those asked of the Palestinians.
2151. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:23:39 PM
pseudo
The poll clearly shows that the man on the street is not concerned about the United States keeping him down by propping up authoritarian regimes.
Hell, almost 2/3 think Jews were flying the planes.
2152. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:27:41 PM
From the Institute for Counterterrorism
On January 9th, top representatives of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, joined a religious convention headed by the General Secretary of the Hizballah, Hassan Nasser Alla in Beirut. The conference was attended by Muslim clerics from Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Sudan, The Arab Emirates, Morocco, Algeria and Jordan. The next day, the participants issued an official declaration in support of suicide bombings against Israel, stating that “the suicide attacks against Israel are legitimate according to the Koran.” Suicide attacks, they stated, are “a strategic weapon which enable us to regain the strategic balance with the Zionist enemy”
Extremists, or representatives of the "man on the street" in Lebanon, the Sudan, The Arab Emirates, Morocco, Algeria and Jordan?
2153. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 5:31:09 PM
Message # 2151: "The poll clearly shows that the man on the street is not concerned about the United States keeping him down by propping up authoritarian regimes."
It does absolutely nothing of the kind. There was not a single question in the Gallup poll which touched on that issue.
Message # 2149: This paints a picture of the majority of the Muslim world, wholly dissatisfied with their current leadership, directing their primary fury at the United States because the United States oppresses them through support of client shills."
That picture is not a particularly controversial one. Majority of the people in the Muslim world are deeply dissatisfied with the regimes they're stuck with, and do criticise the USA for supporting those regimes. I see nothing wrong with the picture. It's true. And almost everybody seems to know this except you. I really would rather not argue with rank ignoramuses.
"The people of Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and Kuwait, and Pakistan, desiring true democracy, which is muzzled by the U.S., with the help of Arab stooge leaders."
Pakistan would not be included in this list if you knew anything. Pakistan has alternated between military regimes and actual democracy and Pakistanis don't blame the USA when their armed forces intervene.
2154. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 5:31:20 PM
But people in the Arab world definitely want "true" democracy, in the sense that they want a chance to boot out their regimes. Whether the elected government would permit free elections again, is another story.
The criticism of the US role in propping up Arab regimes varies from the lunatic-conspiratorial one in which the USA is solely responsible for foisting these unsavoury regimes on Arabs to less insane ones in which the USA is merely reproached for its close, supportive relationships with the like of Mubarak and the Saudi royal family.
"So, you see, this is what they discuss (very hush hush) when they're not talking about how the Jews rammed two planes into the WTC. "
That's right.
"Your claim is pure fantasy."
What the hell do you know other than what you read in the Weekly Standard.
2155. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 5:33:26 PM
Message # 2152
Extremists, or representatives of the "man on the street" in Lebanon, the Sudan, The Arab Emirates, Morocco, Algeria and Jordan?
Representative of average Jordanians and Egyptians with respect to Israeli targets.
2156. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:45:52 PM
pseudo
Look, I apologized if I've pantsed you once too often in this discussion, but your bloviate I really would rather not argue with rank ignoramuses really requires that you either put up or shut up. As you can't seem to shut up, and have lately been reduced to screaming in a shrill voice "I've read a book of essays! I've read a book of essay!", you'd do well to alter your style of communications.
As it is, you're theory of Muslim mass anger at the United States for propping up dictators who oppress them is groundless - unless you are talking about the Muslims who live in your beanie-wearing dorm.
2157. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:46:03 PM
pseudo
Look, I apologized if I've pantsed you once too often in this discussion, but your bloviate I really would rather not argue with rank ignoramuses really requires that you either put up or shut up. As you can't seem to shut up, and have lately been reduced to screaming in a shrill voice "I've read a book of essays! I've read a book of essay!", you'd do well to alter your style of communications.
As it is, you're theory of Muslim mass anger at the United States for propping up dictators who oppress them is groundless - unless you are talking about the Muslims who live in your beanie-wearing dorm.
2158. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 5:47:04 PM
And now, I apologize for the double post (though it is so well written it deserves to be read twice)
2159. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 5:47:05 PM
Message # 2044"
I write: ...that Muslim Somalis were to be the prime beneficiaries of an U.S. operation to feed them, or that Muslims in Eastern Europe would probably be an endangered species right now without U.S. intervention...."
PE writes: Yes, I agree. What do this have to do with anything?
Are we not discussing how responsible recent U.S. foreign policy actions towards Muslims are in explaining the high level of hatred they have for the country?
Your response here suggests Muslims only register negative marks in the ledger (U.S. troops stationed in the Holy Land, U.S. sanctions towards Iraq), but that positive marks (feeding starving African Muslims, saving European Muslims from genocide) don't count in balancing their perceptions.
Message # 2045
It is irrelevant to my point that radical Islamists are more willing than other anti-American elements, to translate their hatred into anti-American violence. That fact does address the fact that anti-American violence has not occurred in the absence of provocation. Without that provocation it wouldn't exist, is my point.
It is not irrelevant to your point; it is the basis for knowing whether you even have a point.
It is childish to say that if the U.S. didn't exist as a great power, there would be no Muslim animus towards it. That still does not explain whether U.S. foreign policy has been a "provocation." When you use the word "provoke" your suggestion is that the victim's response is proportionate -- even judicious -- given the action that was done to him.
continued ... 2160. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 5:48:07 PM
You have argued that U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East represent "concrete" actions which have "provoked" anti-American elements in the region.
You've also argued that recent U.S. actions in the Middle East are of a scale much different than its actions in other parts of the globe and suggest that the terrorism there is not much different from terrorism that has taken place elsewhere, at other times.
But my argument is that American actions in the region (and towards Muslims in general) have on the whole been balanced, moderate, and -- if those actions had taken place elsewhere -- would not have "provoked" such a strong reaction.
I would also argue that most of the hatred towards the U.S. and Israel that you speak of, rather than being based on "concrete" actions, is no less idealized and general than many Muslims' hatred of the West.
The Pals definitely have a "concrete" reason to be angry with Israelis (that does not make their strategy of support for suicide bombers correct, appropriate, or moral, however). The average Iraqis (especially opposition groups that were left out to dry after the war) also have a "concrete" reason to be upset at their treatment by the U.S.
But the majority of people who traveled to Afghanistan to join bin Laden's campaign were given no more of a concrete provocation to declare war on the United States than was John Walker Lindh or Timothy McVeigh. Their hatred of the U.S. was ideological -- it was enough that infidels were in the Holy Land. Concrete reasons were supplied later.
2161. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 5:58:42 PM
Message # 2045
I write:
Indeed in many other areas around the world, the U.S. is disliked, even hated. But only in the Muslim world has this hatred manifested itself into a cultural-wide movement that attracts so many people, who generally loathe the West..., and are willing to do almost anything to hurt U.S. interests. You say look to U.S. actions to understand Muslim rage; I say look to the Muslims themselves."
PE responds: Besides, your claim is not totally true. Non-Muslim, left-wing terrorists have also attacked US targets. During the 1980s, there were American businessmen, soldiers and diplomats killed or kidnapped in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Germany by left-wing extremists.
Irrelevant. I never argued that Muslims were the only ones to commit terrorist attacks. But for at least the last twenty years, and probably longer, Muslims have been disproportionately involved in terrorist attacks (against the U.S. and Europe, and against Israel). The rest of the globe's terrorists simply can't keep up. Are you now going to argue that the U.S.'s provocations in the Middle East during that time outweigh those in the rest of the world combined? 2162. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 6:05:16 PM
It appears pseudo is now arguing that the disproportionate terrorism is because the United States is backing "the man" in so many Muslim countries.
2163. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 6:18:42 PM
Actually, I disagree with Pincher's and Sickles's argument that US "involvement [in Muslim countries] is no more than it has been in numerous other regions around the world, and it is less than many others". Yes, the USA is literally involved everywhere, from Latin America to Western Europe to the former Soviet Union to East Asia. But since the end of the Cold War, American intervention & involvement in the Middle East has been more intense and (in the perception of Muslims) less benevolent than in any other region.
Your parenthetical "in the perception of Muslims" is ridiculous. Yes, I'm sure Muslims in the Middle East think the U.S. has got it out for them, and picks on their region more than any other. The question is whether their thoughts have any relationship to reality. They don't.
During the Cold War, the U.S. has been more intensely involved in Europe and East Asia, and probably in Latin America as well, than it has been in the Middle East. In that time, far more East Asians than Arabs or Muslims have died as a result of U.S. intervention, and the U.S. has interfered in more Latin American countries than Muslim nations (even though they are approximately the same in number). Until this last decade, the Middle East was one of the few places on the globe the U.S. did not permanently station troops. Everywhere else, people can complain of a longer and more visible U.S. military presence.
2164. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 7:02:24 PM
Message # 2059
I think Pincher Martin is totally confused....
The overthrow of Mossadegh, the Gulf War, the Iraq sanctions, the unconditional support of Israel, the support of Arab dictators, etc. are not my grievances. They are the grievances of the majority of Muslims, whether moderate or radical.
My argument has been that Islamist terrorists have specific and concrete grievances against the USA -- not that those grievances are legitimate. Pincher does not need to defend US actions in the Middle East, because I am not criticising them (well, at least not all of them). Pincher should stick to the argument about whether real and specific grievances exist, or whether terrorism occurs as a psychological manifestation of deep-seated general hostility to the West. I think it's the former, not the latter.
You're right. I'm totally confused.
How am I to square this post with your argument just a few months ago that the U.S. hadn't gotten anything right with its foreign policy since prior to the Vietnam War?
But regardless of how you feel now about U.S. foreign policy, your arguments seem to be giving credence to the majority of Muslims' feelings about the U.S. That is, the U.S. is intrusive, unfair, and more intensely involved in the Middle East than it should be, and that if the U.S. was not this way, its actions would not be "provoking" Middle East terrorist groups to act against it.
2165. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:43:26 PM
Message # 2132: "...why is there a much greater degree of financing? Why are Saudi Arabian bazillionaires willing to fund terrorist groups that bazillionaires in South Korea, Japan, Peru, Chile, Taiwan, Russia, India, etc. were not? ."
It's not so much that Saudi billionaires have decided to target the USA. That's not true. But the Saudi government, as a way of deflecting the Islamist ire away from itself, has funded extremist Wahabbi institutions (schools, relief agencies, missionaries, etc.) abroad. Islamists use this network for recuitment and terrorist operations.
All of America's ostensible allies in the Middle East have encouraged their home-grown Islamists to go abroad -- whether Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Algeria or the Balkans. Anywhere but home where they would be a threat to the established order. With the exception of Syria, none of the Arab regimes have had the courage to comprehensively extirpate the Islamist movements in their own countries, unlike (say) the military juntas in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s most of whom avidly exterminated communists (and many thousands of innocent non-communist leftists).
"But the argument is that many of these "provocations" are not ones that are immediately understandable and rational. It is pretty easy to see why support for a regime (Israel) that is deemed oppressive to Arabs would make you unpopular among other Arabs. But the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia? Containment of Iraqi expansionism?"
Why is that not understandable? Stationing of troops (in radical Islamist eyes) is sacrilegious. And few people in the Middle East (except in gulf sheikhdoms) viewed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as expansionism. Millions of Arabs cheered when the Kuwaiti royal family was booted out.
2166. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:43:38 PM
Message # 2133: "Hell, even the US position on Israel has become more pro-Palestinian in the past 10 years (we used to refuse to even talk to the PLO because of their stance on terrorism). Yet anti-American terrorism seems greater than it was several decades ago, when Israel wasn't just oppressing Palestinians - it was defeating Arab armies and seizing land."
There was nothing as dramatic as 9/11 three decades ago, that is true. But terrorist incidents against US targets were at least as numerous in the 1970s and 1980s as they have been in the 1990s and in this decade.
"The rise of Islamic fundamentalism really jumps out at me here as an explanation for many of these curious exceptions in the Arab world...."
I still don't see what these curious exceptions are, except that Islamist terrorists seem more determined and more willing to translate their hatred into action. I'm sure that's due to their religiosity.
"I don't see strong arguments for saying that it is US actions that have led to the rise in fundamentalism."
I have never argued that US actions have led to the growth of fundamentalism.
2167. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:45:41 PM
Message # 2137: My point is that many of the Arab grievances seem driven by concerns rooted in fundamentalist thinking, and that there are therefore two primary causes of anti-Americanism...."
I haven't counted or anything, but I think the majority of the terrorist acts with Middle Eastern origins or connexions committed in the last 40 years have been committed by non-Islamist, left-wing terrorists, i.e. secular but radical Palestinian nationalists with Marxist or other left-wing leanings.
"....that there are therefore two primary causes of anti-Americanism....2) The same socio-economic factors that are driving fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the more pernicious route to anti-Americanism, but it also seems that the underlying causes can create anti-Americanism without causing fundamentalism as well."
Correct. But I think this supports my case, not yours.
Islamic fundamentalism emerged as the ideology of Arab discontent only after Arab nationalism (of the Nasserite and Baathist varieties) failed to produce the external victories promised the Arab masses, and after Arab socialism failed as Arab economies began their long stagnation in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
2168. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:46:03 PM
Arab nationalism was aimed principally at British and French "imperialism" and Zionism. After all, British and French imperialism (the literal kind, not the metaphorical kind) was still fresh in Middle Eastern memories in those decades. Britain and France, in conjunction with Israel, invaded Egypt in 1956. And France -- not the USA -- was the principal benefactor and supporter of Israel before 1967. Middle Eastern anti-westernism in the 1950s and 1960s meant in practise anti-Britishism, anti-Frenchism and anti-Zionism.
But after 1967, anti-Americanism emerges vividly as the USA became the western power principally involved in Middle Eastern affairs. By contrast, France manages a rapprochement with the Arab world and backs off from its previously strong support of Israel. Since then Middle Eastern anti-Frenchism is significantly diminished.
2169. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:47:13 PM
"....What are these causes? I can't claim immediate expertise, of course, but the ones Bernard Lewis mentions seem persuasive. I know you have pooh-poohed his essays as misinformed on several key points, but you were more successful at arguing that his thesis was incomplete than you were in arguing that he was wrong in identifying plausible causes of "Muslim rage" that did not stem from US policies toward the Middle East."
Well, I don't think there is even a phenomenon which requires his argument as an explanation. Lewis cites numerous grievances that Muslims have but simply dismisses them and concludes, "Clearly, something deeper is involved than these specific grievances". I disagree. His dismissals of the various grievances he himself cites (the Palestinian issue, the support of Arab dictatorships, imperialism & colonialism, etc.) are pathetic. In order to find his argument for "something deeper" persuasive, you must first be persuaded by his dismissal of the grievances. What do you find persuasive about it? I repeat something because Lewis himself mentions: the French did leave Algeria and did stop supporting Israel. The violently & predominantly anti-French (and anti-British) attitude manifest in the 1950s and 1960s is mostly gone today, except when French or British troops involve themselves in local affairs, such as in Lebanon in 1983. (Along with US marines killed that year in Beirut, French paratroops were also killed. But both were taking sides in the Lebanese civil war.)
2170. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:49:35 PM
Message # 2148
"To the extent I have confused psuedo, it is because what he does state without equivocation is so pedestrian. Yes, Muslims have grievances. As I believe Andonly said, so did O.J."
I think OJ's grievances were a bit less substantial than the Gulf war, the Iraq sanctions, Palestinian occupation & dispossession, and the support of Arab dictatorships. One can argue those things are reasonable, but their reasonableness can be disputed. Their reasonableness is not self-evident.
"Yes, "hatred of the West" is not the sole source of Muslim antipathy. No one said it was, save for pseudo, as he reads political truism as gospel."
I'm saying it is not at all the source.
"Rather, the charge is that pseudo's contortions into making Islamist savagery just the rational response of any nation intertwined with the United States...."
I haven't done that either. I have said on many occasions that radical Islamist terrorists differ from other anti-American elements in being more willing to realise their hatred.
Is there some argument of mine which does not get transmogrified in your gentle hands?
2171. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:50:22 PM
Message # 2157: "As you can't seem to shut up, and have lately been reduced to screaming in a shrill voice "I've read a book of essays! I've read a book of essay!", you'd do well to alter your style of communications. As it is, you're theory of Muslim mass anger at the United States for propping up dictators who oppress them is groundless - unless you are talking about the Muslims who live in your beanie-wearing dorm."
Sickles, let's get one thing straight. That Muslims denounce the USA for propping up dictators who oppress them is not my theory, and it is very far from groundless. It is an elementary truism of Middle East politics. (You can read about it in Bernard Lewis, for example.) Now, while it may comfort you, who have never even been abroad let alone to a Muslim country, to believe that I retrieve such information from "books of essays", but my knowledge is both academic and directly experiential. As for my living arrangements, I think you are about 15 years behind, since I haven't lived in a dormitory since 1987. What's a beanie?
2172. transient1a - 7/1/2002 7:50:50 PM
Maybe it would be helpful to get some more insight into terrorism?
Here is a good in-depth survey:
THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY? (1997)
Note -- as of 1997:
The world leaders in terrorist suicide attacks are not the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Tamils of Sri Lanka. The LTTE's track record for suicide attacks is unrivaled. Its suicide commandos have blown up the prime ministers of two countries (India and Sri Lanka), celebrities, at least one naval battleship, and have regularly used suicide to avoid capture as well as simply a means of protest. LTTE terrorists do not dare not to carry out their irrevocable orders to use their cyanide capsules if captured. No fewer than 35 LTTE operatives committed suicide to simply avoid being questioned by investigators in the wake of the Gandhi assassination. Attempting to be circumspect, investigators disguised themselves as doctors in order to question LTTE patients undergoing medical treatment, but, Vijay Karan (1997:46) writes about the LTTE patients, "Their reflexes indoctrinated to react even to the slightest suspicion, all of them instantly popped cyanide capsules." Two were saved only because the investigators forcibly removed the capsules from their mouths, but one investigator suffered a severe bite wound on his hand and had to be hospitalized for some time.
2173. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:51:26 PM
Message # 2159: "Your response here suggests Muslims only register negative marks in the ledger (U.S. troops stationed in the Holy Land, U.S. sanctions towards Iraq), but that positive marks (feeding starving African Muslims, saving European Muslims from genocide) don't count in balancing their perceptions."
Two responses. (1) "Positive marks" don't cancel the "negative marks". I repeat something earlier: if Sickles raped and murdered your daughter, would you cancel that "negative mark" if Sickles then saved your other daughter from a burning house? (2) Arab Muslims are more concerned about other Arab Muslims (Palestinians, Iraqis, etc.) than about European and African Muslims.
"It is childish to say that if the U.S. didn't exist as a great power, there would be no Muslim animus towards it."
That's not what I said.
I'm saying that if the USA weren't unconditionally supporting Israel and weren't complicit in the killing of Palestinians, hadn't bombed Iraq into the stone age (which is the perception Muslims have through their media), weren't killing children by the thousands with ruinous sanctions (again, another widespread perception, not just in the Muslim world), weren't supporting corrupt Arab regimes for oil -- in short, if the US policies weren't so injurious to Muslim welfare (and particularly Muslim Arab welfare) -- then there would be no Muslim animus toward the USA, perhaps except for some small fringe elements.
I repeat these are NOT my views, but what I think are pretty faithful representations of the majority Muslim opinion, particularly in the Arab world and Pakistan.
2174. transient1a - 7/1/2002 7:52:34 PM
Maybe it would be helpful to get some more insight into terrorism?
Here is a good in-depth survey:
THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY? (1997)
Note -- as of 1997:
The world leaders in terrorist suicide attacks are not the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Tamils of Sri Lanka. The LTTE's track record for suicide attacks is unrivaled. Its suicide commandos have blown up the prime ministers of two countries (India and Sri Lanka), celebrities, at least one naval battleship, and have regularly used suicide to avoid capture as well as simply a means of protest. LTTE terrorists do not dare not to carry out their irrevocable orders to use their cyanide capsules if captured. No fewer than 35 LTTE operatives committed suicide to simply avoid being questioned by investigators in the wake of the Gandhi assassination. Attempting to be circumspect, investigators disguised themselves as doctors in order to question LTTE patients undergoing medical treatment, but, Vijay Karan (1997:46) writes about the LTTE patients, "Their reflexes indoctrinated to react even to the slightest suspicion, all of them instantly popped cyanide capsules." Two were saved only because the investigators forcibly removed the capsules from their mouths, but one investigator suffered a severe bite wound on his hand and had to be hospitalized for some time.
2175. transient1a - 7/1/2002 7:53:08 PM
Maybe it would be helpful to get some more insight into terrorism?
Here is a good in-depth survey:
THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY? (1997)
Note -- as of 1997:
The world leaders in terrorist suicide attacks are not the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Tamils of Sri Lanka. The LTTE's track record for suicide attacks is unrivaled. Its suicide commandos have blown up the prime ministers of two countries (India and Sri Lanka), celebrities, at least one naval battleship, and have regularly used suicide to avoid capture as well as simply a means of protest. LTTE terrorists do not dare not to carry out their irrevocable orders to use their cyanide capsules if captured. No fewer than 35 LTTE operatives committed suicide to simply avoid being questioned by investigators in the wake of the Gandhi assassination. Attempting to be circumspect, investigators disguised themselves as doctors in order to question LTTE patients undergoing medical treatment, but, Vijay Karan (1997:46) writes about the LTTE patients, "Their reflexes indoctrinated to react even to the slightest suspicion, all of them instantly popped cyanide capsules." Two were saved only because the investigators forcibly removed the capsules from their mouths, but one investigator suffered a severe bite wound on his hand and had to be hospitalized for some time.
2176. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:53:27 PM
Message # 2159: "When you use the word "provoke" your suggestion is that the victim's response is proportionate -- even judicious -- given the action that was done to him."
No, I don't think I'm suggesting that at all. But no doubt many do think it's proportionate. What is proportionate and "judicious" is subjective.
Message # 2160: "But my argument is that American actions in the region (and towards Muslims in general) have on the whole been balanced, moderate..."
Of course you would. You're a patriotic American. But why would Arabs, who are bombed, dispossessed and occupied, perceive those actions as moderate and balanced?
Those actions may indeed be outcomes of reasonable courses of action taken, but the reasonableness is hardly the self-evident thing you seem to make it to be.
".....and -- if those actions had taken place elsewhere --would not have "provoked" such a strong reaction."
So your argument is that while others take it quietly and lying down, Muslims don't. I can agree with that to some extent. But....
The vast majority of the terrorist acts which have taken place in the past have been outside the USA and much less dramatic than 9/11. With the exception of 9/11, which other terrorist acts committed by Islamists were so much "stronger" than non-Islamist terrorist attacks? Why is the attack on the US marines by Hizballah in Lebanon -- which the USA clearly had provoked by taking a side in the Lebanese civil war and shelling the Shiite positions in the mountains -- to be considered such a "strong reaction" while (say) the Japanese Red Army attack on the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur less strong?
2177. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:57:54 PM
Message # 2160: "I would also argue that most of the hatred towards the U.S. and Israel that you speak of, rather than being based on "concrete" actions, is no less idealized and general than many Muslims' hatred of the West. The Pals definitely have a "concrete" reason to be angry with Israelis..... The average Iraqis...also have a "concrete" reason to be upset at their treatment by the U.S. But the majority of people who traveled to Afghanistan to join bin Laden's campaign were given no more of a concrete provocation to declare war on the United States than was John Walker Lindh or Timothy McVeigh. Their hatred of the U.S. was ideological -- it was enough that infidels were in the Holy Land. Concrete reasons were supplied later."
This is reminiscent of the discussion about ethnic conflict a while back. You can understand Palestinian anger at Israelis but can't understand why other Arabs would be so pissed off. I've never understood your inability to understand. Non-Palestinian Arabs see Palestinian Arabs dispossessed, occupied and killed by Israelis. Non-Palestinian Arabs see Iraqi Arabs killed by US bombing. Those are concrete. Also, in the radical Islamist's mind, US troop presence in the holy land is concrete.
2178. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:58:56 PM
"The world leaders in terrorist suicide attacks are not the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Tamils of Sri Lanka. The LTTE's track record for suicide attacks is unrivaled."
I've pointed this out myself, but no one noticed.
2179. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:59:45 PM
Message # 2161: "But for at least the last twenty years, and probably longer, Muslims have been disproportionately involved in terrorist attacks (against the U.S. and Europe, and against Israel). The rest of the globe's terrorists simply can't keep up."
I am not disputing this necessarily, but are you basing your claim on hard numbers? I wonder what happens to the data if you leave out anti-Israel terrorism. I wager your "disproportionate involvement" evaporates. I suggest this because of the following. According to the State Department's "patterns of global terrorism" report for 1999, out of the 169 counted terrorist attacks against US targets, 91 of them took place in Colombia. Most of the rest were divided among Greece, Nigeria and Yemen.
2180. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 7:59:59 PM
Message # 2163: During the Cold War, the U.S. has been more intensely involved in Europe and East Asia, and probably in Latin America as well, than it has been in the Middle East. In that time, far more East Asians than Arabs or Muslims have died as a result of U.S. intervention, and the U.S. has interfered in more Latin American countries than Muslim nations (even though they are approximately the same in number). Until this last decade, the Middle East was one of the few places on the globe the U.S. did not permanently station troops. Everywhere else, people can complain of a longer and more visible U.S. military presence."
I have argued that once malevolent intervention/involvement ends, the animus either stops or dwindles. This was the case with France and Britain. You used to have Arab attacks
The USA left Vietnam and the Vietnamese had the satisfaction of humiliating the USA. Why should the Vietnamese be blowing up US targets now? I'm sure the Viet Cong would have loved to bomb the USA during the war itself if they could, but why would they want to do it now? The South Koreans were literally saved by the USA and their fantastic prosperity is made possible, in part, by continued US defence. Why should South Koreans blow up US targets? Vietnam is an intervention long past, and the outcome of the Korean war is regarded as benevolent by the majority of South Koreans.
2181. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 8:00:31 PM
Message # 2164: "You're right. I'm totally confused. How am I to square this post with your argument just a few months ago that the U.S. hadn't gotten anything right with its foreign policy since prior to the Vietnam War?"
No, I said specifically that the USA has botched every military intervention since before the Vietnam war. I never said its whole foreign policy was wrong. The Vietnam war itself, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and the Gulf War were all botched. But the goals in each of those military interventions were worthy ones.
I listed several grievances held by Muslims -- unconditional support for Israel, support for corrupt dictatorships, the Gulf war, and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. I myself hold none of them as blameworthy policies, except that I think US policy toward Israel could be more balanced.
So what is there to square? There is no contradiction between those two passages.
2182. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 8:09:20 PM
You can understand Palestinian anger at Israelis but can't understand why other Arabs would be so pissed off. I've never understood your inability to understand. Non-Palestinian Arabs see Palestinian Arabs dispossessed, occupied and killed by Israelis. Non-Palestinian Arabs see Iraqi Arabs killed by US bombing. Those are concrete.
Here you are, speaking of the glorious Arab unity of mind and purpose in their struggle, and not two days ago, you were trying to convince everyone how diverse the purposes were of the various Arab terrorist networks.
I can understand why non-Palestinian Arabs would be upset and unhappy about U.S support for Israel. But like it or not, that is not what cause many of them to head for the hills to declare war on the U.S.
Also, in the radical Islamist's mind, US troop presence in the holy land is concrete.
Yes, it's concrete, but it's also trivial. Most anyone else would not consider the invitation by one country for another country's troops to provide for its protection to be worthy of jihad.
2183. transient1a - 7/1/2002 8:10:26 PM
Maybe something wrong with IE 6.0.26. It appeared that I could not post. So sorry for 3 posts.
(Netscape 6.2.3 seems to work much better than IE.)
pseudoerasmus,
Sorry I missed what you said. Unfortunately no time to read everything.
Hope you find the research paper both interesting and useful.
2184. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 8:15:52 PM
pseudo
Sickles, let's get one thing straight. That Muslims denounce the USA for propping up dictators who oppress them is not my theory, and it is very far from groundless. It is an elementary truism of Middle East politics. (You can read about it in Bernard Lewis, for example.) Now, while it may comfort you, who have never even been abroad let alone to a Muslim country, to believe that I retrieve such information from "books of essays", but my knowledge is both academic and directly experiential.
Your knowledge and experience have failed you in this instance. But I'm certainly receptive to any other sources suggesting that United States propping of Muslim authoritarian regimes is a prime engine of Islamist terrorism and anti-United States sentiment, which was your claim (I now note that you have revised that claim and toned down your language - no longer do the majority of Muslims denounce the USA for propping up dictators who oppress them, just some Muslims).
As it is so widespread a concept that it has earned the moniker of philosophy and you've cited Lewis, a link should not be difficult to find (not a link to the fact that some Muslims, somewhere bitch about it, but something that reflects your more bold insistence that U.S. support for Muslim tyrants is a primary factors in anti-U.S. sentiment).
In short, I offer you the opportunity to provide more than your pedigree and a travelogue.
As for my living arrangements, I think you are about 15 years behind, since I haven't lived in a dormitory since 1987. What's a beanie?
A beanie is the kind of thing an undergrad had to wear at tony Ivy League colleges. Many had propellers on the top. Invariably, these same beanie wearers would wax on for a long time and persistently insist that all who address their unclear arguments simply misunderstood them.
2185. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 8:16:25 PM
I'm saying that if the USA weren't unconditionally supporting Israel and weren't complicit in the killing of Palestinians, hadn't bombed Iraq into the stone age (which is the perception Muslims have through their media), weren't killing children by the thousands with ruinous sanctions (again, another widespread perception, not just in the Muslim world), weren't supporting corrupt Arab regimes for oil -- in short, if the US policies weren't so injurious to Muslim welfare (and particularly Muslim Arab welfare) -- then there would be no Muslim animus toward the USA, perhaps except for some small fringe elements.
Perceptions are important, but you give them too much unqualified weight. Your argument for whether the U.S. actions "provoked" Arab terrorism now comes down to a simple argument of that's what the Arab terrorists claim.
Fine, but who gives a shit. What is far more interesting is to understand why such actions caused the terrorism, when similar actions in other regions don't cause such a fierce reaction.
2186. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 8:20:44 PM
Fine, but who gives a shit. What is far more interesting is to understand why such actions caused the terrorism, when similar actions in other regions don't cause such a fierce reaction.
Good point, and moves us off of the "U.S. bad to us" conundrum.
Presume we fuck everybody, and everybody has a legitimate grievance.
Why are the Muslims so psychotic? Education? Religion? Pipes' idea that they are historically bitter?
Surely, pseudo, you don't rest with the answer that the Muslim response is so vicious solely because of the greater injustice done to the Muslim world.
2187. CalGal - 7/1/2002 8:21:20 PM
You can understand Palestinian anger at Israelis but can't understand why other Arabs would be so pissed off. I've never understood your inability to understand.
It's not all that natural for Americans--or any Westerners--to side with a situation based on which side is white/Western.
2188. PincherMartin - 7/1/2002 8:22:05 PM
PE --
No, I said specifically that the USA has botched every military intervention since before the Vietnam war. I never said its whole foreign policy was wrong....
So what is there to square? There is no contradiction between those two passages.
You're correct. I'm wrong on this point.
On most of the other points you've brought up in this series of posts, however, you are either wrong or off the main point. I will respond to them later.
2189. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 8:24:29 PM
Message # 2185
"Perceptions are important, but you give them too much unqualified weight. Your argument for whether the U.S. actions "provoked" Arab terrorism now comes down to a simple argument of that's what the Arab terrorists claim."
??? Not at all. You seem to think US interventions/involvements in the Middle East have been unequivocally reasonable and indisputably benevolent, but that's disputable by reasonable people. The Muslim grievances I've listed are not implausible. They are not dependent solely on perceptions which are rejected by everybody else.
"What is far more interesting is to understand why such actions caused the terrorism, when similar actions in other regions don't cause such a fierce reaction."
See Message # 2180.
2190. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 8:26:07 PM
Message # 2182
"Here you are, speaking of the glorious Arab unity of mind and purpose in their struggle, and not two days ago, you were trying to convince everyone how diverse the purposes were of the various Arab terrorist networks."
What does the ethnic-national identification an Egyptian has with a Palestinian have to do with the diversity of various Arab terrorist networks?
"I can understand why non-Palestinian Arabs would be upset and unhappy about U.S support for Israel. But like it or not, that is not what cause many of them to head for the hills to declare war on the U.S."
I don't think any one policy causes them to do so. It is an accumulation of US actions, the most prominent of which is the unconditional support of Israel.
But in the case of Egyptians, who are obsessed with the Palestinian issue and who identify with it more than other non-Palestinian Arabs, that single issue is precisely what makes them head for the hills. Their animosity is aggravated by the fact that the very government they perceive to be corrupted beyond redemption and supported by the USA, has made peace with Israel. Ayman Zawahiri, bin Ladin's #2, if you recall, is an Egyptian who was involved in the Sadat assassination.
2191. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 8:32:05 PM
Message # 2186
"Presume we fuck everybody, and everybody has a legitimate grievance. Why are the Muslims so psychotic? Education? Religion? Pipes' idea that they are historically bitter? Surely, pseudo, you don't rest with the answer that the Muslim response is so vicious solely because of the greater injustice done to the Muslim world."
Past US interventions around the world, to the extent that they were perceived as malevolent, are no longer around. The USA isn't in Vietnam anymore. The USA doesn't send in the marines to seize Mexican oil wells anymore. The Korean war is perceived by most Koreans as a good thing. The only place where the US continues to intervene in a manner which is actively disliked by the locals, is the Middle East.
2192. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 8:38:57 PM
None of which answers the question. Moreover, assign percentages, since you will be unable to provide citations to any authority suggesting that most Muslims harbor anti-United States feelings because the United States props up the dictators of Muslim nations and such support is the primary source of Muslim antipathy to the the United States.
Source of Antipathy
Defeating Iraq ___%
Sanctions against Iraq ____%
Support of Israel _____%
Religious zeal ______%
Cultural differences ____%
Poor education ____%
Anger over the U.S. propping up Muslim dictators _____% (please name the puppert dictators as well)
Historical disappointment (the Pipes argument) ______%
Other _____%
2193. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 8:39:26 PM
Message # 2184
"(I now note that you have revised that claim and toned down your language - no longer do the majority of Muslims denounce the USA for propping up dictators who oppress them, just some Muslims).
Not only do I still say the majority, but I would not dispute them if claims were made that 90% of Muslims criticise the the USA for "propping up dictators who oppress them".
As for your request for some sources, I will entertain it if someone else makes it (Calgal doesn't count).
2194. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 8:43:01 PM
pseudo
No need for the sources (or an answers to 2192). That you look silly is largely your fault, but I feel poorly having apparently forced you into petulance. For your own good, have some fortitude, keep your word (which eludes, as does making an intelligible argument) and resist discussion with me.
I'm content to watch Pincher and Andonly reveal your thin intellect.
2195. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 8:43:45 PM
Message # 2192: "....suggesting that most Muslims harbor anti-United States feelings because the United States props up the dictators of Muslim nations and such support is the primary source of Muslim antipathy to the the United States."
Haven't I always listed grievances as a list of several? Where have I ever said that one particular grievance (US support of Arab dictatorships) is the "primary source of Muslim antipathy to the the United States"? It's one of the grievances.
2196. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 8:47:19 PM
Oh Lord.
2197. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 9:02:45 PM
I will be gone from the Mote until 8 July or so.
2198. Andonly - 7/1/2002 9:45:46 PM
CG: "But your observation [neocons get pious about democracy] is inaccurate, as has been noted by several."
PE: "It is accurate. I remember Andonly criticising Turkmenistan (or maybe some other Central Asian state) for not being a democracy."
You are confused. I have never criticized Turkmenistan for not being a democracy. And in any case, "criticizing" any given country "for not being a democracy" offers no evidence to support your claim that neocons here are "pious" about democracy. Also, despite a certain hawkishness (probably born of my sojourn in Philadelphia), I am not quite a neocon.
2199. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 9:55:37 PM
Pseudo:
"It's not so much that Saudi billionaires have decided to target the USA. That's not true. But the Saudi government, as a way of deflecting the Islamist ire away from itself, has funded extremist Wahabbi institutions (schools, relief agencies, missionaries, etc.) abroad. Islamists use this network for recuitment and terrorist operations."
You keep dinking around with intermediate causes instead of getting to primary causes. Where does Islamism come from? As we both agree that the US isn't to blame for fundamentalism, let us focus on these causes.
"I haven't counted or anything, but I think the majority of the terrorist acts with Middle Eastern origins or connexions committed in the last 40 years have been committed by non-Islamist, left-wing terrorists, i.e. secular but radical Palestinian nationalists with Marxist or other left-wing leanings."
I would describe this as another symptom of the same root problem. Yet you keep seeming to miss the ramifications of this. It as if I am pointing out that the rise of the Nazis was a symptom of deep dissatisfaction with the current political system, and you respond by pointing out that there were Communists too. Well yeah. My point is that something is *driving* this radicalization, whether to Marxism, Fundamentalism, or Arab nationalism, and this "something" isn't US actions.
2200. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 9:55:46 PM
I said: ""....that there are therefore two primary causes of anti-Americanism....2) The same socio-economic factors that are driving fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the more pernicious route to anti-Americanism, but it also seems that the underlying causes can create anti-Americanism without causing fundamentalism as well."
Pseudo says: "Correct. But I think this supports my case, not yours. Islamic fundamentalism emerged as the ideology of Arab discontent only after Arab nationalism (of the Nasserite and Baathist varieties) failed to produce the external victories promised the Arab masses, and after Arab socialism failed as Arab economies began their long stagnation in the late 1970s and early 1980s."
What? How can I be correct in my entire argument while proving your point and not mine?
How does this prove your point that Muslims are just responding to what they see as real grievances caused by the US? Instead, it seems to show that Muslims are pissed, and to a certain extent, the US is a target of convenience.
I imagine you having a kid someday. You get a message from a teacher that after your son poked another kid, that kid responded by punching your son in the nose, repeatedly kicking him in the groin, and sending him to the hospital witha ruptured spleen. The teacher is planning a conference with the kid's parents. You respond by saying that social explanations are unnecessary, as your son provoked it by poking the other kid.
2201. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 10:02:58 PM
"weren't supporting corrupt Arab regimes for oil -- in short, if the US policies weren't so injurious to Muslim welfare (and particularly Muslim Arab welfare) -- then there would be no Muslim animus toward the USA, perhaps except for some small fringe elements."
This seems to me that the US can't win for losing. If we support an Arab dictator, we are hated for doing so. But if we try to toss one out of power, we are hated for that. Whenever I see that the US is hated no matter what we do, I see this as pretty strong evidence that this hatred has some independent causes other than US actions.
2202. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 10:03:02 PM
"weren't supporting corrupt Arab regimes for oil -- in short, if the US policies weren't so injurious to Muslim welfare (and particularly Muslim Arab welfare) -- then there would be no Muslim animus toward the USA, perhaps except for some small fringe elements."
This seems to me that the US can't win for losing. If we support an Arab dictator, we are hated for doing so. But if we try to toss one out of power, we are hated for that. Whenever I see that the US is hated no matter what we do, I see this as pretty strong evidence that this hatred has some independent causes other than US actions.
2203. Andonly - 7/1/2002 10:23:13 PM
"Britain and France, in conjunction with Israel, invaded Egypt in 1956. And France -- not the USA -- was the principal benefactor and supporter of Israel before 1967. Middle Eastern anti-westernism in the 1950s and 1960s meant in practise anti-Britishism, anti-Frenchism and anti-Zionism."
???It also meant considerable anti-Americanism, a result of Soviet influence.
The '56 Israeli invasion was in response to direct Arab aggression against Israel, whereas the French and the Brits were colluding with Israel in pursuit of their own final imperialist encores against Egypt. By comparison, the US today has done nothing so objectionable, unless you count Iraq--which is not where the 9-11 terrorists hailed from. No, they came from Saudi A. and Egypt; the latter we have supported economically for more than 40 years, and the former our commerce helps supply its standard of living.
Moreover, the US sided with the USSR against France and Egypt during the Suez affair, effectively reining them in. The Egyptians' problem was that we did not also side with them against Israel. But you know, when you're hell-bent on belligerance, you can't have everything.
Hostile, paranoid Arab attitudes toward the US owe not a little to Soviet propaganda, the effects of which have never really dissipated, but melded instead with Islamism.
As someone here has said, the ideology existed before the "provocation".
2204. Andonly - 7/1/2002 10:33:36 PM
"I will be gone from the Mote until 8 July or so."
Jesus, an entire week.
I know you're a very patriotic American, PE, but Independence Day requires no big preparation or denoument. You maybe have a BBQ, you go to the park with your blanket and your bug repellant, you watch the fireworks, and you go home.
2205. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 10:47:30 PM
I'm going to Japan.
2206. sakonige - 7/1/2002 10:51:09 PM
Message # 2195
Gorgeous reading, by the way. I enjoyed hearing you tell it like it is. I hope you are saving some of this, so later on you can hear how you sounded.
2207. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 10:54:13 PM
I think Raskolnikov is inadvertently conflating the issuse of the causes of Islamist fundamentalism and the issue of the causes of terrorism. The two are related but not identical.
Message # 2199
I said: "I haven't counted or anything, but I think the majority of the terrorist acts with Middle Eastern origins or connexions committed in the last 40 years have been committed by non-Islamist, left-wing terrorists, i.e. secular but radical Palestinian nationalists with Marxist or other left-wing leanings."
Rask: "I would describe this as another symptom of the same root problem."
The only root cause I see in Palestinian terrorism is Palestinian dispossession and occupation.
"Yet you keep seeming to miss the ramifications of this. It as if I am pointing out that the rise of the Nazis was a symptom of deep dissatisfaction with the current political system, and you respond by pointing out that there were Communists too. Well yeah. My point is that something is *driving* this radicalization, whether to Marxism, Fundamentalism, or Arab nationalism, and this "something" isn't US actions."
I don't see what ramifications I'm missing. I'm saying that radicalism in the Middle East, manifested as Arab nationalism until the late 1960s, was a response to French & British actions and to Israel; and radicalism in the Middle East since the late 1960s, whether manifested in secular left-wing terms or in radical Islamist terms, has been a response to US actions and to Israel.
2208. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 10:55:35 PM
Message # 2199
"Where does Islamism come from? As we both agree that the US isn't to blame for fundamentalism, let us focus on these causes."
Yes, fundamentalism is not caused by US actions. But I do say that terrorists respond to actions by the USA.
Message # 2200:
PE: "But I think this supports my case, not yours. Islamic fundamentalism emerged as the ideology of Arab discontent only after Arab nationalism (of the Nasserite and Baathist varieties) failed to produce the external victories promised the Arab masses, and after Arab socialism failed as Arab economies began their long stagnation in the late 1970s and early 1980s."
Rask: How does this prove your point that Muslims are just responding to what they see as real grievances caused by the US? Instead, it seems to show that Muslims are pissed, and to a certain extent, the US is a target of convenience.
No. Perhaps you didn't read #2168. Arab nationalism of the 1950s and 1960s responded to French & British actions, as well as to Israel. But when Arab nationalism & socialism were discredited (at first militarily, then economically), and after the USA replaced Britain and France as the intervener-in-chief in the Middle East, then Islamic fundamentalism became the vehicle by which radical responses to foreign interventions could be expressed.
2209. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 10:56:20 PM
"You get a message from a teacher that after your son poked another kid, that kid responded by punching your son in the nose, repeatedly kicking him in the groin, and sending him to the hospital witha ruptured spleen. The teacher is planning a conference with the kid's parents. You respond by saying that social explanations are unnecessary, as your son provoked it by poking the other kid."
I don't think the analogy is in the least apt. The dispossession and occupation of Palestinians, the Gulf war, etc. are more than mere pokes, even if you support those actions.
Message # 2201: "This seems to me that the US can't win for losing. If we support an Arab dictator, we are hated for doing so. But if we try to toss one out of power, we are hated for that. Whenever I see that the US is hated no matter what we do, I see this as pretty strong evidence that this hatred has some independent causes other than US actions."
Well, you might have a point if the USA has ever actually tossed an Arab dictator out of power. But you haven't, have you? The only thing it did was bomb Iraq while deliberately not removing Saddam Hussein, and then imposed punishing sanctions.
2210. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 10:57:09 PM
"Jesus, an entire week.
Well, I was gone completely from mid-March to early June.
2211. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 10:58:16 PM
Message # 2203: "It also meant considerable anti-Americanism, a result of Soviet influence."
It's true that the Middle East was caught in a wave of anti-western feeling that swept through the whole Third World in the 1950s, but the principal focus of Arab anti-westernism at the time was Britain and France, not the USA. You're exaggerating.
"The '56 Israeli invasion was in response to direct Arab aggression against Israel, whereas the French and the Brits were colluding with Israel in pursuit of their own final imperialist encores against Egypt."
I can agree with that.
"By comparison, the US today has done nothing so objectionable..."
I think it's easily argued that the US support of Israel and the Gulf War (and the sanctions that followed) are much worse.
"....unless you count Iraq--which is not where the 9-11 terrorists hailed from. No, they came from Saudi A. and Egypt...."
Islamists in Iraq have been mostly murdered by Saddam Hussein. That's why none of the 9-11 terrorists could possibly hail from Iraq.
"Moreover, the US sided with the USSR against France and Egypt during the Suez affair, effectively reining them in."
Yes. So what? That was in 1956. Today, US interventions in the Middle East are decidedly of a different character.
"As someone here has said, the ideology existed before the "provocation".
That doesn't follow from your observations about Suez.
2212. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 11:14:38 PM
"I don't see what ramifications I'm missing. I'm saying that radicalism in the Middle East, manifested as Arab nationalism until the late 1960s, was a response to French & British actions and to Israel; and radicalism in the Middle East since the late 1960s, whether manifested in secular left-wing terms or in radical Islamist terms, has been a response to US actions and to Israel."
This is incomplete, as some of the most radicalized parts of the Muslim world, and some of the biggest historical supporters of terrorism, have the fewest legitimate (or even non-legitimate) grievances against the western powers. Iran? Libya? Afghanistan under the Taliban? Pakistan?
You also seem to be contradicting yourself. Here you say that radicalism is caused by foreign intervention. Elsewhere you say that radicalism such as fundamentalism has other causes. Compare:
"I'm saying that radicalism in the Middle East, manifested as Arab nationalism until the late 1960s, was a response to French & British actions and to Israel; and radicalism in the Middle East since the late 1960s, whether manifested in secular left-wing terms or in radical Islamist terms, has been a response to US actions and to Israel. "
and
"Yes, fundamentalism is not caused by US actions. "
Which is it?
"No. Perhaps you didn't read #2168. "
Correct. That message was on the next page, and I responded thinking that your argument was complete, before reading further. My mistake.
2213. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 11:14:50 PM
"Well, you might have a point if the USA has ever actually tossed an Arab dictator out of power. But you haven't, have you? The only thing it did was bomb Iraq while deliberately not removing Saddam Hussein, and then imposed punishing sanctions."
This is one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen you make. The US didn't oust Saddam partly because of Arab opposition. To imply that the Arab world would have supported us if only we had actually removed him is ridiculous. The eventual effectiveness of US policy is irrelevant to the Arab reaction to that policy. As such, my point still stands. The US can't win for losing. If we oppose dictators, we are imperialists. If we support them, we are cynical anti-democratic bastards. It is not contradictory to believe that US Gulf War policy was inept *and* the Arab countries are hypocritical kneejerk anti-Americans.
2214. Daniel Sickles - 7/1/2002 11:15:49 PM
Source of Antipathy
Bombing Iraq/sanctions against Iraq 5%
Support of Israel 50%
Religious zeal/Cultural differences 30%
Poor education 2%
Anger over U.S. propping up dictators 3%
Historical disappointment (Pipes)10%
2215. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 11:19:56 PM
"Islamists in Iraq have been mostly murdered by Saddam Hussein. That's why none of the 9-11 terrorists could possibly hail from Iraq."
And yet containing him, keeping troops in the region, and applying economic sanctions are partly why the US is hated, according to you. I repeat that these are not reasonable views, and as such merely pointing out that these grievances exist is insufficient. Instead, you have to ask yourself *why* such unreasonable views are held, and considered worthy of suicidal attacks on skyscrapers.
2216. CalGal - 7/1/2002 11:27:20 PM
I don't know that it was Pipes who first proposed historical disappointment, was it? Lewis, maybe. But Hoagland and Ajami have also mentioned some version of disappointment/inferiority complex as well.
2217. RustlerPike - 7/1/2002 11:35:29 PM
I will be gone from the Mote until 8 July or so.
Note that Pe's disappearances are timed to coincide with the dates of expected large scale al-Qaeda operations.
2218. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 11:43:38 PM
Are you suggesting he is an operative, or a coward?
2219. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 11:46:01 PM
Where I am presently, al Qaidah attacks are somewhat unlikely.
2220. joezan - 7/1/2002 11:50:34 PM
You're at Fisk's house?
2221. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 11:57:10 PM
Message # 2215: "And yet containing him, keeping troops in the region, and applying economic sanctions are partly why the US is hated, according to you. I repeat that these are not reasonable views..."
(1) You argued that the USA is damned if it does (overthrow an Arab dictator) and damned if it doesn't (overthrow an Arab dictator). I made the simple observation that the USA has never overthrown an Arab dictator so the "damned" argument doesn't work. (2) I don't know what the Arab masses' reaction would have been to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But I would venture to guess that it certainly would have been better if the job had been executed swiftly and cleanly -- i.e., Saddam removed with few casualties and without total destruction of the country -- rather than what actually happened -- i.e., having the casualties and the physical destruction with Saddam still in place and with the country subjected to a painful sanctions regime prolonged over 11 years. I think the sanctions regime, in spite of the humanitarian provisions put in place, may have done more PR damage to the USA than the Gulf war itself.
[continued]
2222. pseudoerasmus - 7/1/2002 11:57:18 PM
(3) The "Arab opposition" you talk about came precisely from the unpopular regimes I'm talking about. (4) The most important point, the fundamental fallacy in your argument is this: the complaint that the USA props up Arab regimes (such as in Egypt) does not imply an invitation on the part of the Arab masses to rain bombs and destroy a whole country. I don't think there is the slightest contradiction or inconsistency between resentment of US support for Arab dictatorships and resentment at the Gulf War. Think of this translation: stop supporting Mubarak, withdraw support from his regime, not destroy Egypt to overthrow him.
2223. RustlerPike - 7/1/2002 11:58:33 PM
Where I am presently, al Qaidah attacks are somewhat unlikely.
Oh, OK, Pe, so we can call off our agents in that case.
Ask your Red Army cohorts if I was right about the Lod massacre. 1972. And pass the sake.
2224. RustlerPike - 7/2/2002 12:01:47 AM
Are you suggesting he is an operative, or a coward?
You kidding? The guy is part Pakistani, part Japanese, part German.
Why do you think I joined The Fray in the first place?
How do you figure a guy making no money, like me, has so much time to post about women's matters in some international forum?
You starting to figure it out?
2225. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 12:02:20 AM
Message # 2212
"This is incomplete, as some of the most radicalized parts of the Muslim world, and some of the biggest historical supporters of terrorism, have the fewest legitimate (or even non-legitimate) grievances against the western powers. Iran? Libya? Afghanistan under the Taliban? Pakistan?"
At the time of the revolution, Iran had an outsized, enormous grievance against the USA: the Shah. But even still, most Iranian-backed terorrism has been targetted against Israel. Libya's grievances are the Arab grievances. Pakistan...Pakistan...I'm trying to think which hordes of Pakistanis have been involved in anti-American terrorism. Of course there have been Pakistanis mixed up in anti-American terrorism, but hardly to merit the term "biggest historical supporters of terrorism" targeted against the USA. Hordes of Pakistanis have been terrorists alright, but in Kashmir, in Afghanistan and within Pakistan itself. But US-directed Pak terrorism has d efinitely seen a dramatic rise since the Afghan campaign.
Afghanistan under the Taliban? The Taliban didn't commit terrorist acts against the USA. The Arabs in Afghanistan did. See more in Message # 1926. Afghanistan is so particular that you can illustrate no general principle or trend or theme about anything using Afghanistan.
"You also seem to be contradicting yourself. Here you say that radicalism is caused by foreign intervention. Elsewhere you say that radicalism such as fundamentalism has other causes. "
It's ineptitude with, and poverty of, terminology. I mean that terrorism and violence are responses to foreign intervention. The emergence of Islamic fundamentalism per se, is not.
2226. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:24:52 AM
"(1) You argued that the USA is damned if it does (overthrow an Arab dictator) and damned if it doesn't (overthrow an Arab dictator). I made the simple observation that the USA has never overthrown an Arab dictator so the "damned" argument doesn't work."
Of course it works, as there is now strong Arab opposition to US talk of overthrowing Hussein. The fact that Hussein wasn't tossed out in 1991 is a quibble on your part. A mere rewording of my argument, that the US is hated if we support dictators, and also hated if we militarily oppose them, re-raises a valid "damned if we do" argument.
re 2225: You are misreading what I wrote. I said " as some of the most radicalized parts of the Muslim world , and some of the biggest historical supporters of terrorism, have the fewest legitimate (or even non-legitimate) grievances against the western powers"
Recall that I was responding to your claim that "radicalism in the Middle East since the late 1960s, whether manifested in secular left-wing terms or in radical Islamist terms, has been a response to US actions and to Israel"
If radicalization occurs seemingly independent of the presence of US or Israeli perfidy, that would imply that radicalization is not strongly related to US or Israeli actions.
As such, my comments about Pakistan and Afghanistan relate to radicalization, not Anti-American terrorism.
2227. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:25:02 AM
"It's ineptitude with, and poverty of, terminology. I mean that terrorism and violence are responses to foreign intervention. The emergence of Islamic fundamentalism per se, is not."
Maybe this explains the confusion we are having. So let us tackle Arab and Muslim radicalism in particular. If you agree that radicalism has roots other than US actions, where is our disagreement? Do you believe that radicalism has no causal impact on anti-Americanism, that it is simply a voice that Muslims use to express their anger with US actions?
If this is your argument, I disagree, as it seems radicalism is now a cause of anti-Americanism in and of itself, as evidenced by Al Qaeda. bin Ladin's beefs with the US are rooted in religious beliefs, not natural Arab reaction to US policies.
If this isn't your argument, I have no idea what your argument is.
2228. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 12:31:42 AM
Message # 2226: "Of course it works, as there is now strong Arab opposition to US talk of overthrowing Hussein. The fact that Hussein wasn't tossed out in 1991 is a quibble on your part. A mere rewording of my argument, that the US is hated if we support dictators, and also hated if we militarily oppose them, re-raises a valid "damned if we do" argument."
Nonsense. Please read (4) of Message # 2222.
Besides, why wouldn't there be opposition to another Iraq venture, given that it's likely that the USA would rain cluster bombs and daisy cutters all over the place, particularly on the heels of having done just the same in Afghanistan?
"Recall that I was responding to your claim that "radicalism in the Middle East since the late 1960s, whether manifested in secular left-wing terms or in radical Islamist terms, has been a response to US actions and to Israel"
Please see the bottom of #2225. I miswrote. I should have written: "terrorism and violence in the Middle East since the late 1960s, whether manifested in secular left-wing terms or in radical Islamist terms, has been a response to US actions and to Israel".
"If radicalization occurs seemingly independent of the presence of US or Israeli perfidy, that would imply that radicalization is not strongly related to US or Israeli actions."
As I've already said, the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism is not due to US actions or Israel.
2229. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 12:34:33 AM
Message # 2227: My argument has been about Middle Eastern terrorism and violence directed against the USA. Not Islamic fundamentalism per se. As I said before, the two are related but not identical.
2230. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 12:39:02 AM
There was Middle Eastern terrorism when Islamic fundamentalists were just a marginal joke. There is Middle Eastern terrorism since when Islamic fundamentalists have grown in size and power. The commonality of both is response to foreign actions.
2231. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:54:43 AM
Pseudo: I evidently have to ask very directly. I have two questions for you:
1) Do you believe that Arab and Muslim radicalism has any substantial impact on increasing the intensity of Anti-Americanism and the intensity and frequency of terrorist actions against the US?
2) Do you believe that radical strains such as fundamentalism have led to anti-Americanism through motivations that only make sense from a religious point of view? (I am thinking of the motivation of Al Qaeda here, if that isn't obvious)
If the answer to either question is yes, then it should be clear that US actions are an insufficient explanation for anti-American attitudes.
If your answer is no, I would be interested in your reasons for believing so.
2232. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 12:59:27 AM
Do you mean by "radicalism" terrorism, or Islamic fundamentalism, or generic extremism, or what?
2233. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:01:29 AM
"There was Middle Eastern terrorism when Islamic fundamentalists were just a marginal joke. There is Middle Eastern terrorism since when Islamic fundamentalists have grown in size and power."
But the continual flirtation with various forms of radicalism implies to me that there is something more at work here than just a dislike of specific western actions. You don't need to be a Marxist, a pan-Arab nationalist, or a fundamentalist to believe that the western imperial powers should relinquish Suez, and that Israel has no business being in Palestine.
By the way, since you haven't said (at least that I have read), what *do* you believe are the roots of Islamic fundamentalism?
2234. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:04:56 AM
"Do you mean by "radicalism" terrorism, or Islamic fundamentalism, or generic extremism, or what?"
I am collectively referring to the various extremist strains that seem common in post-war Middle East politics. Specifically, Pan-Arabism, Marxism, and Fundamentalism. If you see them as having no relationship to each other in their causes, I would be interested in your reasons, but just focus on fundamentalism as that is the most relevant form of radicalism right now.
2235. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 1:55:07 AM
Message # 2231: "1) Do you believe that Arab and Muslim radicalism has any substantial impact on increasing the intensity of Anti-Americanism and the intensity and frequency of terrorist actions against the US?"
Independent of US actions? No.
"2) Do you believe that radical strains such as fundamentalism have led to anti-Americanism through motivations that only make sense from a religious point of view? (I am thinking of the motivation of Al Qaeda here, if that isn't obvious)"
Well, the one "provocation" that makes sense only from a religious point of view is that the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. Other motivations are plausible from non-religious points of view.
Al Qaida is a network of diverse nationalities. Not all of them have the same motives as Usama bin Ladin (who is, himself, probably primarily fixated with the US presence in Saudi Arabia). Chechens in al Qaida seek the overthrow of Russia, which they regard as a colonial force occupying Muslim peoples (nearly 25 millions of them). Jordanians and Egyptians probably cannot disentangle Palestine from their minds. Etc.
"If your answer is no, I would be interested in your reasons for believing so."
The last 250+ posts have been the explanations of those reasons! I suppose a concise summary is in order. But I can't manage it now.
2236. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 1:57:03 AM
Message # 2233: "But the continual flirtation with various forms of radicalism implies to me that there is something more at work here than just a dislike of specific western actions."
Why? As I said before, flirtation with radicalism is a Third World-wide phenomenon. Radicalism has died down in most of the world since the end of the cold war, but not in the Middle East. I think this is because the kind of foreign interventions which took place in the Cold War, as well as some more aggressive kinds, persist in the Middle East. See more here: Message # 2062. Moreover, there was the Soviet Union to balance the USA in such conflicts as the Arab-Israeli one. There isn't any today.
I think Arab nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s was a response to British and French imperialism of the preceding 50 years, plus the on-going French and British involvements in the Middle East at the time, plus the emergence of the State of Israel.
Terrorism since that time, whether conducted by secular or religious groups, has been a response to US actions and to Israel.
2237. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 1:59:27 AM
However, I do not think, & I have not said, Islamic fundamentalism emerged in response to foreign actions. Islamic fundamentalism had always been present as a marginal and marginalised element in Middle Eastern society since at least the turn of the 20th century, but it never gained a significant following or political muscle until the mid or late 1970s. I think it did so at that time because it coincided with two things:
(1) the failure of Arab socialism, as exemplified by the end of the relatively rapid economic development that had characterised the Middle East from the 1950s to the late 1970s, when Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Yemen achieved growth rates above the Third World median, and when Iraq and Iran achieved very high growth rates by any standard. (Note this is before the oil boom, and in any case I'm not even talking about the super-oil-rich petty kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula).
(2) the failure of Arab nationalism, in the sense that revolutionary Arab nationalist regimes ended up being corrupt, bureaucratised elite entities which just didn't get the mundane jobs of government right, such as building roads, schools, hospitals, and the like.
[I don't subscribe to the hackneyed "reaction to modernisation" thesis such as the one Stostosto has advanced. They didn't have any problems with it in the 1950s and 1960s so why did they suddenly have it in the 1980s and 1990s? I'm also no longer convinced by the various interesting demographic arguments about the rise of fundamentalism.]
But this is a theory of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, not a theory of terrorism. I think Middle Eastern terrorism has been continually a response to specific actions well before and well after the emergence of fundamentalism. I don't have hard numbers to hand, but I don't think terrorism has become more frequent since the rise of fundamentalism. Secular Middle Eastern terrorism was quite widespread before.
2238. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 10:23:57 AM
OK. You don't think that the fundamentalization of the Middle East has led to an increase in intensity or frequency of terrorist actions against the US. To me, this is falsified by the prevalance of operatives willing to commit suicide. You consider this trivial, but to me it makes the terrorist threat much more intense and deadly. If survival of the operative isn't an issue, a much greater array of deadly terrorist actions become available.
But you do agree that at least in the case of bin Ladin, that religious motivations are behind some of the terrorist attacks on the US. This should make it clear that US actions alone are not a sufficient explanation of terrorist motives, considering that al Qaeda is the most deadly terrorist group the US has to deal with.
2239. RustlerPike - 7/2/2002 11:07:18 AM
I just read in an Honest Reporting communique that Hussein of Jordan reportedly once said of Arafat - "he never came to a bridge he didn't double-cross".
2240. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 11:09:47 AM
I wonder if it is a good idea to jump into a discussion that has already been well developed over hundreds of posts. We'll see.
Rask,
You don't think that the fundamentalization of the Middle East has led to an increase in intensity or frequency of terrorist actions against the US. To me, this is falsified by the prevalance of operatives willing to commit suicide. You consider this trivial, but to me it makes the terrorist threat much more intense and deadly. If survival of the operative isn't an issue, a much greater array of deadly terrorist actions become available.
This appears to be a classic case of approaching a problem backwards. I've argued ad infinitum over years that US actions overseas do have radical implications in terms of perception and the fuelling of anti-Americanism, and this is seen writ quite large in the case of the Middle East.
It is true that the presence of suicidal terrorists increases the risk to American life and property, but a more obvious explanation can be seen in the even stronger identification of israel's violent acts in occupation with what has been unstinting (short-sighted) US support. Absent the first factor and the suicidal won't have adequate reason (either rational or religious) to target the USA. There is a logic to the suicide campaigns, examine it for what it is.
Look at Lebanon as a simple and perfect example. As long as the US indulged itself in activities seen by Hizbollah and others as detrimental to the Lebanese, the US was perceived as a legitimate target both in the region and beyond. The US packed up and left, and there has not been a single Hizbollah attack on Americans since.
2241. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 11:10:12 AM
You seem to think there is something, some movement, intrinsically hostile to the US underway in the ME. This is false, is belied by every jot of rhetoric uttered by the "enemy" in every case, and ignores the mountain of real, factual, dispute in favor of a molehill of presumptions.
2242. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 11:13:27 AM
you do agree that at least in the case of bin Ladin, that religious motivations are behind some of the terrorist attacks on the US. This should make it clear that US actions alone are not a sufficient explanation of terrorist motives, considering that al Qaeda is the most deadly terrorist group the US has to deal with.
It is not a religious motivation per se, perhaps you can see it clearer in terms of nationalism - and certainly Bin Laden speaks all the time in terms of a bizarre form of Muslim nationalism.
His initial big beef with the US was that they have sent in huge amounts of unbelieving troops which defile the holy land of Islam.
You take out the troops, the religion remains, but there is no problem. There is nothing specifically religious about the expressed grievance.
2243. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 11:22:12 AM
One might argue that the anti-Israel bunch should differentiate better between Sharon and Bush, between the Israeli actors and the Americans.
But that line has been totally blurred in the last 2/3 years. It is American-made armament that slams into Hebron buildings, it is American money that flows uninterrupted into Israel's coffers as it thumbs its nose at every world body and expands its brutal settlement/checkpoint activity in the occupied territories. And then you have Bush openly and repeatedly cutting the Sharonists slack, and buying their dishonest rhetoric, even as he turns a blind eye to allied Arab despots and insits that the Pals jump through a clearly unlikely set of hoops.
All of this is beamed, live, into households all across the ME.
What do you expect but increasing violence against Americans and American interests?
2244. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 11:25:58 AM
Approach the questions this way - I'd like Spike's answer to them.
There are some 180+ countries in the world, ranging from those with an interest in the ME to those which do not.
How many can be seen as supporters of the Sharon regime in Israel besides the USA? I'll give you the answer - none.
Are you ascribing this unanimity in world opinion to ideology? What ties the Brits to the Mexicans to the Malaysians?
2245. stostosto - 7/2/2002 11:29:01 AM
Pseud
How do your two reasons for the rise of Arab fundamentalism work as explanations for the rise of Iranian fundamentalism? Failure of socialism? The shah was hardly socialist, and by the time of the Iranian revolution Iran's economy wasn't particularly hard hit (though probably did feel repercussions from the global downturn going on even if this was compensated substantially by the post-1973 oil price hike). Failure of nationalism? No pan-Arabian or pan-Muslim aspirations there, as far as I am aware of. (Pan-Iranian, perhaps?) But reaction to modernisation as an explanation fits that example quite well, in fact you yourself have repeatedly held the Shah forward as an example of rapid modernisation of traditional Muslim societies under secular, authoritarian guidance.
---
As to the rise of Arab/Muslim terrorism, I think the ten years of jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet infidels created a culture of violent Muslim radicalism which, rather than packing it in and returning to the plough as the USSR crashed, went looking for a new Satan to combat in cathartic actions of confession and martyrdom.
The entire al-Qaeda infrastructure, from recruitment to indoctrination, to training to logistics to weapon supplies, was created in that decade, fed by Pakistani and Saudi support and finance - and American backing. It had become a big organisation and big business, it was institutionalised, and as such bent on perpetuating itself.
2246. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:29:40 AM
Also, attributing the rise of fundamentalism to the failures of Arab socialism and nationalism (to deliver the goods of economic development) is interesting, but I am curious about how this explains Iran, the first country, and still the most prominent country, where fundamentalists took power. Iran was neither socialist, nor was the Shah an Arab Nationalist. I of course am no expert on the region, but the explanation I usually hear is that modernization happened too fast.
2247. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:31:43 AM
Sto: cross post.
2248. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 11:35:41 AM
Shiva Naipaul (the late brother of the Nobel laureate) had a very good essay on Iran under the Shah in his North of South, I highly recommend it as well as Naipaul's first book on some Muslim countries, Among the Believers.
2249. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 11:36:05 AM
VS wrote Among the Believers.
2250. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:50:54 AM
Marj: You are missing the point. I am arguing that there are two factors at work here:
The first is a response to US actions which are understandably unpopular in the region. The fact that even non-Muslim Palestinians participate in terrorist actions shows that Islamic radicalism isn't a sufficient explanation for Middle-eastern terrorism. Terrorism in response to perceived invasion and imperialism is epidemic, and needs no explanation other than hostility toward the invaders/occupiers. This explains the 70s Palestine liberation movements.
The second factor is Islamic radicalism. I am arguing that this serves to intensify the terrorist actions from the first factor (enter Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, who are more resistant to compromise than Fateh) plus create some additional grievances that only make sense from an ideological/theological perspective (bin Laden's gripe about US troops in Saudi Arabia).
"You seem to think there is something, some movement, intrinsically hostile to the US underway in the ME. This is false, is belied by every jot of rhetoric uttered by the "enemy" in every case, and ignores the mountain of real, factual, dispute in favor of a molehill of presumptions."
No. Understandable grievances against the US do little to explain al Qaeda's anti-Americanism. Their rhetoric is couched in theological terms, and their actions make no sense in any other context, as they basically have ignored Israel. A group pissed at US support of Israel would primarily attack Israel with the incidental attack on her supporters. A group pissed at the USA for theological/cultural reasons would attack the USA and ignore Israel, except rhetorically. Al Qaeda does the latter.
2251. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:51:59 AM
"It is not a religious motivation per se, perhaps you can see it clearer in terms of nationalism - and certainly Bin Laden speaks all the time in terms of a bizarre form of Muslim nationalism.His initial big beef with the US was that they have sent in huge amounts of unbelieving troops which defile the holy land of Islam."
How is this *not* a religious motivation?
"You take out the troops, the religion remains, but there is no problem. There is nothing specifically religious about the expressed grievance."
Of course there is something specifically religious about the grievance, as without the religious attitudes, there would be no problem with US troops being stationed (not as an occupying force) in Saudi Arabia. When a response is so disproportionate in terms of any rational understanding of the issues, it doesn't make sense to talk about provoking a response. This is akin to blaming the rape victim for provoking the misogynist rapist with a miniskirt.
2252. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 12:05:26 PM
I've heard that rape analogy before, Rask, from Andonly.
Thanks for clearly delineating your argument. Unsurprisingly, I'm actually on the same page as you with almost all of it. I do have a slightly different take on the following, however:
Understandable grievances against the US do little to explain al Qaeda's anti-Americanism. Their rhetoric is couched in theological terms, and their actions make no sense in any other context, as they basically have ignored Israel.
You will use whatever stick you have to beat an already established enemy. In the case of the US, al Qaeda already has what it considers to be a legitimate beef and it will drum up support using whatever tactics it has as its disposal including the stand-by jihadi rhetoric. I seriously doubt that al Qaeda would remain an enemy of the US if this country (a) pulled out of S. Arabia, and (b) ceased one-sided support to Israel.
I'd go further to say that Israel would be attacked in the same manner as the US, perhaps instead of the US on 9/11, if that country had been as vulnerable. The salutary lesson for this country has been that it cannot remain nearly quite as relaxed as it did previously, at least while conducting a foreign policy that succeeds in pissing off so many violent, committed, people.
Anyway, on a slightly different note, please read this WPost article.
2253. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 12:16:45 PM
The economic development model pursued by the Shah was very similar to Arab socialism, i.e., based on state-led investment in heavy industry and substantial public ownership of production. (As was the case with Turkey under Atatürk.) Of course "Arab socialism" was much less socialist than the Soviet Union. But to say that the Shah was "hardly socialist" means either that the interlocutor does not know what he's talking about, or he is disputing that the various forms of non-communist socialism practised in the Third World during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was socialism. But I think it's the former.
Stostosto, there was a sizeable economic downturn in Iran starting circa 1976-77. The Shah's downfall coincides with economic discontent, as the economy was unable to produce jobs for the mass of rural migrants to the cities. And, ironically, the 1973-4 oil boom spells the beginning of the end of the spell of economic growth experienced by many Middle Eastern countries (excluding the petty oil-rich sheikdoms of the Arabian peninsula).
Okay, I must go now. I will be back in a week or so and respond to everything.
2254. pseudoerasmus - 7/2/2002 12:19:47 PM
Of course the Shah was not an Arab nationalist. But I trusted the intelligent people in this thread to make the right substitution without my having to spell it out. The Shah promoted a secular Iranian nationalism which reached back to Iran's glorious pre-Islamic history.
2255. marjoribanks - 7/2/2002 12:22:57 PM
Sayonara, Sood.
Bring back a story or few, I'm always eager to read something unstereotypical about the Nipponese.
2256. stostosto - 7/2/2002 12:26:35 PM
Rask,
without the religious attitudes, there would be no problem with US troops being stationed (not as an occupying force) in Saudi Arabia.
There is opposition virtually everywhere to having US troops stationed on national territory. Greece, Korea, Japan, Philippines, various Latin American countries. It's a provocative miniskirt everywhere, even if not everyone is Mike Tyson.
"Yankee go home!" was a common slogan in Europe when I grew up. It wasn't a majority view, as it probably isn't in Japan or Korea either, but one held by a very vocal assortment of lefties. Here they avidly advocated that Denmark exit NATO. As late as 1988 we had an election over the issue of American nuclear armed war ships in Danish harbours.
The 70s had a radicalised political climate, and the USA was the big, bad superpower, even if it didn't really bother us here in any concrete ways; it only fought revolutionary third world insurretions with which the Euro left identified strongly. (And, there was MLK, and Watergate and all that to point to -- moral equivalence reigned supreme).
2257. stostosto - 7/2/2002 12:31:37 PM
One day I will try and find the history text book I had in high school. It was called "fundamental history" and wore its Marxist credentials on the sleeve. When I think of it now, it is well nigh incredible the one-sidedness of its take on the cold war, exclusively obsessing about American imperialism as the all-round culprit. This was 1980-3.
2258. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2002 12:32:54 PM
I think "Arab socialiam" could be more appropriately called "statism" which makes its easier to fit the shah's policies into the same framework. After all the "socialism" bit was just a propaganda ploy to satisfy the Soviet Union and, in the case of Nasser, other leaders pursuing the same route in Africa.
2259. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/2/2002 1:21:43 PM
2260. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:30:37 PM
Sto:"There is opposition virtually everywhere to having US troops stationed on national territory. Greece, Korea, Japan, Philippines, various Latin American countries. It's a provocative miniskirt everywhere, even if not everyone is Mike Tyson. "
By "not a problem", I meant "no substantial terrorist attacks as a response". I didn't mean troops would necessarily be popular or universally loved.
2261. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:34:14 PM
Pseudo: My question on Iran was an honest one based on my limited knowledge of its history, not a rhetorical one raised to dispute your point.
Have fun in Japan.
2262. Andonly - 7/2/2002 6:04:03 PM
Rask: "1) Do you believe that Arab and Muslim radicalism has any substantial impact on increasing the intensity of Anti-Americanism and the intensity and frequency of terrorist actions against the US?"
PE: "Independent of US actions? No."
You're avoiding the question.
Look, imagine that the chick with the miniskirt is a genuine slut. And assume she gives Mike Tyson the clap. Thereupon he goes to her house and murders her three children, all the while screaming "Whore! Whore!"
Of course, it's completely true he might not have done that if she hadn't given him the clap. But that does NOT mean his own fundamental depravity is not the thing which caused him to act as he did.
I will say that you have been consistent over time in your arguments, which frequently boil down to the assumption that extreme actors can best be dealt with via avoidance. Are Jews everywhere the target of visceral Arab and Muslim loathing the world over? Well, that's only natural, because Israel's original sin and subsequent events led to all that's before us today; how else should Muslims have reacted? Is Saddam Hussein starving his population below the no-fly zone? That's strictly America's fault, because we "should have known" he would do that in response to sanctions. Were three thousand US civilians immolated on the eleventh of September? Well, that's what you get when you interfere in the affairs of Muslims. All your kids slaughtered by Mike Tyson? Well honey, you knew you had no business wearing that skirt halfway up your ass until you'd finished your antibiotics.
2263. Andonly - 7/2/2002 6:05:01 PM
The flaw in this thinking is the same flaw that has emerged in virtually everything I've ever disagreed with you about, PE: it's an all-or-nothing formula. You're a zero-one kinda guy, and this tendency leads you to look for mathematical tidiness in human interactions, which in your calculations you believe you've somehow shorn of moral weight. You want to find the single "root cause" of things. But there is no single root cause of any political reality, only fractions, and people's ideas and motivations are never so discrete and uncontingent as you insist. (E.g., your distinction between the ravings of fanatic clerics and fanatic militants is strikingly ill-conceived.)
It is perfectly true that US actions have contributed to the causes of Muslim reaction, that the Israeli occupation leads to resistance, and so on: I don't think anyone here would think of denying this. But the fact of the matter is, if Muslim terrorists were not extremists, the US and Israel would experience less extreme reactions to their meddling in Muslims' affairs. Therefore it is unreasonable to insist that if the US, or Israel, had not done X (where not-X was impossible apparently more disadvantageous in some respect), 10x would not have been the response.
You perpetually assume in all your arguments that not-X would be the better course for US policy (as you believe not-Israel would have been the better course for Jews). Come clean, are you a stinking Buddhist, or just some weird form of nihilist?
2264. Andonly - 7/2/2002 6:07:50 PM
That was a joke. Please don't respond by disclosing any more of your vacation plans. But seriously, while you get points for attempting to think outside the box, as it were, I can't fathom your understanding of human interactions. Your argument seems plagued by vacillation between efforts at objectivity and shifting subjectivities. I can only observe that it is one thing to accept the unpleasant fact that extreme actors will behave in extreme ways. It is another thing to put the onus on all who encounter them to encounter them just right, or else suck up the consequences.
2265. sakonige - 7/2/2002 10:15:16 PM
The number of Islamic extremists of all origins who pose a violent threat to the United States is very small. Al Qaeda is composed of only a small number of individuals. The argument being made here seems to imply that, due to inherent flaws in Islam, nearly all Muslims present some sort of terrorist threat to the US. But almost none actually do. Americans are hysterical because the weapons available to individual terrorists now have proven to be so much more lethal than in the past, but the actual numbers of fanatics responding to any provocation from the US is still very small.
It doesn't make sense to assign a complicated cause to an effect that doesn't exist. If very few Muslims are actually Islamic fanatics, Islamic fanaticism itself isn't much of an issue. Vulnerability to those few extremely lethal weapons may be a problem.
2266. transient1a - 7/2/2002 11:09:11 PM
pseudofacsist,
Message # 2254
.the Shah was not an Arab nationalist. But I trusted the intelligent people in this thread to make the right substitution without my having to spell it out. The Shah promoted a secular Iranian nationalism which reached back to Iran's glorious pre-Islamic history.
You mean the Shah was a 'benevolent' dictator?
Ministry of Security SAVAK
ah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. CIA subsequently provided organizational and and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah. With training focused on domestic security and interrogation, the primary purpose of the intelligence unit, headed by General Teymur Bakhtiar, was to eliminate threats to Shah.
Con't
2267. transient1a - 7/2/2002 11:12:12 PM
Con't
Formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957, SAVAK developed into an effective secret agency. Bakhtiar was appointed its first director, only to be dismissed in 1961, allegedly for organizing a coup; he was assassinated in 1970 under mysterious circumstances, probably on the shah's direct order. His successor, General Hosain Pakravan, was dismissed in 1966, allegedly for having failed to crush the clerical opposition in the early 1960s. The shah turned to his childhood friend and classmate, General Nematollah Nassiri, to rebuild SAVAK and properly "serve" the monarch. Mansur Rafizadeh, the SAVAK director in the United States throughout the 1970s, claimed that General Nassiri's telephone was tapped by SAVAK agents reporting directly to the shah, an example of the level of mistrust pervading the government on the eve of the Revolution.
Founded to round up members of the outlawed Tudeh, SAVAK expanded its activities to include gathering intelligence and neutralizing the regime's opponents. An elaborate system was created to monitor all facets of political life. For example, a censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures, and academics throughout the country; it took appropriate measures against those who fell out of line. Universities, labor unions, and peasant organizations, among others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by SAVAK agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed Pahlavi rule.
Con't
2268. transient1a - 7/2/2002 11:13:28 PM
Con't
SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses. The United States reinforced its position as the Shah's protector and supporter, sowing the seeds of the anti-Americanism that later manifested itself in the revolution against the monarchy.
Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks. Thus, it came as no surprise when, in 1979, SAVAK was singled out as a primary target for reprisals, its headquarters overrun, and prominent leaders tried and executed by komiteh representatives. High-ranking SAVAK agents were purged between 1979 and 1981; there were 61 SAVAK officials among 248 military personnel executed between February and September 1979. The organization was officially dissolved by Khomeini shortly after he came to power in 1979.
BTW fas is the Federation of American Scientist and they run an excellent site as befitting an organization whose directors include many Noblests.
2269. PincherMartin - 7/3/2002 5:10:55 AM
I'm surprised that no one else here has linked any article to this report on the Arab world: Here is an article on it in the NY Time's called Study Warns of Stagnation in Arab Societies
Some selections:
A blunt new report by Arab intellectuals commissioned by the United Nations warns that Arab societies are being crippled by a lack of political freedom, the repression of women and an isolation from the world of ideas that stifles creativity.
The report notes that while oil income has transformed the landscapes of some Arab countries, the region remains "richer than it is developed." Per capita income growth has shrunk in the last 20 years to a level just above that of sub-Saharan Africa. Productivity is declining. Research and development are weak or nonexistent. Science and technology are dormant....
Arab women, the report found, are almost universally denied advancement. Half of them still cannot read or write. The maternal mortality rate is double that of Latin America and four times that of East Asia.
The one bright spot in the article is quickly followed by an amazing set of factoids: Despite growing populations, the standard of living in Arab countries on the whole has advanced considerably. Life expectancy is longer than the world average of 67 years, the report noted. The level of abject poverty is the world's lowest. Education spending is higher than elsewhere in the developing world.
Continued ...
2270. PincherMartin - 7/3/2002 5:12:03 AM
But the use of the Internet is low. Filmmaking appears to be declining. The authors also describe a "severe shortage" of new writing and a dearth of translations of works from outside. "The whole Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one-fifth the number that Greece translates," the report said. In the 1,000 years since the reign of the Caliph Mamoun, it concludes, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain translates in just one year.[my highlights]
Friedman focuses his column today on the report. By coincidence, though, some other important folks had the courage to say that just this week: The U.N. Development Program, which published, along with the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, a brutally honest Arab Human Development Report yesterday analyzing the three main reasons the Arab world is falling off the globe. (The G.D.P. of Spain is greater than that of all 22 Arab states combined.) In brief, it's due to a shortage of freedom to speak, innovate and affect political life, a shortage of women's rights and a shortage of quality education. If you want to understand the milieu that produced bin Ladenism, and will reproduce it if nothing changes, read this report.
Continued ...
2271. PincherMartin - 7/3/2002 5:13:13 AM
Several months ago, I made the comment that the Muslim world hadn't even been able to come to a "half-ass accommodation with the modern world." PE took exception to this, pointing out -- among other things -- that there was a lovely experiment with democracy going on in Yemen.
The Arab world is not synonymous with the Muslim world. A few here have pointed out there are actually far more Muslims outside of the Arab world than in it. But quite apart from the fact that none of the Muslims outside of the Arab world are beacons of modernization either, the even more benighted Arab world still has disproportionate weight among Muslims. How healthy can it be for a culture when its most highly-regarded members belong to a place so lacking in freedom of thought and the interchange of ideas? And anyone reading this report should be able to see that speaking only for the Arab world's accomadation to modernity, I gave them too much credit by half.
2272. Wombat - 7/3/2002 8:12:40 AM
Transient:
If you return to the FAS site under Iranian intelligence agencies, you will be pleased to know that the post-SAVAK Iranian intelligence agencies are keeping up the good work in repressing Iranian citizens, reportedly using former SAVAK operatives. Evin prison is still in use as well.
The difference now, is that the Iranian state security apparatus has been more repressive, and affected Iranians across a far broader spectrum of society. The state security apparatus is also one of the leading opponents of democratic reform in Iran.
Additionally, one of the added benefits of overthrowing the Shah was the internationalization of the Islamic revolution in Iran, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths (mostly Iranian), and a continuing role in supporting political violence in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Too bad SAVAK wasn't more repressive. It might have saved Iran from 20+ years of its current system, and saved countless Iranian lives as well.
2273. transient1a - 7/3/2002 9:25:16 AM
Wombat:
Message # 2272:Too bad SAVAK wasn't more repressive. It might have saved Iran from 20+ years of its current system, and saved countless Iranian lives as well.
More to the point:
Too bad US governance was so tragically flawed.
Too bad there was a pointless Iraq/Iran war that cost over a million lives.
Too bad the US just could not and cannot produce leaders that match its economic and military power.
More on the latest farce:
Paul Krugman, NYT, July 2, 2002
... Mr. Bush and Mr. Pitt say they are outraged about WorldCom.
But Bush has a history that problably included should have a criminal record:
? though only a few weeks before bad news that could not be concealed caused Harken's shares to tumble ? Mr. Bush sold off two-thirds of his stake, for $848,000. ..... though the law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales, he neglected to inform the S.E.C. about this transaction until 34 weeks had passed. An internal S.E.C. memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed. This, everyone insists, had nothing to do with the fact that his father was president.
2274. transient1a - 7/3/2002 9:28:16 AM
Ouch!
But Bush has a history that probably should have included a criminal record.
2275. Wombat - 7/3/2002 9:40:22 AM
transient:
The "pointless" Iran-Iraq War took place, and was carried on for so long, due to Iranian subversion of Iraq--and Saddam's attempt to exploit the post-revolution chaos in Iran, and Iranian intransigance in carrying on the war for a better part of a decade after repulsing Iraq's initial offensives. Do you think the Iranian revolution and the war were somehow not connected?
2276. Indiana Jones - 7/3/2002 10:04:13 AM
How a War With Iraq Will Change the World
An attack intended to get rid of Saddam will prompt him to use whatever weapons of mass destruction he has, specifically against Israel, to widen the war and go down as a modern-day Saladin, the slayer of infidels. And in fact, if he's going out anyway, it's hard to believe he wouldn't want to do so in what in his mind is a blaze of glory. U.N. inspectors believe he has managed to hide 12 to 18 Scud missiles left over from the Gulf war and has legally continued to work on short-range missile development--some of which is applicable toward long-range missiles. Further, Saddam has devoted significant resources to figuring out how to keep chemical agents floating in the air--"aerosol-dispensing technology," in WMD argot. If he believes he's going down, everything he has will probably be headed toward Israel. If any of it hits its intended target and the Israelis retaliate, "chaos" is a mild word for what will ensue. A region-wide conflagration, an oil embargo, ever more hatred directed at Israel's sponsor, the U.S.
2277. Wombat - 7/3/2002 10:22:32 AM
Indy:
The interesting thing about that article is that it doesn't even attempt to speculate on what might happen after Iraq is invaded and Saddam is overthrown.
As those who have known me since the Fray days are aware, I take second to no one in my desire to see Saddam gone, and in my criticism of Bush the elder for not taking the extra week or two to do so during the Gulf War. However, lumping Iraq into an artificial construct is not sufficient cause for a full-scale, conventional war.
Bush the elder had an internationally acceptable reason to fight Iraq. Bush-baby has none, and his policies in the region will most likely make it more difficult to come up with one.
2278. Wombat - 7/3/2002 10:28:03 AM
Indy:
Can you limit the white-font crap to the threads with which you have a major beef? I actually want to read what you write.
2279. transient1a - 7/3/2002 10:32:04 AM
Wombat,
Message # 2275
Thanks for your response.
Maybe I am not making myself clear.
To repeat:
When the US had the opportunity in Iran, the US should have done better, much better.
NOTE
This has nothing to do with the points you are raising.
2280. Indiana Jones - 7/3/2002 10:43:49 AM
Wombat: I agree--when qualified by "internationally acceptable"--but such approval doesn't stop most international actions by most countries. I don't think lack of an internationally acceptable reason will be sufficient to stop Bush in this case either. After 9/11 (and after the second-guessing about why our government didn't do anything beforehand), should Saddam directly or indirectly wreak havoc--especially against Americans--the domestic fallout will be unfathomable. And internationally, US invincibility will take a costly pounding.
Personally, I think we've moved too slowly (and not just because of my bet with Pincher). The emotional capital we had with the world has all evaporated, and in the interim Israel has complicated everything.
As far as a full-scale conventional war, I think the opportunity for that, barring some new event, has passed. Of course, it depends on the definition of "full-scale": would you define Kosovo as full scale?
Which policies do you think make rationalizing the attack difficult? Our stance in the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
2281. Wombat - 7/3/2002 11:20:56 AM
Indy:
I don't think Saddam can be overthrown quickly without a major land war. Another advantage of a major land war is that we could then impose a government on Iraq (as well as ensure that it remains unified), and oversee a major purge of its internal security services, its military, and its political structure (call it de-Baathization).
Obviously, this cannot be done without an international alliance of forces, including some from the region. It would also require a commitment to this administration's anathema, nation-building. This cannot be done without an actual causus belli (Saddam has wisely--or luckily--not provided one through involvement in 9/11 that we have been able to discern), and cannot be done unless the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is put way on the back burner, ideally through tangible progress toward a Palestinian state.
2282. Wombat - 7/3/2002 11:37:16 AM
What we and our allies can continue doing is to work within the existing UN resolutions governing the end of the Gulf War. The level of air activity patrolling the no fly zone, and the occasional air strikes that result can be used against Iraqi forces in the North, who are apparently in violation of existing agreements banning armor and artillery from the Kurdish safe areas. I cannot believe that Iraqi forces are not using helicopters in the south to patrol potentially rebellious communities there. Shoot them down.
Putting together and supporting insurgent groups (assuming that we can find enough to trust us, and who won't spend more time fighting each other than Saddam) can also be done.
These are more long-term, and would lead to a messier and fragmented post-Saddam Iraq, most likely with leaders whose only difference from Saddam is that they betrayed him. This may be what this administration can handle, although it would lead to the same sort of problems that we are facing in Afghanistan, and would most likely increase conflict in the region.
Such a strategy may, however, provoke Saddam into providing a causus belli (sorry, Israel), after which we could then launch a full-scale war against him.
2283. jexster - 7/3/2002 11:44:41 AM
Why Wombat you geopolitical incompetent you!
Becoming a war monger in your dotage are ya?
2284. Wombat - 7/3/2002 11:47:16 AM
I am selective in wars I choose to mong
2285. jexster - 7/3/2002 11:55:42 AM
Steven Margolis, an occasional consultant on Afgh internals for CNN was flirting with a Trashcroft terror with his thinly veiled sedition today re:The REAL DEAL in Afgh...
Observations...
- the US Armed forces are experiencing mission creep or better mission drift...Missions often have little connected to any defined objective
- missions rely too heavily on air power; result in heavy collateral civilian loss; contribute to growing civilian hostility, and most often wind up turning dirty caves with a few mortar rounds to dust
- the US is increasingly getting involved militarily in tribal rivalries...the Pashtuns are most restless
- having grossly overstated the significance of the AL Qaeda presence, the military's claims of success are dubious...there never were more than 300 Al Q's pre9-1-1 and most ran for cover when the bombing started
- Loya Jirga imprimatur notwithstanding, Karsai wouldn't last a month without US aid but he might also find his career cut short by that very benefactor
2286. jexster - 7/3/2002 11:56:35 AM
Baaad choice!
Although I grant ya its great fun to see night raids on Baghdad...
2287. Indiana Jones - 7/3/2002 12:02:38 PM
jexster: I think you mean Eric Margolis, unless the Margolis family is genetically predisposed to inept commentary on American foreign policy. How does Steven/Eric come to know the "true" number of Al Qaeda?
2288. Indiana Jones - 7/3/2002 12:10:31 PM
Wombat: Our government might be more committed to nation-building in Iraq because of the oil reserves. That's no certainty, though, because despite the quality of Bush's team, I see more reaction than initiative.
As far as Israel goes, Sharon is a PR nightmare for them and us. Even if you support Israel--which I do--it would be much better for all of us if they had a more palatable leader at this juncture.
2289. RustlerPike - 7/3/2002 12:30:15 PM
As far as Israel goes, Sharon is a PR nightmare for them and us. Even if you support Israel--which I do--it would be much better for all of us if they had a more palatable leader at this juncture.
Why's that? Because he's a bit on the plump side?
2290. stostosto - 7/3/2002 12:30:34 PM
Andonly Message # 2263
You're a zero-one kinda guy, and this tendency leads you to look for mathematical tidiness in human interactions, which in your calculations you believe you've somehow shorn of moral weight. You want to find the single "root cause" of things. But there is no single root cause of any political reality, only fractions, and people's ideas and motivations are never so discrete and uncontingent as you insist.
Purely out of concern that the bashful young P-mus is too timid to speak up for himself, I'll make a remark on his behalf: I don't think that is an accurate account of his thinking.
I also think the insistence on your part that everything is so infinitely complex and multi-faceted and can't be made the object of one-zero based algorithms which do not factor in the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory nightmare that is human nature is but pseudo-sophistication. Saying things are terribly complex as a retort is actually quite simplistic.
And I am surprised, given the awesome complexity of the world that you are positing, how singularly consistent you are in your own diagnoses and prescriptions. You apparently have a way of sorting out the enormous complexities quite neatly for yourself.
2291. Indiana Jones - 7/3/2002 12:38:13 PM
Rustler: On the PR side it's always better to have a man of peace as leader when you're fighting and a man of war when you're seeking peace. As far as specifics regarding Sharon, Sabra and Shatila.
2292. jexster - 7/3/2002 12:56:12 PM
Hell I dunno Indy...
One thing's for sure, though. He's has considerable experience there and has forgotten more than I ever knew about the place.
His commentaries are refreshingly candid and counter-crap.
As for Al Q's high tailing it, even an Afgh igoramous like me could see that one coming, about 1 hour after the airstrikes began I said as much..
Do you doubt it
2293. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2002 12:56:23 PM
"You're a zero-one kinda guy, and this tendency leads you to look for mathematical tidiness in human interactions, which in your calculations you believe you've somehow shorn of moral weight. You want to find the single "root cause" of things. But there is no single root cause of any political reality, only fractions, and people's ideas and motivations are never so discrete and uncontingent as you insist."
I also find this an inaccurate description of Pseudo (not that he needs me to defend him, but he is out of town for a week). I don't think anyone trained in economics has a prejudice toward single causes of events. Hell, this sort of thinking is beaten out of students in econometrics classes, where all the students do is multivariate analysis.
I also see no flaw in trying to mathematically model the causes of a problem. When I was disagreeing with Pseudo, I was in fact picturing a model in my head (more a flow chart than an equation), where Israeli/American actions and the failures of Arab states to improve the circumstances of its citizens are the root causes of terrorism. The failures of Arab states leads to Fundamentalism, which serves to amplify the response to American and Israeli actions, plus create new grievances that wouldn't otherwise exist.
2294. Indiana Jones - 7/3/2002 12:59:20 PM
jexster: Okay, but even if we (rather generously) assume Margolis's number is correct, that would have left Al-Q with the capacity for nine more WTC-type attacks.
2295. jexster - 7/3/2002 12:59:59 PM
Oh yeah its Eric Margolis and he peddles sedition at the Toronto Sun...
I like the guy from what little I have read.
His book "War at the Top of the World" got good reviews and is on my Amazon wish list...far down but on it
2296. CalGal - 7/3/2002 1:19:37 PM
Pincher,
I hadn't read that article yet; been too busy to read the papers much.
But I don't think it says anything new. The thing I keep stumbling on is that we seem to have given up imperialism a hundred years too soon. We aren't allowed to insist that they fix this situation, yet it is difficult for us to protect ourselves from them if they don't.
2297. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:09:54 PM
Sto: "I also think the insistence on your part that everything is so infinitely complex and multi-faceted..."
What insistence?
"...and can't be made the object of one-zero based algorithms which do not factor in the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory nightmare that is human nature is but pseudo-sophistication."
Pseudoerasmus has done no such factoring in. Raskolnikov asked: "Do you believe that Arab and Muslim radicalism has any substantial impact on increasing the intensity of Anti-Americanism and the intensity and frequency of terrorist actions against the US?"
PE answered: "Independent of US actions? No." But here we are, conveniently, at the beginning of the one-way causal loop again: all increase in radicalism is itself caused entirely by US actions. The culture, the religious deformity--these are just incidental vehicles for a perfectly understandable reaction, and any other culture or religion could stand in. US interference is the key to everything.
Now that's sophistry.
2298. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:14:44 PM
"Saying things are terribly complex as a retort is actually quite simplistic."
OK, but I haven't said that here. I don't believe what we've been discussing is "terribly complex" at all. What I believe is that in some cases, places, and times mideast anti-Americanism has been understandable, in others not. I believe Arab and Muslim overreaction and villification of Israel/US is fundamentally adolescent in nature.
One can well understand Iranian anti-Americanism, for instance. But it has given way lately to Iranian philo-Americanism, especially among younger Iranians less given to fundamentalist religiosity. One could imagine that Iranians might have more reason to be pissed today at the US's past interferences than, say, Egyptians have.
But even 35 years back, as Egypt's leaders wound themselves up for a war with Israel that was provoked by nothing that hadn't occurred at least a decade or more prior, official radio pronouncements sounded like this: "Millions of Arabs are preparing to blow up all America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America." What, on balance, provoked that?
Let's remember, this was only three or four years after Kennedy had tried to negotiate a ceasefire between Saudi Arabia and Egypt (which Egypt promptly reneged) to end their war in Yemen that was bleeding Egypt dry and tying up its military resources so that it could not take on Israel. This was also while the US was providing massive food assistance to Egypt. And it was in the wake of the US having armed Jordan (whose forces handily fell under Egyptian command in the Six Day War). And again, this was after the US had defended Egypt against the "Tripartite Aggression" over Suez. But none of that counted: US support for Israel (in the UN--America wasn't supplying much arms-wise, yet) simply negated all other considerations. Was that rational?
2299. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:17:30 PM
PE uses an analogy about a villain who rapes and murders one of your children and saves the life of the other. Does this mitigate the murder, he asks?
OF COURSE IT DOES.
Speaking as the most forthrightly vicious proponent of retribution I know, I can say that I could not demand the death penalty for someone who had murdered one of my kids if he had saved the life of the other. I would still want him in prison forever, but I could not in good conscience ask for capital punishment. Yet, Arab and Muslim terrorists--I am speaking of terrorists, who by definition target civilians, and justify this in the name of ideologies devised and promulgated by radical clerics who comply with their cause by providing them human fodder--these men see only the "provocation" and not the beneficent "interference" the US has engaged in over time. They're for the death penalty where the US is concerned, and in spades. They are, to put it politely, rabid, concienceless ideologues.
That condition in itself has nothing to do with American actions, and quite a lot to do with culture and religion, which in the case of the people I am discussing excuses loathing of the other on grounds that the other is either alien or fundamentally inferior.
2300. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:17:50 PM
The "reaction" that produced the attack on the World Trade Center (not the Pentagon, which I think one must consider a legitimate military target) is excessive, just as Muslim antipathy toward Jews everywhere is excessive. This excess--this hysteria, which PE has admitted to in the past--has to do with the spread of a particular self-glorifying revolutionary ideology not unique in the world, but in its particulars endemic to Arabs and Islam and Communist-inspired anti-Americanism. It is a satisfying, self-absolving ideology no less a product of its culture than American jingoism is a product of American culture. (Would anyone seriously claim that Islamic provocation, or any particular conflict with anyone, has been the historical cause of any rabid American patriotism that emerges today, or was obvious in the '50s, etc.?)
Arab and Muslim radicalism would exist whether the US "provoked" middle easterners or just let them starve and fight themselves to death all on their own.
2301. Daniel Sickles - 7/3/2002 4:25:18 PM
Pseudo dodges when the simple questions reveal his bizarre dance. His options are qualification, high dudgeon at being so misunderstood, or restatement that his initial position was really simple (so simple, unfortunately, that to make the initial statement would have been asinine).
2302. Daniel Sickles - 7/3/2002 4:30:38 PM
The fact is, as Andonly and Rask and Cal and Pincher have noted, the vicious reaction of the Muslim world to American involvement is a different kettle of fish than the reaction of other peoples.
The discussion can revolve around why (i.e., culture, historical resentment, religion, Israel, poverty, education, simple First World v. Third World antipathy, even pseudo's rather humorous invocation of American propping up of Arab dictators - who are mostly reviled because they keep the Arab "street" from tearing Jews limb-from-limb).
If I understand him, pseudo states that the response is not vicious, but pedestrian.
2303. CalGal - 7/3/2002 4:30:46 PM
The "reaction" that produced the attack on the World Trade Center (not the Pentagon, which I think one must consider a legitimate military target) is excessive
With a missile, sure. But civilians were involved in method of attack, so I think it was just as excessive.
2304. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:46:44 PM
"I also find this an inaccurate description of Pseudo (not that he needs me to defend him, but he is out of town for a week)."
It is not inaccurate, and PE routinely continues arguments at some length after his interlocutors have announced they will be gone, so you needn't take umbrage on his behalf.
"I also see no flaw in trying to mathematically model the causes of a problem."
Nor do I (with a caveat). But PE seems congenitally unable to decide that any contentious outcome can be assessed a fault ratio of 50:50, or even 51:49. For as soon as we get past even numbers, the villain becomes absolute.
My caveat: it may be useful to model the cause of a problem if a cause can reasonably be altered. But there are always judgments about necessity and morality that get swamped in the model. For instance, say that 3 shipwrecked men board a vessel in mid-ocean. They do this by force, since the sailors on the vessel, all brothers, refuse to let them board (they fear their ship will be stolen). Three of the six sailors are killed, and all of the shipwrecked men survive. When they reach land, the surviving sailors set out to burn down the houses of the "pirates." A long-running feud ensues in which many more people die.
A simple mathmatical analysis of the sort PE prefers in considering the mideast will show that the entire conflict could have been avoided if only the shipwrecked men had not boarded the brothers' boat by force. Of course, they themselves would have died, but overall many more lives would have been saved. It all adds up.
But does it?
2305. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:47:00 PM
"When I was disagreeing with Pseudo, I was in fact picturing a model in my head (more a flow chart than an equation), where Israeli/American actions and the failures of Arab states to improve the circumstances of its citizens are the root causes of terrorism. The failures of Arab states leads to Fundamentalism, which serves to amplify the response to American and Israeli actions, plus create new grievances that wouldn't otherwise exist."
Your flow chart in this discussion has in fact been conceptually 'visible' to me, and being the most parsimonious explanation I believe it is largely accurate, except that fundamentalism's existence preceded Arab states' failures in the modern era, so I believe these did not so much lead to fundamentalism as amplify it to dangerous levels.
(I also maintain that antipathy to Jews existed before Zionism, and Israel's creation did not so much bring it into being as amplify it to dangerous levels. PE dismisses that contention.)
2306. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:52:43 PM
"With a missile, sure. But civilians were involved in method of attack, so I think it was just as excessive."
Objectively speaking, if the object had been the Pentagon alone, then if civilians got in the way they were "colateral damage". We Americans certainly do not let civilians mixed in with enemy populations deter us from every attack. Hell, if Palestinians confined their attacks to armed personnel in the WB and Gaza, yet killed civilians in the process knowing they would do so, I'd have to say Israel had no beef. That's war, and if terrorists used a plane to bomb the Pentagon alone, I'd have to concede that they were simply making use of what they could lay their hands on: unfortunately, it contained civilians.
That is of course not what they did or intended.
2307. Andonly - 7/3/2002 4:58:10 PM
"The thing I keep stumbling on is that we seem to have given up imperialism a hundred years too soon. We aren't allowed to insist that they fix this situation, yet it is difficult for us to protect ourselves from them if they don't."
This is exactly correct. But the current US admin understands and intends to reinvigorate Empire. I sure hope we're up to it, but to be frank, I'm not sure we can.
2308. sakonige - 7/3/2002 6:38:28 PM
the vicious reaction of the Muslim world to American involvement is a different kettle of fish than the reaction of other peoples.
The only real difference is that Islamic extremists deliberately sacrifice their lives. That one simple adaptation is the unique feature that makes all the difference. Suddenly, a band of outlaws is transformed into an army capable of unsettling a superpower.
2309. sakonige - 7/3/2002 6:44:45 PM
This is exactly correct. But the current US admin understands and intends to reinvigorate Empire. I sure hope we're up to it, but to be frank, I'm not sure we can.
Yes, I'm hoping I get to watch this whole ironic mess explode, too. What the hell, it keeps the news interesting.
2310. joezan - 7/3/2002 6:45:22 PM
I've been hearing on CBS radio all day that American pilots and flight crews are reporting that they are being followed around several airports in Europe -mainly in England, The Netherlands, and Germany (I think) - by "Middle Eastern looking" people.
The airline workers have reported that these folks seem to be paying particular attention to their schedules and routines.
I haven't seen anything at Drudge, and haven't turned on the TV yet.
Anyone heard more about this?
2311. sakonige - 7/3/2002 6:46:29 PM
Americans really don't have that many deadly bitter enemies yet, but I'm certain they will be making more.
2312. transient1a - 7/4/2002 8:52:28 AM
Andoly,
Message # 2307
It appears that the motivations and actions of the Islamic extremists defy both your sensibilities and logic.
The concept that human actions must conform to some sort of preconceived ethical and logical constraints is, at best, delusional. The arguments by analogy are silly.
Whatever the 'reality' of events are is an unholy mixture of both complexity and chance.
Consider Israel:
Jews are allowed into the area because of miscalculations of the British.
Founders are mostly very bright European, idealistic, communist, atheist 'Jews'.
After the Arab population decide not to accept a small 'Jewish' democratic state, the UN partitions the country into Israel and Palestine.
BUT
There is no provision to ensure the process will be peaceful. And no provision to ensure even the survival of Israel in event of attack from its enemies. In fact, British actions and an arms embargo appear to ensure instant annihilation of the nascent state. And the West, incuding the US, do not appear to care -- and seem to expect the "'Jewish' problem'" to be resolved by the Arabs.
Enter Czechoslovakia:
The country is headed by 'Jews' (who will later be deposed). Arms are sent to Israel which probably allowed the survival of Israel. Now did Stalin order the arms to be sent in a 'brilliant', far-reaching plan to destabilize the Middle East or did Czech 'Jews' simply act in solidarity with their Israeli brethren?
SO
Israel comes into existence through right of conquest.
Con't
2313. transient1a - 7/4/2002 8:59:57 AM
Con't
See:
Israel's War of Independence
And a 'nice' quote:
"We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building-up of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation in all its ... institutions."
"We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and goodwill, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land."
2314. transient1a - 7/4/2002 9:01:35 AM
Oops!
- David Ben-Gurion in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, May 14, 1948
2315. Andonly - 7/4/2002 10:30:45 AM
More dreadful fallout from awful US interference in Muslims' affairs (from MEMRI):
The Palestinian Debate Over Martyrdom Operations: Part I -The Debate within the PA
Recently, there have been several calls from amongst the Palestinian leadership condemning martyrdom operations and demanding their cessation. Nevertheless, a new, clear and determined PA position on this issue has not yet emerged. What is taking place in fact, is a debate in which some of the high ranking officials express explicit opposition to such operations, others call to limit them only to the territories occupied in '67, and others call to continue them unconditionally.
Calls Against Martyrdom Operations
PA Chairman Yasser Arafat issued several calls to stop these operations. In a speech on Nakbha Day (May 15, 2002) he said: "We declare today our un-acceptance of operations against Israeli civilians... The Palestinian and Arab public opinion is convinced that such operations do not serve our goals. Rather, they cause disagreements [with the international community] and unite large parts of it against us. You know better than me that such operations cause dissent... Let us remember the Hudaybiya agreement..."(1)
After the two martyrdom operations carried out in Jerusalem in June 2002, Arafat issued another statement calling to totally stop these operations.(2) (cont.)
2316. Andonly - 7/4/2002 10:31:06 AM
Other high ranking Palestinians have voiced clear opposition to martyrdom operations and called for a popular unarmed Intifada. The new PA Interior Minister Abd Al-Razzaq Al-Yahya said in a symposium in Gaza that as early as September 1998 he called in writing to refrain from an armed confrontation with Israel and endorsed a strategy of popular uprising. The present character of the resistance does not accumulate to any big strategic achievement rather the opposite. It causes losses and damages and accumulates feelings of vengeance hate and enmity between Palestinians and Israelis. Viewing the Palestinian armed resistance as a form of deterrence is nice words that have no basis in reality because such a deterrence can exist only when both parties have WMDs.(3)
Former Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Nabil Amru, told Al Quds daily: "...Of course I do not support martyrdom operations. I must not be happy that the sons of my people blow themselves up in this way. I cannot send my sons to such operations. In addition to that the political reality and the Palestinian leadership oppose such operations..."(4)
Arafat's Advisor on Military Affairs, Mamduh Nofal, suggested that the Hamas movement should be ousted from the "national Palestinian forces." Since it crossed all lines and violated the common denominator agreed upon by all the Palestinian forces. Nofal accused Hamas of striving to destroy the peace process as well as the PA through martyrdom operations against Israeli civilian targets which grant Sharon justification for his military assault with the backing of the White House and unofficial backing of some Arab countries.(5)
2317. Andonly - 7/4/2002 10:45:25 AM
The report goes on to cite views in opposition to these, dividing them into two categories: calls for suicide attacks to continue indiscriminately and calls for limiting the attacks, in some way, to objectives that can be deemed defensible in the eyes of the outside world.
The only completely uncompromising view (advocating no limitation on suicide attacks at all) comes from a cleric.
2318. Andonly - 7/4/2002 10:48:50 AM
See the full report here.
2319. Andonly - 7/4/2002 10:55:09 AM
Transient, I would try to respond to your posts if I could understand what you were talking about, but I can't.
2320. transient1a - 7/4/2002 11:08:43 AM
Andonly,
Then I guess you won't -- if you had't already.
ANYWAY
I like this:
Barbarian: [One who] thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. -- George Bernard Shaw
ANYWAY
Good luck in your quest for insight and your 'discussion' with pseudofacsist.
2321. Andonly - 7/4/2002 11:25:14 AM
On the subject of whether terrorists will still target the US if the US opts not to interfere in their affairs:
Q: Does the GIA [Algeria's "Armed Islamic Group," a radical offshoot of the country's Islamic opposition] have ties to al-Qaeda?
A: Possibly. Experts say that some GIA leaders may have had contact with Osama bin Laden while fighting in the 1979–89 Afghan war against the Soviet Union. Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network also includes some Algerians. The extent of the connection between the GIA and al-Qaeda is unclear, experts say, but it is probably limited. The GIA operates principally in Algeria, and its objectives are more local than al-Qaeda’s ambitions for a global holy war.
Q: Does the GIA target Americans?
A: The GIA has not targeted Americans in Algeria. But some Algerian terrorists who have tried to attack the United States may be linked to the GIA. In December 1999, Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian living in Montreal, was arrested at the U.S.-Canadian border with a carload of explosives; he was later convicted of plotting a millennium-eve attack on Los Angeles International Airport. Ressam has since led authorities to alleged co-conspirators in Canada and the United States.
(from the Council on Foreign Relations website)
So what has the US done to annoy Algerians lately?
2322. Andonly - 7/4/2002 11:42:19 AM
Sigh.
Okay Transient, this is the best I can do. I seriously don't understand the thrust of the rest of your remarks past these:
"It appears that the motivations and actions of the Islamic extremists defy both your sensibilities and logic."
Although this remark seem to have nothing whatever to do with the comment of mine to CalGal which you reference, the motivations of extremists of any sort naturally do defy my sensibilities. They should defy all reasonable people's sensibilities. But they don't defy "logic," since of course they have their own internal logic.
"The concept that human actions must conform to some sort of preconceived ethical and logical constraints is, at best, delusional. The arguments by analogy are silly."
Well then I have to assume you believe Arabs Muslims are from Mars or something and just can't be expected to share "western" values.
"Whatever the 'reality' of events are is an unholy mixture of both complexity and chance."
Where is Sto when you need him?
2323. jexster - 7/4/2002 1:53:42 PM
Exactly the point Margolis made in his CNN interview...
Its A Nice Day for a White Wedding...
[reuters]The U.S. military played a leading role in the ouster of the fundamentalist Taliban last year, something that was welcomed by millions of Afghans. But as special forces comb the country for fugitive Taliban leaders or their al Qaeda allies, there have been some civilian casualties.
Experts say Karzai's government will have to deal with a lot of anti-American feeling as a result of the tragedy, especially from the proud Pashtuns of southern and eastern Afghanistan.
"It will force Karzai to take a stronger line with the U.S.," said prominent Pakistani author and Afghan expert Ahmed Rashid. "It could put strains on the U.S.-Karzai relationship -- he will have to respond to public feeling."
2324. jexster - 7/4/2002 1:56:08 PM
Where is Sto when you need him?
Kong Christian Stod ved Højen Mast
(King Christian Stood by the Lofty Mast)
2325. stostosto - 7/4/2002 2:32:02 PM
Ja, ja, ja, nu kommer jeg!
De ser jeg iler!
Hvad kan jeg betjene herskaberne med?
2326. Indiana Jones - 7/4/2002 2:34:03 PM
Study warns of Arab stagnation
The authors also describe a "severe shortage" of new writing and a dearth of translations of works from outside. "The whole Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one-fifth the number that Greece translates," the report said. In the 1,000 years since the reign of the Caliph Mamoun, it concludes, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain translates in just one year.
2327. PelleNilsson - 7/4/2002 2:42:28 PM
That link takes you back to the Mote front page. But never mind, the article in question has already been linked in by Pincher, yesterday I think.
2328. Indiana Jones - 7/4/2002 2:46:39 PM
Corrected link
2329. Roy Bean - 7/4/2002 2:51:00 PM
I read a fair amount of back posts but I don't have time to read 2k plus posts to see if my thoughts have been previously covered (who would? and can I have their job that gives them that much free time?) but I'd like to make a few comments about what I perceive to be among the causes of terrorism.
My thoughts do not flow from those posts of Andonly and others, and I hope and assume you can have overlapping comments and discussions here. I am not wanting to derail any conversations by posting this.
First off, I dont see much mention of the fact that the suicide bombers, and the 9/11 bombers were paid to do what they did. While various angry hordes may or may not resent the US or Israel, the proximate cause of terrorism is that people are just plain paid to do it. Blowing up a market in Tel Aviv is a job, it's a way to bring home the bacon. You get a nice fat check from Saddam, and if you're lucky maybe also a check from Saudi Arabia or the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. With the vast unemployment rates (74% lately according to AP) on the West Bank, some people will do anything for a buck. The mother who beamed with pride about her son who killed many men women and children in Israel is beaming the pride of a mother whose son became a doctor or lawyer, she's proud that her son did something that brought in a lot of money, and in much of the world, money not only buys things it also brings respect, makes you someone.
What we have here is a bunch of bored rich dilettante Saudis funding people to kill Americans. And Saddam/PA/Saudi Arabia/ and indirectly Europe via it's donations to the PA funding people to kill Israelis.
Complex investigations into historical reasons for terrorism is simply buying into the terrorist's adolescent delusion of grandeur. The terrorists have to have such delusions, to justify themselves not actually working, but we don't have to buy into that fantasy.
2330. PelleNilsson - 7/4/2002 3:26:12 PM
Well, Roy, your perception of terrorism as a market phenomenon is certainly a refreshing one and, in a way, a thought-provoking one. Who knows, maybe there is a spot market for would-be suicide bombers where Hamas, Jihad and the others enter their bids.
2331. CalGal - 7/4/2002 3:41:40 PM
I don't know if it explains it entirely, but I do think there is some truth to it. One still has to have a fair degree of fanaticism to give up one's life, but it certainly is consistent with the reaction of the family members left behind.
2332. stostosto - 7/4/2002 6:34:19 PM
Much obliged, Roy. Speaking of the law west of the Pecos, I take it.
2333. jexster - 7/4/2002 8:53:03 PM
Sto
Wield jeres mægtig sværd. Slå itu kranium!
2334. jexster - 7/4/2002 8:54:58 PM
Who knows, maybe there is a spot market for would-be suicide bombers where Hamas, Jihad and the others enter their bids
Ground meat futures trading...I think Ken Lay is working on that now
2335. jexster - 7/4/2002 9:31:34 PM
The presidency is going to George Bush's head.
"Bush is jumping up and saying truly extraordinary things, some of them preposterous, some stupid, some terrifying... We define morality now. We decide who's naughty and who's nice... If the president says it, it must be true. Whether you agree with his pronouncements or not, you are supposed to keep your mouth shut in the name of patriotism and solidarity.
Among other things, you have to pretend we actually have the capability to do what we say we're going to do to the axis of evil or anyone else, including corporate America, who gets bad numbers in Republicans' polls. [Bush is making ridiculous threats and promises he cannot deliver on. The truth is, most countries are not with us. They are -- surprise -- for themselves. Bush is talking nonsense most] of the time, dangerous nonsense if he means it, and it is past time to talk openly about that."
Well Put Richard Reeves!
Pantsed in a neo-con wet dream
2336. ronski - 7/4/2002 10:05:29 PM
I think the economic incentives play a very minor role in this ongoing horror.
2337. ronski - 7/4/2002 10:21:29 PM
Trust jexster to admire someone like Reeves.
While it is true Vietnam was a defeat and Korea and Iraq were draws, they were so only because of a lack of will on the Americans' part, not a lack of power. Vietnam should never have been fought in the first place. Ho, originally a Jeffersonian democrat, should have been courted when the French left, not villified.
Truman should have let MacArthur finish the job in Korea, and Bush should have finished the job in Iraq, telling the Saudis to go to hell if they didn't like it.
Bush 43 is potentially showing the backbone that Truman and Bush 41 lacked. Saddam is probably toast, as Rumsfield may be right that Saddam is a nuclear threat to Western security (though a little more reliable info on that subject would be useful).
Furthermore, Bush is moving to distance himself from the Saudis, by expanding the base in Qatar, a promising development. I reserve judgment as to how serious the Administration is re: disengaging from regimes like the Saudis', but I also reserve hope.
2338. jexster - 7/4/2002 10:45:22 PM
George W. Bush came to power very critical of the Clinton administration’s handling of world affairs. Bush and his advisors did not admit—but were undoubtedly aware—that Clinton’s path had been the path of every U.S. president since Gerald Ford, including that of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. It had even been the path of the current Bush administration before September 11. ....
Following the terrorist attacks, Bush changed course, declaring war on terrorism, assuring the American people that “the outcome is certain” and informing the world that “you are either with us or against us.” Long frustrated by even the most conservative U.S. administrations, the hawks finally came to dominate American policy.
2339. jexster - 7/4/2002 10:46:30 PM
Their position is clear: The United States wields overwhelming military power, and even though countless foreign leaders consider it unwise for Washington to flex its military muscles, these same leaders cannot and will not do anything if the United States simply imposes its will on the rest. The hawks believe the United States should act as an imperial power for two reasons: First, the United States can get away with it. And second, if Washington doesn’t exert its force, the United States will become increasingly marginalized.
Today, this hawkish position has three expressions: the military assault in Afghanistan, the de facto support for the Israeli attempt to liquidate the Palestinian Authority, and the invasion of Iraq, which is reportedly in the military preparation stage. ...
The hawks’ reading of recent events emphasizes that opposition to U.S. actions, while serious, has remained largely verbal. Neither Western Europe nor Russia nor China nor Saudi Arabia has seemed ready to break ties in serious ways with the United States. In other words, hawks believe, Washington has indeed gotten away with it. The hawks assume a similar outcome will occur when the U.S. military actually invades Iraq and after that, when the United States exercises its authority elsewhere in the world, be it in Iran, North Korea, Colombia, or perhaps Indonesia. Ironically, the hawk reading has largely become the reading of the international left, which has been screaming about U.S. policies—mainly because they fear that the chances of U.S. success are high.
But hawk interpretations are wrong and will only contribute to the United States’ decline, transforming a gradual descent into a much more rapid and turbulent fall. Specifically, hawk approaches will fail for military, economic, and ideological reasons.
The Eagle Has Crash Landed - Immanuel Wallerstein
2340. jexster - 7/4/2002 10:48:46 PM
toys pantsed
2341. jexster - 7/4/2002 10:50:00 PM
This article draws from the research reported in Terence K. Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein’s, eds., The Age of Transition: Trajectory of the World-System, 1945–2025 (London: Zed Books, 1996). In his new book, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), Joseph S. Nye Jr. argues that the United States can remain on top, provided it emphasizes multilateralism. For a less optimistic view, see Thomas J. McCormick’s America’s Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy in the Cold War and After, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995). David Calleo’s latest book, Rethinking Europe’s Future (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), cogently analyzes the ins and outs of the European Union and its potential impact on U.S. power in the world.
2342. stostosto - 7/5/2002 2:39:59 AM
Has anyone linked in this article from last week's Economist?
Egypt's Islamists: A kinder, gentler Islam
The fading of the Islamists' vision also reflects a profound ideological shift among Egypt's militants. This change began in response to the failure of the armed insurgency in the mid-1990s that cost more than 1,000 lives, and ended with as many as 30,000 suspected Islamists in jail. Even as the bloodshed peaked with the massacre of 58 tourists at Luxor in 1997, leaders of the largest radical group, the Gamaa Islamiya, called from their prison cells for abandoning violence. Terrorism was bad, they said, not just because it alienated mainstream society, but because it was wrong under Islamic law.
That message has gained wider resonance since the terrorist attacks on America. A slew of recent books by Egypt's former militants have excoriated Osama bin Laden for harming Islam, and used Islamic scripture to explain why peaceful means are in the interest of the faith. Repentant Islamist leaders, all still imprisoned and some of them still on death row, have even taken the peaceful message on a state-sponsored road show to the jails across the country, where as many as 10,000 of their followers still languish.
...
Also, did anyone comment on the fact that the UN Arab study of Arab Development cites a poll where 51% of Arab youth express their desire to emigrate to the West?
2343. stostosto - 7/5/2002 2:44:55 AM
Roy, Message # 2329
With the vast unemployment rates (74% lately according to AP) on the West Bank, some people will do anything for a buck.
Are you on the Cherie Blair bandwagon of terrorist apologists? It's such a familiar tired line from them that terrorists are pushed to their acts by the desperate misery of their situation.
Remember, the 9-11 perpetrators had solid middle class backgrounds and many of them had studied in the West.
2344. CalGal - 7/5/2002 2:50:08 AM
But that doesn't mean that they don't do it for the money or the fame. Yes, they had middle class backgrounds and education, but they also had no hope for employment in their own countries--and frankly, seemed largely unemployable period. Just because your parents have money doesn't mean that you have any hope.
I trust you know that I'm not excusing them, either. I think the problems run very deep. But I do think the funding has made certain activities fashionable, rather than spontaneous. Rather like media attention on school shootings made it a fad for a while.
2345. stostosto - 7/5/2002 2:58:50 AM
I do think the funding has made certain activities fashionable
Or, the fashionability of certain activities has attracted funding. That seems the case with Saddam's penchant for paying off suicide bombers.
2346. CalGal - 7/5/2002 3:38:14 AM
Why would it attract funding, if it was fashionable when it was free?
2347. Wombat - 7/5/2002 8:27:00 AM
Look on the payments as a form of worker's compensation.
2348. Wombat - 7/5/2002 8:30:17 AM
Ronski:
MacArthur was allowed to "finish the job" by invading North Korea after they had benn routed and driven out of South Korea. That's why China intervened. (Unless you are seriously suggesting that the US and the recently defeated KMT forces should have invaded China.)
2349. Indiana Jones - 7/5/2002 8:55:34 AM
Nothing in the Central Command document or in interviews with senior military officials suggests that an attack on Iraq is imminent.
Indeed, senior administration officials continue to say that any offensive would probably be delayed until early next year, allowing time to create the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions.
Nonetheless, there are several signs that the military is preparing for a major air campaign and land invasion.
NY Times
2350. Andonly - 7/5/2002 9:52:22 AM
The guy who shot up an El Al terminal at LAX yesterday (July 4th, American Independence Day) turns out to have been an Egyptian. The FBI sees no indication so far that the attack was terrorist in nature.
Incidentally, I read somewhere that Pseudoerasmus was recently appointed head of the Los Angeles Bureau of the FBI. The same report noted that the Egyptian (who died in the LAX assault) may have been a disgruntled former employee of El Al. PE's department also has proposed that the shooting incident arose as the perfectly natural result of a failed romance with a Jewish woman, or a child custody battle with an American seeking divorce, during which the man was provoked.
2351. Andonly - 7/5/2002 9:54:51 AM
"Repentant Islamist leaders, all still imprisoned and some of them still on death row...
Yet another weight on the scale in support of the efficacy of punishment, not negotiation.
2352. Andonly - 7/5/2002 10:02:10 AM
But the Economist's optimistic report is welcome news, and seems to support what I've been saying in earlier discussions about the possibilities for a liberal Islam emerging, paradoxically, as a partial result of radical Islam's conflict with "the west".
2353. Andonly - 7/5/2002 10:11:52 AM
"Neighbors said Hadayet was quiet but became incensed when an upstairs neighbor hung large American and Marine Corps flags from a balcony above his front door after Sept. 11.The flags remained there Thursday night.
That neighbor declined to talk to reporters, but another neighbor, Steve Thompson, said Hadayet ''complained about it to the apartment manager. He thought it was being thrown in his face.''"
The FBI figures this thing may have constituted a "hate crime".
2354. stostosto - 7/5/2002 12:06:08 PM
Why would it attract funding, if it was fashionable when it was free?
Why do experimental artists attract funding from rich benefactors?
Would there be experimental art without such funding? Yes.
Does funding increase the number of experimental artists? Yes.
Do the benefactors get anything in return? Well, they gain a certain acknowledgement as eccentric connoisseurs, lovers of art, spirited people. People who can see beyond narrow self-interest and are financially generous in pursuit of a higher, elevated, perhaps inachievable goal.
2355. RustlerPike - 7/5/2002 12:16:03 PM
Roy, Cal:
Just so I understand you correctly - would you say this guy has made a wise investment?
I donno, he looks pretty broke to me.
2356. RustlerPike - 7/5/2002 12:18:28 PM
I think Joezan may have gotten sick of this forum, as have some other people. I'm pretty sick of it too.
Let's start a new one for normal people, sometime when we have the time.
I'm working with people who can supply the know-how.
2357. jexster - 7/5/2002 12:59:08 PM
Let's Play WHO Took that Leak?
Was it Cheney?
or
Was it a Pentagon opponent?
2358. jexster - 7/5/2002 1:13:39 PM
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- In the intensive care unit of the Mirwais Hospital, a 6-year-old boy, his legs as spindly as pencils, lay with a bandage over his chest where doctors had removed life-threatening shrapnel.
Across the hall, five children--all with shrapnel wounds--told a terrifying story of being pursued by an American warplane as they ran for their lives through wheat fields and dry riverbeds.
In the men's ward, the injuries were similar, but the tone was angry, indignant, betrayed. Among the injured were people who had fought with Afghan President Hamid Karzai against the Taliban and had backed the U.S. war on terrorism. All of them were victims of a U.S. airstrike early Monday in a village deep in Oruzgan province in central Afghanistan. Afghan officials estimate that 44 people died and 120 were wounded, with more than 20 requiring hospitalization.
"Mommy, has Bush caught that Nasty Osama Man who killed my daddy? Was he at that wedding?
2359. RustlerPike - 7/5/2002 2:40:02 PM
I don't understand the big fuss over that woman being sentenced to rape by a tribal court in Pakistan. Men get sentenced to worse than that every day in western courts, and for similar reasons: no reasons, that is. Just as part of the control one gender exercises over the other.
2360. jexster - 7/5/2002 4:09:13 PM
As Pakistani's Popularity Slides, 'Busharraf'(aka "MooseSheriff" Is a Figure of Ridicule
2361. jexster - 7/5/2002 4:12:43 PM
The US is about to get pantsed folks
2362. CalGal - 7/6/2002 1:02:35 AM
Joe, was it you who mentioned the rumor about pilots and the like? Apparently there is a concentrated effort to steal pilot passports, ids, and uniforms.
2363. jexster - 7/6/2002 11:09:10 AM
Well a second high Afghani official just got whacked lending credence to Eric Margolis's observations about the adventure there. Increasingly it looks like we've two puppet governments in that region - Karzai and Busharraf...
ZURICH -- According to a secret government report revealed last week by the New York Times, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan not only "failed to diminish the threat to the United States," but actually complicated the U.S. counter-terrorism campaign by dispersing its radical foes across the Muslim world.
The small, tightly-knit leadership of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida has been succeeded by a group of younger militants who have formed ad hoc alliances with other anti-U.S. groups from Morocco to Indonesia. These groups now pose the most serious danger to the United States and will remain a potent threat for years to come.
Eric Margolis
2364. jexster - 7/6/2002 11:17:33 AM
Cheney better find the source of those LEAKS :-P
LAT quote -President Bush has repeatedly promised to oust Hussein one way or another. The disclosure, by this and other publications, of war strategies the Pentagon is discussing sometimes originates among those disaffected with the plan, including officials with the Air Force and other services who call it unimaginative and say it fails to take advantage of the air power demonstrated in the war in Afghanistan.
"A preemptive strategy is supposed to be a surprise. This one's going to be in the Encyclopedia Britannica before it's executed," analyst Thompson said.
2365. PincherMartin - 7/7/2002 6:28:58 PM
PE should be back soon. While I promised to respond to some of his comments from a week back, I'd now rather just wait until the dialogue revives naturally based on some new information or analysis. The back and forth is usually more interesting that way.
2366. PincherMartin - 7/7/2002 6:40:05 PM
By the way, I linked to a NY Times article on a U.N. Report about the underdevelopment of the Arab world some time back.
Here is the full report as well as two commentaries on it by Robert Fisk and Victor Davis Hanson
2367. joezan - 7/7/2002 10:43:43 PM
Cal:
Joe, was it you who mentioned the rumor about pilots and the like? Apparently there is a concentrated effort to steal pilot passports, ids,
and uniforms.
Is there "new" news on that? That was the first thing I thought of when I heard this story the other day. But the last I'd heard of the uniform thing was months ago, right?
I'm kind of obsessing on it because my older daughter just took her first trip without us, out to NY for 2 weeks - she'll be coming back next week. Usually, it's a straight hop from Chicago (after a 1/2hr jaunt from Grand Rapids) to Laguardia, but she went with my mom who insisted they had to land at Islip (on Long Island) so they could avoid the traffic and be closer to my aunt's house.
So instead, they had to fly from Muskegon to Chicago to fricking LOGAN!!! of all places, and then to NY - took 8 hours.
Same route back. Ay-yi-yi...
2368. RustlerPike - 7/8/2002 2:55:11 AM
Jozejan, you'll get used to it in the end. You won't obsess over terror any more than you do over traffic accidents.
But it'll be a painful interval. You guys saw what I was going through for a while there.
Besides, you haven't really had any major terror in the US since 9/11.
2369. Andonly - 7/8/2002 9:54:13 AM
From an Honest Reporting message:
"On Sunday, the London daily "Al Hayat" revealed that Hesham Muhammad Ali Hadayet, the Egyptian perpetrator of the attack [on the El Al counter at LAX], met twice with a deputy to Osama Bin Laden in 1995 and 1998 in Egypt. It has also been separately reported that in Irvine, California, Hadayet had Koranic verses of Jihad tacked to his apartment door."
2370. marjoribanks - 7/8/2002 9:56:12 AM
Typical Dishonest Reporting.
The NYTimes reported yesterday that the Arabic sticker on Hadayet's door read simply 'Read the Koran'.
2371. Daniel Sickles - 7/8/2002 10:08:18 AM
Given his deeds, it would be preferable if he had Koranic verses of Jihad tacked to his apartment door.
2372. CalGal - 7/8/2002 10:47:25 AM
That's funny; I'd assumed that the sticker had been put there by an angry neighbor. Hadn't read that it was arabic.
2373. marjoribanks - 7/8/2002 10:52:36 AM
Why would it be preferable, strawman-erecting Sickles?
Listen to your FBI. It finds that the random act of violence was not a terrorist incident.
2374. marjoribanks - 7/8/2002 10:54:11 AM
Personally, I have no trouble in finding that it was a politically motivated homicidal incident, but I defer to the authorities in this matter.
2375. Daniel Sickles - 7/8/2002 10:54:50 AM
marj
Don't be so prickly. Simply put, if I have to have a psycho on my hands, I'd prefer the stickers on his door were more indicative of his psychosis.
For example, I'd be very disappointed if he had a sticker which read "Marjoribanks made me do it".
2376. Andonly - 7/8/2002 10:58:39 AM
Margarinespanks, Honest Reporting was paraphrasing al-Hayat. In any case, I don't see why you would assume that the man could not have had more than one sticker on his door.
The stickers pale in relevancy to the alleged meetings with bin Laden's deputy, though.
Incidentally, my tongue-in-cheek recitation above, of reasons proposed by a PE-led FBI branch office for Hadayet's assault (work dispute, domestic problems) turn out to have been dutifully coughed up in real life by CNN and... the FBI.
2377. Andonly - 7/8/2002 11:11:11 AM
"Personally, I have no trouble in finding that it was a politically motivated homicidal incident, but I defer to the authorities in this matter."
I, too would bet "politically motivated homicidal incident" is a good description of what occurred. (That description clearly doesn't rule out terrorism.) But since the first anthrax case was reported, and the authorities dully ascribed it to the victim's propensity for hunting, I no longer defer to authorities.
Has anyone here wondered whether there is some percentage, from a government perspective, in denying that terrorist attacks can be classified as such? For instance, if a plane crash or shooting or some other event can be denied to be terrorist in nature, so that Americans believe we are being protected effectively by our government, might this not have the effect of guaranteeing political support for whatever actions the state has taken or will take on behalf of citizen's safety?
It occurs to me that, well, no one argues with success.
2378. marjoribanks - 7/8/2002 11:19:13 AM
Of course there is "some percentage" in denying that certain acts are "terrorism" in this country right now.
In a real world, where the words themselves weren't blown out of all proportion and used selectively, the incident at LAX would be correctly defined as a terrorist act.
Trouble is that both the Bushites and the Sharonites (and I would include the Vajpayeeites) have hijacked the word, and its precise usage and appropriated it for particular political gain on all sides.
This was a terrorist act, but Bush can't say that it is, while a lone suicide bomber blowing himself up at a checkpoint without casualties in the territories is classified as such.
It's a disgusting miasma of mixed motivations and a debasement of language and stupid, stupid, stupid.
2379. Daniel Sickles - 7/8/2002 11:41:00 AM
It's a little early in the process to be so emotional and conclusive. The government certainly has an interest in definition, but using marj's rash style, one could declare it a religious hate crime based on a sticker on the door. As for mixing the definitions between what occurs at LAX and israeli checkpoints -apple, meet kumquat.
Cable makes us all the dumbest experts three days in. Give the investigation some time.
2380. Andonly - 7/8/2002 11:42:51 AM
Calm down, Banks. We're simply finding that there's a fine line between hate crimes and terrorism, and that the line sometimes vanishes in a semantic jungle, since the only thing that may distinguish hate crime and terror is the degree to which an act is the product of organization.
What I'm talking about is not semantic manipulation but the possibility for deliberate concealment of information, and dissemination of disinformation by American authorities, with the intent of deceiving the citizenry into believing that well-reported incidents are not terroristic in nature. E.g., plane crashes, train derailments, outbreaks of illness. Does the info about Hadayet's meeting with terrorists show up in al-Hayat and not the American press because it is poorly sourced and US media are more careful, or because the US press has been advised by the FBI that the info is not reliable and shouldn't be reported?
The Iraqis have developed aflatoxin as a weapon of war. But aflatoxin only has long-term effects (cancer), so its use can logically only be for genocidal purposes. If the CIA received notice from al Qaeda (or someone) that some part of the US population had been intentionally exposed to aflatoxin, which would produce no noticeable symptoms, I can't help thinking that the "authorities" might well conceal this information until it became politically opportune to disclose it. Like, a few months before an attack on Iraq. Or, if we were not prepared to attack after all--decades hence.
2381. marjoribanks - 7/8/2002 11:58:03 AM
Well, anywhere else in the world there would be less hand-wringing over this particular difference, between a hate-crime and terrorism. But I accept both of your arguments, and am quite happy to accept the ultimate findings of the authorities in this case.
2382. RustlerPike - 7/8/2002 12:47:05 PM
I understand this Egyptian was ex-LAX?
2383. jexster - 7/8/2002 3:24:51 PM
Middle Eastern gulf separates EU and US
"On either side of the Atlantic, fundamentally different attitudes towards the problems of Israel and Islamic unrest are hardening, writes Brian Whitaker"
2384. jexster - 7/8/2002 3:30:54 PM
"In the real world, constructive politics is the art of the possible, not the impossible"
Sherard Cowper-Coles
Britain's ambassador to Israel
lecture at Tel Aviv university entitled "Israel and the Palestinians - a European view"
2385. jexster - 7/8/2002 3:59:23 PM
Senior officials in the Prime Minister's office have launched an astonishing attack on America's handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'eda fugitives.
They have told The Telegraph that troops carrying out house-to-house searches in the remote tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghanistan border were "blundering" with a "march-in-shooting" approach.
The US action was "backfiring", increasing support for terrorism and making it harder for bin Laden and his henchmen to be caught.
Blair's aides denounce US 'blundering' in Afghan war
Guess the only solution to one failure is to begin another
2386. Andonly - 7/9/2002 10:38:25 PM
Stostosto: "And I am surprised, given the awesome complexity of the world that you are positing, how singularly consistent you are in your own diagnoses and prescriptions. You apparently have a way of sorting out the enormous complexities quite neatly for yourself."
Does Sto have any idea what I think? I can't believe he does.
2387. Andonly - 7/9/2002 10:41:06 PM
PE: "flirtation with radicalism is a Third World-wide phenomenon."
I'd call it full fledged fucking around with radicalsm. Why do you believe it is so prevalent in the third world?
2388. Andonly - 7/9/2002 11:31:24 PM
Rask: "Understandable grievances against the US do little to explain al Qaeda's anti-Americanism. Their rhetoric is couched in theological terms, and their actions make no sense in any other context, as they basically have ignored Israel. A group pissed at US support of Israel would primarily attack Israel with the incidental attack on her supporters. A group pissed at the USA for theological/cultural reasons would attack the USA and ignore Israel, except rhetorically. Al Qaeda does the latter."
Well, I thoroughly agree with you that al Qaeda's dispute with the US is theological/cultural.
But there is perhaps another possibility, and it is that bin Laden exploits anti-US/Jewish rhetoric simply to galvanize his human resources.
2389. Andonly - 7/9/2002 11:31:41 PM
Let's say you had ambitions in a prosperous Arab state, but had been shunned by the powers ruling it. How would you proceed to challenge them? Well, you could villify their superpower friends. You could exploit prejudice and discontent. You could talk a lot about infidels and jihad and world-controlling Jews.
Maybe bin Laden himself has no specific rational motivating animus against the US or Israel and his religious convictions are a fraud. His motivation may simply be acquisition of power in Saudi Arabia. His rhetoric is simply calculated to inspire Muslim masses who identify with Palestinians and excoriate Israel and are angry at the US for a variety of rational and irrational reasos; from the street come his followers, and the support he gets from average Yusefs becomes a weapon against the state he would seize control of. Then, picking a World Trade Center sized fight with the world's biggest dog makes him into a gigantic hero.
If this is the case, then someone ought to be arguing for throwing bin Laden a bone, since once he has control of some country with big oil resources he should quickly be enticed to sell crude rather than bomb the buyers. Haven't I heard somewhere that it doesn't matter who rules the oil states, since whoever it is would still sell us oil?
How about it? Should the US be supporting a bin Laden takeover of Saudi Arabia? Would that save us from terror on our own soil? How about Iraq? Could we give him Iraq?
2390. Andonly - 7/9/2002 11:56:45 PM
Really, this could be the master stroke of American foreign policy. First we neutralize Saddam. Then we cut a deal with Osama: we give him Iraq and pull our bases out of Saudi Arabia. In exchange for turning a blind eye while bin Laden sets about preparing to conquer the Sauds, we get uninterrupted oil access at cheap rates, and bin Laden and every sanjak he subsequently controls has to leave Israel and US interests elsewhere alone. ObL establishes a religious dictatorship from Iraq through to Yemen, then turns north. We sell him arms to obliterate the Alawite dynasty. Oops, too bad for Lebanon, but what the hell, it's already Syriated.
Now there are two gigantic Arab powers in the mideast: ObL's United Islamist Confederation and Egypt. Each is hideous to live in and both are nominally beholden to the US, but now barely secular Egypt is menaced by a huge scary Islamic hegemon and ObL is ready to break his agreements with the long-gone Bush administration. So the US throws its full support behind Egypt, which cracks down on its Islamists again and allies with Israel and Jordan against ObL's UIC. There's a big war and---
2391. sakonige - 7/10/2002 12:32:56 AM
...no one but the most remote and primative tribes survives it.
2392. sakonige - 7/10/2002 12:33:57 AM
Different route, same conclusion.
2393. jexster - 7/10/2002 2:49:43 AM
WASHINGTON, July 9 — American military planners are considering using bases in Jordan to stage air and commando operations against Iraq in the event the United States decides to attack Iraq, senior defense officials said today.
But Jordan has not yet been consulted specifically about the possible use of its bases, and Jordanian officials have criticized such a plan.
TheNyT
The leaks continue. This latestlooking more and more like disgruntled staff planners engaged in hostile action against The WarLord's latest folly.
2394. jexster - 7/11/2002 11:21:02 AM
USA Today leads with what appears to be a scoop: According to "senior officials at the State Department, the Pentagon, and other agencies," the White House has decided that any full-scale invasion of Iraq would "require" a serious provocation by Saddam Hussein, such as fielding nukes, or invading another country.
2395. jexster - 7/11/2002 12:01:20 PM
By AMIR TAHERI
ARIS — Osama bin Laden is dead....
Even if he is still in the world, bin Ladenism has left for good. Mr. bin Laden was the public face of a brand of politics that committed suicide in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people in the process.
What were the key elements of that politics?
The first was a cynical misinterpretation of Islam that began decades ago with such anti-Western ideologues as Maulana Maudoodi of Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb of Egypt. Although Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb were not serious thinkers, they could at least offer a coherent ideology based on a narrow reading of Islamic texts. Their ideas about Western barbarism and Muslim revival, distilled down to bin Ladenism, became mere slogans designed to incite zealots to murder.
People like Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb could catch the ball and run largely because most Muslim intellectuals of their generation (and later) had no interest in continuing the work of Muslim philosophers. Our intellectuals were too busy learning Western ideologies of one kind or another — and they left the newly urbanized Muslim masses to the half-baked ideas of men like Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb and eventually Mr. bin Laden.
Now, however, many Muslim intellectuals are returning home, so to speak. They are rediscovering the philosophical heritage of Islam and the challenges of Muslim political thought. And Maudoodi-Qutbism is now being seen as a pseudo-Islamic version of Western fascism.
Yes folks there is such a thing as Muslim political thought though the notion of religious politics may be difficult for a modern Euro to grasp. But it doesn't follow that all Muslim political thought is the same, however much the jingoists among us need to believe that, it ain't so.
nyT op ed
2396. jexster - 7/11/2002 12:08:09 PM
Mr. bin Laden could survive and prosper only in a world in which these elements existed. That world is gone. Mr. bin Laden's ghost may linger on — perhaps because Washington and Islamabad will find it useful. President Bush's party has a crucial election to win and Pervez Musharraf is keen to keep Pakistan in the limelight as long as possible.
But the truth is that Osama bin Laden is dead.
Bush and BushSheriff
2397. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 12:24:05 PM
Message # 2387: "I'd call it full fledged fucking around with radicalsm. Why do you believe [radicalism] is so prevalent in the third world?"
Well, I don't think it's really prevalent anymore, except in the Middle East and a few Muslim-majority countries outside that region.
But to answer your question in respect of the past (i.e., 1945-90), I would say:
(1) The centre of the global political spectrum in the post-war period was much more to the left than it is today. The Great Depression had destroyed the "classical" free-market right, and there was a social democratic consensus in the West.
(2) The period 1945-65 saw many many wars of national liberation against western colonial powers. It's hard to imagine today but after the second world war, several European colonial powers tried to hold onto colonies in the Third World even though colonialism and imperialism (in the literal sense) had clearly become political anachronisms. Thus, you had the Indonesian war of independence against the Dutch, the Vietnamese war of independence against the French, the Algerian war of independence against the French, the war against Spanish occupation in Sahara Occidental (which is now currently resisting Moroccan occupation), several wars of liberation against Portuguese rule in various parts of Africa, the struggle against white rule in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, etc.
(3) The only credible model of rapid, catch-up industrialisation for the Third World was the USSR. There was also Japan, which had become at least as industrialised as France and Italy by the 1930s, but in 1945 Japan was of course in ruins and therefore could not be held up as a serious model.
2398. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 12:24:19 PM
(continued)
Thus, the USSR -- which was transformed in one generation from an overwhelmingly agricultural economy of peasant labourers to an urban, industrial one which defeated in war the industrial-military giant of Germany --was the only credible model in the first few decades after WW2.
2399. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 12:30:20 PM
Message # 2245: "But reaction to modernisation as an explanation fits that example quite well, in fact you yourself have repeatedly held the Shah forward as an example of rapid modernisation of traditional Muslim societies under secular, authoritarian guidance."
"Reaction to modernisation" does not work as an explanation. The concept cannot explain why this "reaction" did not exist significantly in the 1950s and 1960s or even the early 1970s, the period of greatest social transformation in Iran as well as in the large Middle Eastern states such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Algeria. Hell, why was the Algerian resistance to French occupation secular and left-wing and not Islamist? The only armed opposition to the Shah throughout his whole reign (the Tudeh) was also secular.
By the way, when I say "reaction", I mean amongst the masses, not amongst clerics. There have always been clerics in Muslim countries who have railed against modernity. The question is why they suddenly got a large audience in the late 1970s.
2400. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 12:32:05 PM
Addendum to Message # 2237, where I said: “Islamic fundamentalism had always been present as a marginal and marginalised element in Middle Eastern society since at least the turn of the 20th century, but it never gained a significant following or political muscle until the mid or late 1970s. I think it did so at that time because it coincided with two things:
(1) the failure of Arab socialism...
(2) the failure of Arab nationalism..."
I should have added a third very important factor which coincided with the rise of fundamentalism as an important political force -- the oil boom of the 1970s.
The fabulously enormous (even if temporary) windfalls from the oil booms of 1970s -- amounting to a transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the world to a handful of countries concentrated disproportionately in the Arabian peninsula and populated by 20-25 million people -- probably had a great deal to do with the rise of fundamentalism. Sheer financing can do wonders for a previously marginalised movement.
The best-funded religious charities of the world are not Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Buddhist, but the Wahabbi organisations of Saudi Arabia (and their related groups in Kuwait). They do the usual charitable work -- hospitals, emergency relief, refugee aid, etc. -- but they also aim to spread the uniquely extremist puritanical sect of Islam that is Wahabbism. Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, the head of Saudi Arabia's official religious hierachy from the early 1970s to the late 1990s, had at his disposal a $10 billion annual budget. This very same man issued a fatwa in the early 1980s condemning to death anyone who claims the earth revolves around the sun.
2401. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 12:34:20 PM
Saudi Wahabbi organisations have a presence all over the world, not just in Muslim countries but in Western Europe and North America. They translate, print and distribute (for free) copies of the Qur'an by the millions. They construct white-washed boxes and call them mosques. (These puritans reject the traditional ornateness of mosque architecture.) When the Soviet Union collapsed, an army of Wahabbi missionaries were at the ready, Qur'ans in hand, to steer Soviet Muslims away from secularism and indigenous folk Islam. The Wahabbi organisations spent billions to assemble and put in mutual contact, thousands of Islamists from all over the Muslim world to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, with the principal aim of exporting Wahabbism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the PLO and various other Palestinian organisations were sustained by Saudi subsidies.
Essentially, the oil windfall transformed the grossly backward and poor Bedouin societies of the Arabian peninsula into grossly backward but rich Bedouin societies. In most countries where wealth is achieved through the hard work of actual development, rather than fabulous riches falling from the sky like rain, the very process of economic development goes hand in hand with at least a modicum of social & political development. But that's not the case with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, et al. They maintain largely the same social & political values as they had when they were just poor, semi-nomadic camel-riding tent-dwellers. This is why Egypt or Syria, poor and ossified and regressive as they may be, are nonetheless more advanced socially than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.
2402. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 12:34:37 PM
Message # 2266: "You mean the Shah was a 'benevolent' dictator?"
Yes, though benevolent not in the sense that he was nice and gentle, but benevolent in the sense that as a leader he had something other than crass self-interest and self-enrichment in mind. The last Pahlavi Shah, like his father the first shah of the Pahlavi dynasty, was bent on modernising Iran socially & economically. His brutalities are frequently cited (usually by left-wing people), but he was gentle compared to most other dictators.
2403. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:07:56 PM
Before I return to the exchange about the actual, substantive topic of the terrorists' motivations, I must first attend to the familiar chore of having to engage in a meta-debate about a meta-topic with Andonly. It seems every time Andonly and I have an extended argument about some topic, we must always get distracted by an ancillary argument over methods & modes of argumentation.
I will label with **** any of the following posts which contain pseudo-philosophical nombrilisms, methodological irrelevancies and a fair amount of who said what when.
2404. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:08:19 PM
**** Message # 2304: "PE seems congenitally unable to decide that any contentious outcome can be assessed a fault ratio of 50:50, or even 51:49. For as soon as we get past even numbers, the villain becomes absolute."
This statement is directly belied by an example Andonly herself uses in Message # 2262:
"Is Saddam Hussein starving his population below the no-fly zone? That's strictly America's fault, because we "should have known" he would do that in response to sanctions."
I never ever said it was "strictly America's fault". Andonly is hallucinating. In my own personal estimation Saddam Hussein is the one who bears most of the moral responsibility for the misery of the Iraqi people. But a policy which claims to be tempered by humanitarian considerations should have taken Saddam Hussein's likely behaviour also into consideration. That is why the USA can be apportioned some blame.
I said the same thing on 26 October 2001, when the topic of sanctions against Iraq was first broached. Frankly I don't understand how Andonly converted partial blame into "strictly America's fault".
Thus, the falseness of Andonly's hallucination that I strictly blame America, instantly refutes her assertion in Message # 2304 that I am "congenitally unable to decide that any contentious outcome can be assessed a fault ratio of 50:50, or even 51:49." In the very example she cites, I do precisely what Andonly claims I do not do: apportion blame in "fractions" (to use her own terminology).
2405. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:08:41 PM
**** Message # 2263: "...people's ideas and motivations are never so discrete and uncontingent as you insist. (E.g., your distinction between the ravings of fanatic clerics and fanatic militants is strikingly ill-conceived.)"
Let's get one thing straight. I did not draw a distinction between the ravings of fanatic clerics and the ravings of fanatic militants in order to illustrate that people's ideas and motivations are "discrete and uncontingent", a concept upon which I most certainly have not insisted, the least of all because I can only guess at what you mean.
I drew this distinction because you had stated that the prima facie evidence for the motivations of the terrorists came from the terrorists' rhetoric itself. I countered by saying that, to the contrary, the prima facie evidence sorts with my interpretation since the terrorists -- the actual people who carry out operations -- never fail to present a laundry list of grievances.
The point is, you cannot talk about how things are prima facie and then suddenly delve well below that first appearance ("prime facie"), which is what you're doing when you cite the rhetoric of clerics. The role of radical clerics in encouraging terrorist acts notwithstanding, they're not the ones actually committing terrorist acts. Neither Usama bin Ladin nor Ayman Zawahiri nor any other big honcho of al Qaidah, is a cleric.
2406. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:10:11 PM
**** I do not think my disagreement with people in this thread has to do with the nature of causality, but since Andonly has introduced this topic, I must first respond on that issue as a way of putting this distraction behind us.
Several years ago, Andonly began talking about "chaos" and "complexity" after reading some airport books on the subject. (Perhaps one of them was called Non-Linearity in My Kitchen.) Now every time I have an extended disagreement with her about any topic, she launches into some critique of the causal reasoning in my arguments. My eyes typically glaze over, but because she is an intelligent person I do bother to respond. The last time this happened was when we had the argument about Arab/Muslim antisemitism. This time, nearly everything in the following response is either a repetition of what I said then or an amplification thereof.
Her criticism invariably reduces to the allegation that my arguments are monocasual. For example:
Message # 2263: "The flaw in this thinking is the same flaw that has emerged in virtually everything I've ever disagreed with you about, PE: it's an all-or-nothing formula. You're a zero-one kinda guy, and this tendency leads you to look for mathematical tidiness in human interactions.... You want to find the single "root cause" of things. But there is no single root cause of any political reality, only fractions, and people's ideas and motivations are never so discrete and uncontingent as you insist...."
[continued]
2407. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:10:46 PM
**** Andonly's evaluation that I "want to find the single root cause of things" is not only false & ridiculous but just plain silly, since the whole of my professional training is the estimation of weights or coefficients (i.e., "fractions", to use Andonlian terminology) for variables which are hypothesised to be the causal factors behind certain phenomena. And the falseness of Andonly's critique was immediately perceived by Stostosto and Raskolnikov, who have educations similar to mine. People trained in the social sciences are frequently confronted by humanists with accusations of monocausality. But such criticisms reveal confusion or ignorance in by the humanist much more than any analytical flaw on my part.
It is normal, especially in social phenomena, that many determinants are necessary for a phenomenon to occur, but they may not be sufficient for the occurrence of that phenomenon. Furthermore, it is possible that the difference between necessity and sufficiency is a single determinant. Borrowing a word loosely from economics, I label this key single determinant marginal.
I argue that the marginal cause of anti-American terrorism is American actions. That is, American actions are the determinant in the absence of which all the other determinants necessary for anti-American terrorism to exist, would be insufficient to cause anti-American terrorism. This statement is a deliberately verbose, overprecise restatement of what I said at the very beginning of this exchange: anti-American terrorism would not be taking place in the absence of American provocations.
[continued]
2408. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:11:05 PM
****
This assertion does not -- I repeat NOT -- preclude ideological extremism, demographics, economic conditions, or anything else from being in a possible list of necessary (but insufficient) determinants of anti-American terrorism. Some or all of these ingredients may or may not be present in order for anti-American terrorism to exist. My assertion furthermore does not imply that ending such terrorism requires the USA to stop intervening in Middle Eastern affairs.
2409. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:13:08 PM
**** To some extent, Andonly is occasionally found groping toward marginalist-causal reasoning, but is led astray by her innate moralism.
Message # 2262: Look, imagine that the chick with the miniskirt is a genuine slut. And assume she gives Mike Tyson the clap. Thereupon he goes to her house and murders her three children, all the while screaming "Whore! Whore!" Of course, it's completely true he might not have done that if she hadn't given him the clap. But that does NOT mean his own fundamental depravity is not the thing which caused him to act as he did."
Andonly uses the above to illustrate some principle about causality, but it would have been better used as an illustration of how to assign moral responsibility. Tyson may have been precipitated to murder by something external to him, but the moral responsibility for those murders rests squarely with him. Andonly might have made the same point more familiarly: provocative sluttery and rape. If a skimpily dressed young German woman comes out of hiding in 1945, deliberately taunts a herd of young Soviet soldiers deprived of sex for five years, and is then gang-raped, then clearly she precipitated the rape by her foolishness --but the Soviet soldiers are still morally responsible for the rape (or so at least most of us would opine).
Returning to Andonly's Tyson example... Analysed in terms of causality, not moral responsibility, Tyson's "fundamental depravity" may have been a necessary cause behind the murders, but it was still not sufficient to cause the action. For there would have been no murders if there hadn't been any clap-transmission. Presumably many more people are capable of murder than have the will or the means to commit it. The question is what causes them, on the margin, to realise their capability.
[continued]
2410. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:13:19 PM
**** Of course, Andonly's Tyson contrivance is not the best way to illustrate marginal causality. Yet it comes up all the time in discussion of social phenomena. For example, take the research on the relationship between guns and crime. When social scientists estimate the magnitude of the effect that the availability of guns per se (all other factors held constant) has on the murder rate, they're implying that a significant part of the difference between a high murder rate in one place and a low murder rate in another, reflects a difference in the availability of the means to kill and not a difference in any "fundamental depravity".
Likewise, no one would give a shit if the Islamist radicals demonstrated their "fundamental depravity" through hateful anti-American sermons, speeches, radio broadcasts and newspaper articles -- if they didn't translate their hatred into action. The issue at hand is what causes them to make this translation.
2411. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:14:27 PM
**** Andonly appears to have an insurmountable difficulty in distinguishing the causal & descriptive analysis of a phenomenon from a moral evaluation of the same or from the advocacy of a policy prescription. That is to say, distinguishing is from ought.
Message # 2262: I will say that you have been consistent over time in your arguments, which frequently boil down to the assumption that extreme actors can best be dealt with via avoidance."
There has never been any such assumption, because I am not expounding on how "extreme actors can best be dealt with". I have offered no policy recommendations of any kind. I am most of the time just a fence-sitter.
Message # 2304: "You perpetually assume in all your arguments that not-X would be the better course for US policy (as you believe not-Israel would have been the better course for Jews)."
False on both counts. You are the one assuming that I make such assumptions. I do not. In this argument about the causes of terrorism, I have made, and continue to make, no prescriptive statements, i.e., neither moral evaluations nor policy recommendations.
[ A sidenote: It seems pretty damned obvious to me that the creation of the state of Israel has been a fantastically successful enterprise for Jews.]
2412. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:15:06 PM
**** Message # 2305: "Are Jews everywhere the target of visceral Arab and Muslim loathing the world over? Well, that's only natural, because Israel's original sin and subsequent events led to all that's before us today; how else should Muslims have reacted?"
Your wording subtly and falsely transforms my purely descriptive analysis of why Arab & Muslim antisemitism exists and takes on such virulent form, into a kind of moral justification of the phenomenon. If you will recall, my argument was based on identifying fundamental similarities between Arab/Muslim antisemitism and other forms of ethnic/sectarian hatreds & conflicts. I argued that there was little fundamental difference between Arab/Muslim antisemitism and Protestant-Catholic enmity in N. Ireland, or Serb-Croat enmity, or the Greek-Turkish enmity (now largely subsided), or the Pashtun-Hazara enmity in Afghanistan.
2413. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:15:24 PM
*** Message # 2263: "...in your calculations you believe you've somehow shorn [human interactions] of moral weight"
Of course one can shear human interactions of "moral weight" -- if by that you mean one can engage in a causal analysis of phenomena without simultaneously making moral evaluations.
One can propose as a matter of fact that Tyson's murders (to use Andonly's hypothetical example from Message # 2262) were precipitated by the slut's duplicitous clap transmission (i.e., the murders wouldn't have happened in the absence of the transmission) without assigning to the slut the moral responsibility for those murders. Likewise, one can propose as a matter of fact that millions of Iraqi children would not be malnutritioned in the absence of US-led sanctions even if Saddam Hussein nonetheless does bear the bulk of the moral responsibility. Likewise, one can propose as a matter of fact that Arab & Muslim antisemitism would probably not exist (or would not be as virulent) if it were not for the emergence of Zionism, the founding of the State of Israel, and the dispossession & occupation of millions of Palestinians, without also claiming that antisemitism is a morally justifiable response. Finallly, one can propose that terrorists strike out of specific, concrete, plausible and understandable grievances without simultaneously proposing that their actions are morally legitimate.
In short, explanation is not exculpation.
2414. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:16:26 PM
*** This passage below was written by Andonly as a "caveat" to her tentative agreement with Raskolnikov's statement that he sees "no flaw in trying to mathematically model the causes of a problem":
Message # 2304: "My caveat: It may be useful to model the cause of a problem if a cause can reasonably be altered. But there are always judgments about necessity and morality that get swamped in the model. For instance, say that 3 shipwrecked men board a vessel in mid-ocean. They do this by force, since the sailors on the vessel, all brothers, refuse to let them board (they fear their ship will be stolen). Three of the six sailors are killed, and all of the shipwrecked men survive. When they reach land, the surviving sailors set out to burn down the houses of the "pirates." A long-running feud ensues in which many more people die.
A simple mathmatical analysis of the sort PE prefers in considering the mideast will show that the entire conflict could have been avoided if only the shipwrecked men had not boarded the brothers' boat by force. Of course, they themselves would have died, but overall many more lives would have been saved. It all adds up. But does it?"
This "caveat" is completely stupid.
A causal analysis of a phenomenon is, by definition and per force, something which does NOT allow the modelling process to get "swamped" with "judgements about necessity and morality". Causal models are value-neutral --which does not mean that the analyst will always be unbiased or will never construct models where the results are rigged to confirm the hypotheses. Rather, the value-neutrality of models means only that you deliberately and expressly fail to include "judgements about necessity and morality".
[continued]
2415. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:17:36 PM
*** The reason Andonly thinks the reasoning in her own shipwreck analogy may not all "add up" is that she is unable, it would appear, to distinguish causal /phenomenal description from moral / ethical evaluation.
But it is trivially self-evident that the Arab-Israeli conflict would not exist today if the Zionist programme had never been realised in Palestine. That "adds up" as a simple matter of causal description.
Yet that trivial observation is a matter altogether separate and distinct from the question of whether the Zionist enterprise should have been realised.
And, a long time ago far away in another thread-galaxy, I gave an extensive, purely moral-ethical opinion on that subject. Likewise Andonly gave a similarly extensive, purely moral-ethical opinion on the same.
_____________________
Milton Friedman championed the distinction between "positive economics" (pure description & analysis of phenomena) and "normative economics" (advocacy of certain economic policies). He later observed that some of the strongest objections to this dichotomy came from the far left (Marxists) and the far right (Austrian school) -- and from women. I used to think the divide was between social scientists and humanists -- the latter always (falsely) accuses the former of excessive tidiness & neatness. But I now think the divide is mostly between male & female sensibilities.
2416. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:18:26 PM
This is where I return to substantive argumentation (as opposed to methodological argumentation) about the topic at hand -- the motivations of terrorists.
2417. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:19:04 PM
In spite of the earlier remarks about causality, the disagreement between me and Andonly/Raskolnikov/etc. is not about how we view causality. Rather, the disagreement hinges on whether reactions are proportionate to actions. Andonly's Tyson analogy deliberately depicts a reaction which, most of us can agree, is grossly disproportionate to the action. And Rask, Pincher and others have also argued this point: terrorists react disproportionately to perceived American provocations.
But as I replied to Pincher, that assertion is not obvious or self-evident.
Let me say first that I of course agree 100% with Andonly & nearly everybody else that targetting non-combatants cannot be justified no matter what is the provocation. Two wrongs do not make a right, etc.
But we are not trying to evaluate the ethics of terrorist attacks. We are trying to understand terrorists' motivations. Retaliation, even the kind which results in mass noncombatant deaths, has not the inscrutable and religiously abstruse motivation that Rask et al. make it out to be. We have no trouble understanding the chain reaction of motivations when one violent act precipitates revenge attacks, which inspire counter-revenge attacks, and so on, such as we see in the Balkans or in Hindu-Muslim riots in India.
Likewise, the USA has directly killed at the very least thousands of Muslim non-combatants and it could be plausibly argued that US actions have contributed, indirectly, to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslim non-combatants. US actions have also contributed to the continued occupation and dispossession of millions of Palestinians. Thus the terrorist actions, when seen as retaliation or retribution, are not self-evidently disproportionate (especially given that proportionality is not an objective criterion), even though we find them completely without moral justification.
2418. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:19:49 PM
Message # 2238: "OK. You don't think that the fundamentalization of the Middle East has led to an increase in intensity or frequency of terrorist actions against the US."
Well, whether or not Middle-East-origin terrorist attacks against US targets is more frequent in recent years than previously, is a question of fact. And I don't know whether it is a fact. As I said before, I do not have hard data to hand, but my impression is that it is not more frequent than in the 1960, 1970s and 1980s when much anti-American terrorism with Middle Eastern connexions was non-Islamist.
Message # 2293: "When I was disagreeing with Pseudo, I was in fact picturing a model in my head (more a flow chart than an equation), where Israeli/American actions and the failures of Arab states to improve the circumstances of its citizens are the root causes of terrorism. The failures of Arab states leads to Fundamentalism, which serves to amplify the response to American and Israeli actions, plus create new grievances that wouldn't otherwise exist."
I assume by "amplification" Raskolnikov means responses which are more numerous and deadly? Deadliness I've discussed above. More on frequency below.
2419. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:20:42 PM
Message # 2305: "Your flow chart in this discussion has in fact been conceptually 'visible' to me, and being the most parsimonious explanation I believe it is largely accurate..."
It is NOT the most parsimonious explanation, i.e., the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
I think it pretty much beyond dispute that today fundamentalist groups stage more terrorist attacks than non-fundamentalist groups. But this was NOT the case in the past. Almost all of the terrorist organisations operating out of the Middle East in the 1960s and 1970s, and possibly the majority in the 1980s, were left-wing and non-Islamist. (Today these appear either to be in abeyance or sidelined by the Islamist groups).
Therefore, how can you say the emergence of fundamentalists as a significant political force has increased the frequency of terrorist attacks?
2420. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:21:53 PM
(unless you are arguing that the terrorist attacks in the fundamentalist era have been more frequent & numerous than in the non-fundamentalist era. But that hasn't been established.)
2421. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:23:19 PM
Message # 2238: "To me, [your opinion that the fundamentalization of the Middle East has not led to an increase in intensity or frequency of terrorist actions against the US] is falsified by the prevalance of operatives willing to commit suicide. You consider this trivial, but to me it makes the terrorist threat much more intense and deadly. If survival of the operative isn't an issue, a much greater array of deadly terrorist actions become available."
I agree that the willingness of the terrorist to commit suicide enhances the deadliness (and thus "intensity") of the terrorist attack, but I don't see how your observation affects our debate about motivation. If a small terrorist group somehow acquired a nuclear device and detonated it in New York, that act would be more "intense" than if the same group hadn't been able to acquire the nuclear device and thus only blew up Saks Fifth Avenue. The difference in "intensity" between those two actions tells us nothing about the motivation of that group. I am assuming, of course, that a terrorist group which has no compunction about killing 10 non-combatants in a small-scale attack, is prevented from killing thousands in a larger-scale attack only by the want of technical means, not by any self-imposed limitation or scruples about the deadliness of attacks. If that is true, in what way would supposed changes in "intensity" of attacks be informative about the character of the terrorists' motivations? It seems to me that changes over time in frequency would be far more informative.
2422. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:23:45 PM
"But you do agree that at least in the case of bin Ladin, that religious motivations are behind some of the terrorist attacks on the US. This should make it clear that US actions alone are not a sufficient explanation of terrorist motives...."
The second sentence does not follow from the first.
Firstly, bin Ladin is just one man. I don't see how you can generalise from him to all Islamist terrorists or even to al Qaidah, which is a large international network of people not all of whom presumably have identical motivations.
Secondly, while I do agree that bin Ladin's individual objection to stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia is religious in nature, it is still not fundamentally different from secular violent objections to US military presence that we have seen all over the world. From Japan to the Philippines to Greece to Spain to Brazil, non-Islamist terrorists have attacked US targets ostensibly with a view to driving the USA out of their countries.
2423. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:24:18 PM
Message # 2250: "Understandable grievances against the US do little to explain al Qaeda's anti-Americanism. Their rhetoric is couched in theological terms, and their actions make no sense in any other context, as they basically have ignored Israel. A group pissed at US support of Israel would primarily attack Israel with the incidental attack on her supporters. A group pissed at the USA for theological/cultural reasons would attack the USA and ignore Israel, except rhetorically. Al Qaeda does the latter."
Raskolnikov, have you ever read Usama bin Ladin's 1996 declaration of war and the 1998fatwah against Americans? While there is a lot of theological gobblygook in those texts, there is also a fairly comprehensive laundry list of "Muslim" grievances against the USA (and Israel) which are perfectly comprehensible in purely secular terms. No doubt UbL's main personal concern is the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, but all his pronunciamentos never fail to list multifarious grievances. Moreover, the Qur'anic verses he cites in justification for jihad against the USA are not some ethereal mystical religious bizarreries, but fairly down-to-earth language about fighting oppression -- the kind of rhetoric totally comprehensible to a secular, revolutionary mind.
In fact there is a small body of scholarly literature which traces how radical Islamists (including Khomeini) appropriated the substance and rhetoric of anti-imperialist revolutionary Third Worldist thought.
2424. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:25:49 PM
Message # 2302: "The fact is, as Andonly and Rask and Cal and Pincher have noted, the vicious reaction of the Muslim world to American involvement is a different kettle of fish than the reaction of other peoples...."
No, that is not a fact. That is so far an unsubstantiated assertion. There have been assertions in this thread that there is something unique about Middle-East-origin terrorism, but no hard facts have been presented to support this assertion.
I think I will use this opportunity to restate my position in its entirety.
Middle-Eastern-origin terorrism directed against the USA, whether Islamist or non-Islamist, would not exist in the absence of specific US interventions and involvements in Muslim countries, such as the unconditional support of Israel, the Gulf War & the sanctions regime against Iraq, and the propping up of corrupt dictators in the Arab world. I believe this because:
(1) The "vicious reaction of the Muslim world to American involvement" does not appear -- on first approximation -- to be a "different kettle of fish than the reaction of other peoples". There have been anti-American terrorist attacks all over the world, by groups with and without connexions to the Middle East, with or without a religious ideology, by Muslims and non-Muslims, by a large variety of nationalities, ranging from Brazilian to Japanese to Italian to Lebanese to Saudis, etc. This is really the crux of the argument, and this is what Andonly's and Raskolnikov's arguments never address. Only Pincher has addressed it, and I am most likely to being persuaded out of my position by arguments in this area.
[continued]
2425. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:26:06 PM
(2) But it would not be enough to say, as Pincher has said, that "Muslims have been disproportionately involved in terrorist attacks [while the] rest of the globe's terrorists simply can't keep up". Firstly, although I acknowledge this may very well be true and I even find it plausible, nonetheless I don't know whether it is true as a matter of fact, i.e., numerically. Secondly, even if it were in fact true, it would still have to be seen relative to (a) the total number of peoples or societies holding plausible and "understandable" grievances against the targets; and (b) the total number of peoples or societies having the financial and/or technical means of carrying out terrorist attacks far from home. After all, you cannot say it is significant that there isn't much African-origin terrorism against the USA, since sub-Saharan Africa can boast no attention from the USA comparable to the Gulf War or the unconditional support of Israel.
2426. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:26:45 PM
(3) Furthermore, the disproportionate involvement of Muslims in anti-American terrorist attacks -- if that is indeed factually true -- would still have to be seen in light of the disproportionate American intervention in the Middle East. Several people, especially Pincher, has questioned this assertion of mine by citing the absolutely massive interventions the USA has undertaken in East Asia in the past. But I find that counterargument weak, because it plays right into my contention that Middle Eastern anti-American terrorism would not exist in the absence of American actions. Well, there is no more Vietnam war or the Korean war. The USA closed the two big military bases in the Philippines in the early 1990s, which had inspired so many anti-US terrorist attacks in that country. (Of course bases remain in Japan and South Korea, and there have been terrorist attacks related to these in the last 50 years.) The USA prodded Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines toward democratisation. So I think Pincher's counterargument inadvertently strengthens my argument -- particularly as enunciated in Message # 2062: "...since about 1990, US policy around the world has been transformed. It has switched from active, aggressive interventionism in every part of the world --which included support for dictators, overthrowing governments, engaging in wars, influencing elections, financing anti-communist terrorists & insurgents, etc. -- to a much less interventionist stance such that US policy in most of the world now consists of encouraging democracy, promoting trade relationships, participating in drug interdiction, and other less aggressive actions. Except in the Middle East."
2427. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:27:08 PM
(4) We must then regard the above in light of what, to my eyes, appears to be a practical confirmation of my argument: the history of anti-French terrorist violence in the 20th century. In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, attacks against French targets were commonplace, as the French were fighting to preseve several colonies, including an extremely brutal war in Algeria to prevent its independence, and they were the principal benefactor of the State of Israel. But after De Gaulle's withdrawal from Algeria and abandonment of Israel in the late 1960s, anti-French violence dwindled to nothing (except from domestic sources, such as Basque, Corsican and Breton separatists, "Algérie française" far-righters, and Action Directe far-lefters). The next time we saw a significant attack against France was against French paratroopers (i.e., military targets) in Lebanon in the early 1980s, when France was directly engaged in propping up the Christian Falange government in Beirut while it was embroiled in a bitter civil war. But a new trend for anti-French terrorism only reemerged in the early 1990s when Algeria exploded into civil war. France had found itself in the position of financing, arming, and guaranteeing the very same secular left-wing revolutionary regime in Algiers that had booted the French out of the country, against an Islamist insurrection. It's not surprising that the Algerian Islamist groups have launched terrorist attacks in France. They see Paris and Algiers as the same enemy.
2428. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:27:32 PM
(5) The alleged disproportionate involvement of Muslims in anti-American terrorist attacks -- again, if that is indeed factually true -- would also have to be seen in light of the difference in the way the regimes back home have dealt with the terrorists. Military regimes in Latin America had no compunction about mudering literally tens of thousands of suspected subservives. But in the Middle East, with the exception of Syria and Iraq, the supposedly pro-American regimes have been too terrified to actually exterminate the Islamists. So the Islamists have merely been blocked and stymied in these countries, not exterminated, and implicitly encouraged to go abroad. I wonder whether 9/11 would have even happened if Ayman Zawahiri never left Egypt or Usama bin Ladin never left Saudi Arabia but stayed to subvert their regimes back home and were all actually exterminated in the process.
(6) The alleged disproportionate involvement of Muslims in anti-American terrorist attacks --again, if that is indeed factually true -- would also have to be seen in light of the difference in financing. Much of the epidemic of left-wing revolutionary terrorist attacks the world saw in the 1960s and 1970s was ultimately financed by Moscow or Beijing. That dried up at the end of the Cold War. But financing for Middle Eastern terrorist groups continues to be available, one reason being that the USA and the rest of the rich countries transfer tens of billions of dollars every year to the Middle East in the form of oil purchases. Some of this naturally trickles down to terrorists.
2429. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:28:01 PM
(7) The willingess to commit suicide -- though not new or unique, since it is a long-standing practise among the non-Muslim Tamil Tiger terrorists of Sri Lanka, the world leaders in suicide-based terrorism if we go by the actual number of attacks carried out -- is certainly an element which has amplified the deadliness of Middle Eastern terrorist attacks. And of course I acknowledge that those international terrorists willing to commit suicide pose a unique danger, and a greater danger than those unwilling to commit suicide. But once again I still don't understand what the amplification of deadliness has to do with the nature of motivations.
(8) Another semi-unique element in Middle Eastern terrorism is that it has finally hit US shores directly. But once again, I don't know what this has to do with motivations, as opposed to means.
2430. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:30:50 PM
(9) Perceptions & grievances. Pincher Martin has argued that grievances must be based on perceptions which bear some relation to reality, and one cannot privilege grievances which are purely subjective. I have counterargued that the cited grievances are (a) understandable in non-religious terms, and similar grievances have been replicated in secular contexts; and (b) the cited grievances are not solely dependent on perceptions which are rejected by everybody else. As I said in response to Andonly, the fact that the same grievances cited by Islamist radicals & terrorists are also cited by Muslim non-radicals and non-terrorists, shows that these grievances are not the hallucinations of Islamist radicals. Moreover, plenty of non-Muslim non-radicals agree that these grievances are plausible. A very good case can be made that all or many of the US interventions and involvements that establish those grievances, are sound, moderate, balanced, reasonable, and benevolent -- and I would generally agree with the case. But the case is not unequivocal and indisputable. Reasonable people can and do find the case invalid.
(10) Proportionality. But I've already addressed this in Message # 2417.
2431. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:32:03 PM
Message # 2299: "PE uses an analogy about a villain who rapes and murders one of your children and saves the life of the other. Does this mitigate the murder, he asks? OF COURSE IT DOES."
You say that as if it were a matter of fact, like "of course the glass shatters if a bullet hits it".
Message # 2305: (I also maintain that antipathy to Jews existed before Zionism, and Israel's creation did not so much bring it into being as amplify it to dangerous levels. PE dismisses that contention.)
You paying undue attention to the establishment of the state of Israel. My oft-reiterated view is thus: Before the advent of Zionism and the settlement of Jewish colonists in Palestine, you cannot find in Arab or Muslim societies an antipathy that was specifically anti-Jewish, as opposed to an antipathy or a disdain directed against non-Muslims in general. With the advent of Zionism and the settlement of Jewish colonists, a specifically anti-Jewish animus emerges in Palestine and the lands immediately near it (Egypt and Syria), at first among Christians and then eventually among both Muslims and Christians. And this animus grows and spreads in proportion to the gradual internationalisation of the Palestinian issue. By the 1930s, when Jews and Arabs were clashing violently in British-administered Palestine, the anti-Jewish animus acquired a pan-Arab character. After the establishment of the state of Israel, it acquired a universal Muslim character.
2432. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:35:32 PM
In a series of posts starting in Message # 2411, I said Andonly often falsely infers prescriptive or moral implications from my descriptive & analytical remarks.
What are my actual prescriptive opinions & policy recommendations regarding the USA, radical Islamism, terrorism, etc.?
Israel-Palestine: I don't know.
The Saudis. I say: slaughter the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families -- all twenty-five thousand of them. They mollycoddle terrorists anyway and don't cooperate with the USA very much in anti-terrorist investigations. Slaughter them en masse. They are a plague on the world. Then detach from the kingdom the Shiite-populated areas of Saudi Arabia -- where most of the oil fields are located but where the local Shiite population is not exactly enamoured of the fucking Wahabbi scum -- and create an independent Shiite Arab state. The Saudis are in spectacular need of humiliation. If Saudi participation in the 9/11 attacks is not enough to convince you of this, then at least take pity for the Filippino and Indonesian maids enslaved & raped by the Saudi-Bedouin billionaire peasants. I would also propose that the USA carve out a new, independent state based on Mecca and Medina that would be governed by an international federation of representatives from all Muslim countries & communities. Well, okay, that's going too far.
[continued]
2433. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:37:54 PM
Despite 9/11, radical Islamists are a much much bigger threat to Muslims than to non-Muslims. Muslims in general are so busy being defensive about Islam or American imperialism or the plight of the fucking Palestinians that they don't spend enough time fighting the radical Islamist threat to themselves. The USA needs to help Muslims redirect their attention. I really don't know how that can be done -- but continuing to prop up unsavoury regimes without the least compunction about slaughtering tens of thousands of subversives is a very good start.
The resolution of the Palestinian issue would also really help
Syria: I find it encouraging that even as Syria continues to be listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism (against Israel), it is at this very moment (reportedly) torturing a person suspected of being the leader of al Qaidah in that country. Historically the USA has had absolutely no problem in having a duplicitous foreign policy. Why then should Syria's all-talk-no-bite threat to Israel be thought an impediment to a US-Syrian rapprochement? Syria is the ideal unsavoury regime for a tactical US alliance: it kills or tortures subversives without pity, and despite its anti-Israel foreign policy, it has an externally cautious, timid and staid dictatorship, unlike the volatile, unpredictable and brazen one that Iraq has got.
Pakistan: No need to be ambivalent about Musharraf. He's an admirer of Atatürk and he does very much want to bury all the Islamist fanatics but he needs to entrench his dictatorship for the long term. Help him do this. If Benazir Bhutto (who is now planning some kind of major campaign against Musharraf) ever steps foot in a jurisdiction subject to US control, she (and others like her) should be arrested on trumped up charges and permanently imprisoned so as to remove thorns in Musharraf's side.
2434. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:38:26 PM
Iraq: invade the country, overthrow Saddam and eradicate all traces of the old Baathist regime. Fear not nation-building. Rebuild the country from scratch. Iraq is not as thorny and intractable a problem as Afghanistan. It can be done. Completely refashion the political structure. Sponsor elections (under UN mandate if need be). Make iron-clad promises, to be honoured at all cost, to the Kurds and the Shiites that they will be able to live in a federal Iraq in which they will have autonomy from the Sunni Arab minority which has ruled them since the British put it in charge.
And, finally, please, more reconstruction aid for Afghanistan and some peace-keeping troops outside Kabul.
I think American foreign policy is generally handled with extreme incompetence, and I also think Americans are much more indifferent to the suffering of non-Americans than they let on, but the fact of the matter is, the USA is the only credible benevolent imperialist. One needs to work with what one is stuck with.
2435. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:46:00 PM
Despite my recent comments at the Mote, I don't like the Arabs. In fact, I feel an ethnic-racial hatred toward them which I must constantly rein in. This has nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact this feeling long precedes 9/11. I've always said that Arabs dupe non-Arab Muslims into supporting Arab nationalist causes at the expense of their own interests. The most underrated trend in contemorary Islam is surely the Arabs' skillful use of Islam as a confidence trick on non-Arab Muslims.
I have always hated the Arabs. In the 1980s I hated the Arabs for their mindless unconditional support of Iraq against Iran in the 1980s. I have hated the Arabs for their fucking hypocrisy about the Kurds. With the Arabs it's always Palestine Palestine Palestine the fucking Palestinians as though there is no other national resistance movement in the world. But I grew to hate the Arabs even more during the Bosnian war, when the radical Islamist Arab idiots jabbered about jihad and even sent in militants into Bosnia, thereby playing right into the propaganda of the Serbs who tried to scare the Europeans by depicting the completely secular Bosnian Muslim side in the civil war as an Islamist threat to Europe. (The fucking Arabs did the same thing during the Kosovo episode.) When I started reading reports like this in 2000, I wanted to kill any Saudi who might come in spitting distance of me. Not Serbs, not Christians, but fucking Wahabbi Arabs financed by Saudi money bulldozing and razing irreplaceable treasures of Ottoman architecture in Kosovo??!!#@#$ (Wahabi extremists object to beautiful architecture and want to replace it with white-washed boxes for mosques, libraries, mausoleums, etc. Sort of like the difference between Catholics and Calvinists.)
2436. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:46:37 PM
But even that outrage could not be compared with what I then blamed the fucking Arabs for: Chechnya. The first Chechen war of 1994-96 was a genuinely indigenous -- and not Islamist -- anti-colonial struggle for independence from Russia, a truly heroic, completely implausible David-and-Goliath victory for the Chechens. But then the fucking Arab Wahabbis moved in after 1996 and started causing trouble. A mere handful of Wahabbi-financed Arab and Chechen fanatics invaded Daghestan -- a Muslim republic which was very content to remain part of the Russian Federation -- and killed a lot of people, seized villages and tried to impose bizarre fucking Wahabbi strictures on an unwilling population. Then of course you have the radical Chechen terrorism in Russia proper. The upshot is that thanks to the fucking Arab Wahabbis, because of those fucking Arab Wahabbis, Russia invaded Chechnya again in late 2000, this time launching attacks with even less discrimination than in the first war, killings tens of thousands and creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. That's why I hate the fucking Arabs. The Arab role in the destruction of Chechnya and in ending the brief period of Chechen independence that so many Chechens had died for in 94-96, was but a pathetic prelude, an excremental foreshadowing of the Arab role in causing the USA to prosecute a war in Afghanistan. A bunch of fucking Arabs -- Egyptians and Saudis and not one single Afghan -- rammed planes into the World Trade Centre, and thousands of Pashtuns have died because of it. Like I said, I hate the fucking Arabs. Even worse, since the question of Iraq has come up in US policy circles, the leaders of the Arab states have said to the USA, in effect, "it was okay to bomb Afghanistan, but don't you dare touch Iraq". What fucking shitholes.
2437. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 2:48:32 PM
But all this feeling existed in me long long before 9/11 -- precisely because of Arab hypocrisy and trouble-making in so many places to the detriment of the locals. Most of the regulars in the International thread are aware of my various anti-Arab attitudes. I've even had good words for LePen and Haider. These attitudes also explain why, until 2000 or so, I was mindlessly & reflexively pro-Israel -- even more mindlessly & reflexively pro-Israel than JoeZan --not because I was viscerally pro-Israel but because I've always hated the fucking Arabs. That's also why I've always admired Atatürk and the Shah of Iran -- two non-Arab Muslim leaders not only committed to modernisation but also to telling the Arabs to fuck off. They told their own peoples that the Arabs were the true imperialists who had had a psychological stranglehold on non-Arab Muslim peoples.
All the same, the above is just venting. I was moved to vent because I just read on the airplane an article which gave updates about the Wahabbi "charities" in the Balkans. I was heartened to learn that a gang of Kosovo Albanian thugs beat the shit out of Saudi "aid workers" who wanted to smash some 300-year-old gravestones. That is a socially valuable diversion of the skills that Kosovo Albanians have elsewhere displayed, such as acting as well-remunerated middlemen for the importation of Slavic prostitutes into Western Europe.
2438. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2002 3:37:06 PM
A most enjoyable outbreak of rage. The Find function counted to 17 instances of "fuck" and its derivatives.
2439. marjoribanks - 7/11/2002 3:51:30 PM
Yes, one is stirred to clap, and to shout "hear, hear".
Mindlessly and reflexively moved thusly, but moved nonetheless.
2440. stostosto - 7/11/2002 4:42:12 PM
Pseud, you took the words right out of my mouth.
2441. sakonige - 7/11/2002 5:11:43 PM
You hate Arabs, too?
2442. Raskolnikov - 7/11/2002 11:18:16 PM
Pseudo: I have much fewer problems with the clarification of your argument, as you don't seem to be as singlemindedly focused on US actions as a single determinant anymore. Maybe this is what you were indeed trying to say all along, but if so I sure as hell wasn't the only one to misunderstand it.
However, I think your definition of "American provocations" borders on the tautological, where an American provocation is anything that triggers a terrorist response.
I believe this is where much of the disagreement lies. Several of us here seem to be arguing that if a certain action isn't a reasonable provocation (say the mere presence of US troops as a non-occupying force, whether in Saudi Arabia, Japan, or Korea), than it doesn't make sense to say that the US presence is causing the reaction. The cause lies in whatever is provoking the unreasonable response.
2443. Raskolnikov - 7/11/2002 11:19:20 PM
A rephrase: the cause lies in whatever lies behind the unreasonableness of the response. Otherwise, you end up blaming the scapegoat.
2444. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 11:42:38 PM
Message # 2442: "Pseudo: I have much fewer problems with the clarification of your argument..."
But I haven't said anything different. I'm still saying that anti-American terrorism would not exist in the absence of the cited American actions. That's what I said even as early as Message # 1542 and Message # 2011, and said it again in Message # 2424.
"However, I think your definition of "American provocations" borders on the tautological, where an American provocation is anything that triggers a terrorist response. I believe this is where much of the disagreement lies. Several of us here seem to be arguing that if a certain action isn't a reasonable provocation..., than it doesn't make sense to say that the US presence is causing the reaction....the cause lies in whatever lies behind the unreasonableness of the response. Otherwise, you end up blaming the scapegoat."
I think there is nothing tautological about my definition of provocations. Could you tell me why Message # 2417 and Message # 2430 do not adequately address these remarks of yours?
2445. pseudoerasmus - 7/11/2002 11:45:23 PM
"(say the mere presence of US troops as a non-occupying force, whether in Saudi Arabia, Japan, or Korea).."
Well, if this were the only grievance, I would agree with you, but it is not. And the fact that you simply leave out the others is telling.
2446. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:33:10 AM
"But I haven't said anything different. I'm still saying that anti-American terrorism would not exist in the absence of the cited American actions. That's what I said even as early as Message # 1542 and Message # 2011, and said it again in Message # 2424."
What you are saying now is quite different from 2011, which is about where I came in. There, you said:
"For whatever reason, Americans want to ascribe vague, abstract motivations to the terrorists (e.g., "they hate the West"). I say they have concrete ones."
and
"It is not some amorphous "hatred of the West" that is driving the terrorism."
Now you are making distinctions between necessary and sufficient causes, implicitly allowing that there are other motivating factors, and simply emphasizing the comparative sufficiency of US actions.
"Middle-Eastern-origin terorrism directed against the USA, whether Islamist or non-Islamist, would not exist in the absence of specific US interventions and involvements in Muslim countries"
No mention anymore about more abstract reasons not having any role. I see this as a substantial change in your position. If I just misunderstood what you meant earlier, I am sure I was not the only one who did so.
"I think there is nothing tautological about my definition of provocations. Could you tell me why Message # 2417 and Message # 2430 do not adequately address these remarks of yours?"
I was referring to the presence of US troops. Your arguments about how this is a provocation (in 2423) do not address the reasonableness of its perception as a provocation. Instead, you just say that there are similar secular grievances, which misses the point (secular and religious grievances can be equally unreasonable). As such, you seem to be tautologically saying it is a provocation simply because terrorists don't like it.
2447. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:33:24 AM
"Well, if this were the only grievance, I would agree with you, but it is not. And the fact that you simply leave out the others is telling."
Well, I don't consider terrorist retaliation for US support of Israel particularly reasonable either. Neither do the Palestinian terrorist groups, as you made pains to point out a few weeks ago.
I would also add objections over the US role in the gulf war as well.
My focus as an example has specifically been al Qaeda, not the Palestinian groups. Al Qaeda generally ignores Israel, against whom Arabs have much more legitimate, common, and understandable gripes, in favor of the US.
I have read Osama's declaration of war, but I read it again to see if my memory had failed me. It hadn't. The gripes against the US seem misdirected. He bitches about US support for the Saudi Arabian regime. Fine, but is he crashing jets into Riyadh? He complains about aid to the Zionists, but is he car bombing Tel Aviv?
I don't see a single grievance for which his disproportionate actions against the US can be considered rational. As such, talking about how the US is "provoking" Al Qaeda is a woefully incomplete argument.
2448. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:44:40 AM
I don't have anywhere near enough time to respond in the necessary detail to PE's pages-long rebuttal (which I'm flattered to see he spent his entire vacation composing) of my charge that he likes to find the single root causes of historical events, nor will I search for where PE first used the phrase "root cause" to describe what he now claims he only meant was the marginal cause of this or that. But:
"Returning to Andonly's Tyson example... Analysed in terms of causality, not moral responsibility, Tyson's "fundamental depravity" may have been a necessary cause behind the murders, but it was still not sufficient to cause the action. For there would have been no murders if there hadn't been any clap-transmission."
Yet for all we know there would have been, since some "marginal cause" other than clap transmission might as well set off someone who is "fundamentally depraved" (your "necessary cause"). That is, after all, an important reason why people who commit violent crimes are put in prison for long periods of time: because no one knows what might serve as a "marginal cause" for another violent act, the propensity to violence itself is, quite sensibly, held to be the relevant cause of violence not committed in an act of immediate self defense.
2449. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:45:34 AM
Here, too, is where PE's own moralizing bent appears, even if it is momentarily obscured for some in the eyewash about being educated beyond such irrelevancies: in identifying a catalyst as the marginal cause of an event which transpired in a certain way, he apparently thinks (or at least suggests) that the marginal cause he has identified must be the most significant key to the outcome in a given chain of events. But just as he cannot know whether Mike Tyson would have slaughtered Clap Chick's three kids had she not given him the clap, history doesn't offer realized alternative versions. If he is sufficiently depraved, Tyson might slaughter his girlfriend's kids if she looked at him funny after he'd had a bad day in the ring. But in that case we would not be talking about marginal causes at all--we would only be talking about Tyson's depravity because nobody would bother to argue that Tyson's girlfriend shouldn't look at him funny, or that he shouldn't be expected to lose a fight now and then.
There are some "marginal causes" of conflict, in other words, that no one, not even PE, considers sufficiently provocative to invoke, since by comparison with the "fundamental depravity" that erupts over them they are morally insignificant. But there are other "marginal causes" that everyone, PE included, thinks are significant for moral reasons, and therefore are adduced as "root causes" of conflicts in purportedly objective models of events. PE believes the Zionist enterprise in Muslim lands was morally indefensible. Therefore he sees the marginal cause of Palestinian terror to be Israel. PE also can see, from the Muslim point of view, how American interference in the mideast and central Asia is not right; therefore the marginal cause of terror against the US is US interference. (The very word "interference" is loaded, as everyone here has noticed.)
2450. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:46:45 AM
"Causal models are value-neutral -- "
Causal models of human history are necessarily selective and therefore rarely value-neutral. Yours, though expressed with certitude, are no exception.
"Andonly appears to have an insurmountable difficulty in distinguishing the causal & descriptive analysis of a phenomenon from a moral evaluation of the same or from the advocacy of a policy prescription. That is to say, distinguishing is from ought."
No. I maintain that you do not distinguish in your own reasoning between is and ought, and that you typically retreat to a claim of purely descriptive analysis when challenged.
"But it is trivially self-evident that the Arab-Israeli conflict would not exist today if the Zionist programme had never been realised in Palestine."
This is undeniable. But the Arab-Israeli conflict also would also not exist today if Muslims and Arabs had not reacted as they did, to Jewish immigration, partition, or at any number of important junctures. Moreover, the "Zionist programme" was not a single event or moment in time. To characterize it thus tends to predetermine your conclusion about whether "it" or other factors were the marginal causes of events 50 or 100 years later.
2451. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:47:40 AM
"Yet that trivial observation is a matter altogether separate and distinct from the question of whether the Zionist enterprise should have been realised. And, a long time ago far away in another thread-galaxy, I gave an extensive, purely moral-ethical opinion on that subject."
During which you opined not only that the Zionist enterprise should not have been realized, but that Jews fleeing Europe could have (miraculously, given immigration limits at the time) gone to America. Or somewhere else that didn't want them. In the same discussion, you opined (rather like Arnold Toynbee, half a century ago) that the Jews were not actually a people and had in fact become defunct hundreds of years before the emergence of Zionism effected a hallucinatory Jewish ethnos. (I wonder if you've ever heard of Maurice Samuels' rebuttal to Toynbee, The Professor and the Fossil. At the time of our discussion, I hadn't.) Given these and others of your views about Jews (no, I'm not accusing you of antisemitism, just a variable partisanship opposite Jewish interests that makes your claims to objectivity ridiculous), I see no way for you to construct models of mideast history that are as objective as you believe them to be. (And now that I've read your rant about Arabs I am somewhat sympathetic, but it strikes me that perhaps what you believe are your objective views are overcompensations of a sort.)
2452. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:48:21 AM
"The reason Andonly thinks the reasoning in her own shipwreck analogy may not all "add up" is that she is unable, it would appear, to distinguish causal/phenomenal description from moral / ethical evaluation."
Causal/phenomenal descriptions of human interactions cannot always be conclusively separated from moral /ethical evaluations, which is what my shipwreck analogy was designed to illustrate. Perhaps you would consent to add up the numbers in that analogy and tell us what caused what and how a preferable outcome might have been realized.
*******
"Thus the terrorist actions, when seen as retaliation or retribution, are not self-evidently disproportionate..."
I think you err in putting all terrorist attacks into one basket and then arguing that they are plausibly retaliatory/retributive because terrorists adduce victimization arguments. Surely some acts are retaliatory in a paramilitary sense (e.g., the early '80s bombings of the US embassy and the Marine barracks in Lebanon), but it appears some are predominantly power plays by would-be rulers or usurpers (bin Laden, irrespective of his list of grievances, and certainly Hizballah). Although these might not occur in the absence of anger or discontent among supporters whose resentments are caused by genuine provocation, supporters are in fact mobilized via propaganda and incitement--not only via real provocations from "outside". If the cause of terror is indeed simply retributive or retaliatory, then why is incitement so necessary?
2453. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:48:54 AM
I do believe your (PE's) assessment of the importance of massive oil revenues being critical to the spread of fundamentalism and Wahhabism in particular is right, and that is why I have advocated for some time that the US and Europe must become increasingly independent of mideast oil.
2454. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:50:36 AM
"Despite 9/11, radical Islamists are a much much bigger threat to Muslims than to non-Muslims."
Absolutely right, mainly because we live with fewer of them.
"Muslims in general are so busy being defensive about Islam or American imperialism or the plight of the fucking Palestinians that they don't spend enough time fighting the radical Islamist threat to themselves. The USA needs to help Muslims redirect their attention. I really don't know how that can be done -- but continuing to prop up unsavoury regimes without the least compunction about slaughtering tens of thousands of subversives is a very good start."
The way it can be done is by the US promoting and supporting (with money, political pressure, and arms) secular Muslims and liberal Islamists, and defending Arab intellectuals and rationalists to the hilt. For instance, on behalf of Palestine we could come down hard on Sharon--not for pulverizing snake pits like Jenin, which is what he was elected to do and which serves Palestinians' interests as well as Israel's, but for attempting to rid the Palestinian Authority of Sari Nusseibeh, an act which is absolutely counterproductive and indicative of bad faith.
2455. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:52:48 AM
"The resolution of the Palestinian issue would also really help."
The US and Europe should oversee the establishment of democracy in the West Bank. (Perhaps poisonous Gaza should be made a protectorate of Egypt until such time as the WB is stabilized.) It seems the Palestinians and every moderate Arab state are begging for US intervention, so that even Bush's recent speech effectively ending Yassir Arafat's rule has been quietly leapt at (if publicly excoriated) .
2456. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:53:13 AM
"Syria: I find it encouraging that even as Syria continues to be listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism (against Israel), it is at this very moment (reportedly) torturing a person suspected of being the leader of al Qaidah in that country. Historically the USA has had absolutely no problem in having a duplicitous foreign policy. Why then should Syria's all-talk-no-bite threat to Israel be thought an impediment to a US-Syrian rapprochement?"
Because Syria isn't really no-bite, and cracking down on al Q. is only par for its self-preservation. In the first place, Syria has stabilized Lebanon only to swallow it, and Lebanon is a wreck that may come apart under Syrian rule as the population clamors for democracy. Which a part of it across the sectarian spectrum apparently does want. In the second place, Syria is a major inciter and facilitator of terror gainst Israel, colluding with radicals in Iran to field Hizballah--which trains and may eventually arm radicals in Palestine--and also circumventing US/UN oil sanctions against Iraq. Syria's leadership is intransigent about Israel, irrespective of the Golan, and was responsible for undermining the Saudi peace intiative so that it demanded a Pal right of return and so became an instant non-starter. There will be no resolution of the Pal-Israel issue unless Syria is brought to heel, since Syria will otherwise play its traditional role of whipping up anti-Israel sentiment wherever other regimes are not demonstrative enough.
2457. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:53:48 AM
"Pakistan: No need to be ambivalent about Musharraf. He's an admirer of Atatürk and he does very much want to bury all the Islamist fanatics but he needs to entrench his dictatorship for the long term. Help him do this."
I'm pretty sure you're right about this.
"Iraq: invade the country, overthrow Saddam and eradicate all traces of the old Baathist regime. Fear not nation-building. Rebuild the country..."
I also like this notion, but I have grave doubts as to whether Americans are ready for the task. Americans of nearly all stripes loathe the idea of taking a non-retaliatory military intiative. If we are not committed, we won't see it through, and I'm afraid only another very serious terrorist attack, clearly linkable to Iraq, will sustain enough American willpower to get the job done. And even then, maybe not.
"And, finally, please, more reconstruction aid for Afghanistan and some peace-keeping troops outside Kabul."
That might transpire under a different US administration.
"...the USA is the only credible benevolent imperialist. One needs to work with what one is stuck with."
Glad you've seen the light. Unfortunately, perhaps you expect more good of this country than it can possibly deliver.
2458. Andonly - 7/12/2002 1:03:25 AM
PE,
You say there's a difference between Islamist fundamentalism and Islamist terorrism. But I only see tactical differences employed variously over time. The basic characteristic of Islamist fundamentalism is rejection of whatever is not Islam (however defined), and wherever it can, Islamism poses a threat to power, often violent. Yes, there are many instances where that threat has been mounted in response to oppression. But there are plenty of instances in which the "root cause" of the oppression was arguably Islamism's intractability in the first place. Would the US support repressive secular regimes across the board if Islamism struck Americans as something they could work with? Wherever we backed mujaheddin, did we plan to be doing business with them later on, or did the US fund and run?
2459. Andonly - 7/12/2002 1:04:45 AM
PE: "The only root cause I see in Palestinian terrorism is Palestinian dispossession and occupation."
Ah, here it is: the phrase "root cause".
The cause of Palestinian dispossession, which began in 1948, was Arab instransigence before the UN declaration which provided for both an Israeli and a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinians would not have been dispossessed (perhaps with the exception of the city of Jaffa), except that the Arab states went to war--which, incidentally, also dispossessed 6,000 Jews of their lives (at the time, 1% of the new state's population).
The cause of the occupation, which did not begin until after 1967, was, again, a war waged against Israel by the principal Arab states, and lost in the West Bank by Jordan, which had occupied that territory since 1948 to nobody's great distress. Moreover, the Six Day War was preceded by numerous acts of terror by Arafat's al-Fatah and the externally created PLO.
2460. Andonly - 7/12/2002 1:06:15 AM
You can arguably say that Palestinian terrorism's "root cause" was the settlement of Jews in Palestine. But why shouldn't Palestinian violence and rejection of Jews' peaceful desire to live in Palestine have equally been the "root cause" of their later dispossession when the nascent state was attacked? Does the following not seem like an extension back in time of precisely what is transpiring today?
The pogrom began on the afternoon of Thursday, August 29, [1929] and was carried out by Arabs from Safed and from the nearby villages, armed with weapons and tins of kerosene. Advancing on the street of the Sefardi Jews from Kfar Meron and Ein Zeitim, they looted and set fire to houses, urging each other on to continue with the killing. They slaughtered the schoolteacher, Aphriat, together with his wife and mother, and cut the lawyer, Toledano, to pieces with their knives. Bursting into the orphanages, they smashed the children's heads and cut off their hands. I myself saw the victims. Yitshak Mammon, a native of Safed who lived with an Arab family, was murdered with indescribable brutality: he was stabbed again and again, until his body became a bloody sieve, and then he was trampled to death.
2461. Andonly - 7/12/2002 1:07:40 AM
The '29 riots were prompted by Arab fears that Jews would soon dominate them economically, and were set off by rumors spread by the Mufti of Jerusalem that Jews were planning to take over Muslim holy places. That same mufti had incited riots in 1920 as well.
It is a matter of historical record that early opposition to Jews in Palestine was not strictly a secular worry about dispossession, nor even Arab nationalist. It was imperial Islamic. You may know that in 1901 a Jewish banker and two other Jews went to the (last) Ottoman caliph, Abdul Hamid, in Istanbul and offered to pay all the debts of the Ottoman state, build it a navy, and pay 35 million golden lira in exchange for allowing Jews to visit Palestine when they pleased, to stay as long as they wanted in order to visit holy sites, and to build settlements where Jews already lived, near Jerusalem. Hamid refused to meet the men proposing this arrangement and sent an answer through a subordinate that he was "not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money, the Ottomans will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam." Hertzl himself then tried to appeal to Hamid later that year, but he too was refused an audience and sent a message: Hamid would not give away a handful of the soil of the "Islamic nation."
2462. Andonly - 7/12/2002 1:08:14 AM
No honest or informed reading of Israeli and Zionist history in Palestine can escape the conclusion that the ferocity of Muslim elites' opposition to Jewish settlement ultimately determined the Jewish reaction in 1947 and '48. I don't believe in single "root causes", but a root cause of Palestinian terrorism evidently is and always has been Muslim fundamentalism, which has competed with Arab nationalism for purchase on passions in the mideast since at least the late 19th century, just as Arab countries have competed with one another to dominate the region, via demonstrations of their commitment to eradicating Israel.
2463. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:13:31 AM
Message # 2450: No. I maintain that you do not distinguish in your own reasoning between is and ought, and that you typically retreat to a claim of purely descriptive analysis when challenged."
Descriptive statements can be biased (i.e., based on selective evidence or no evidence, intentionally or unintentionally favouring one side or another in a partisan dispute), but they always purport to make assertions about what is, was or will be. I said this very thing in Message # 2414.
In my discussion of the causes of terrorism, I have been making descriptive statements only.
Message # 2452: "Causal/phenomenal descriptions of human interactions cannot always be conclusively separated from moral /ethical evaluations..."
Well, why don't you take it up with any number of thousands of analytic philosophers, positivist philosophers, economists, sociologists, political scientists, etc.
2464. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:14:13 AM
Message # 2449: "...he apparently thinks (or at least suggests) that the marginal cause he has identified must be the most significant key to the outcome in a given chain of events."
That is so by definition. The marginal cause is the difference between the thing occuring and not occurring.
"There are some "marginal causes" of conflict, in other words, that no one, not even PE, considers sufficiently provocative to invoke, since by comparison with the "fundamental depravity" that erupts over them they are morally insignificant."
False. I find US troop presence in Saudi Arabia a morally trivial provocation. Yet I can see that for some of these terrorists, that is the provocation. Therefore it is false that I deem as "marginal causes" only those things I find morally significant.
"But there are other "marginal causes" that everyone, PE included, thinks are significant for moral reasons, and therefore are adduced as "root causes" of conflicts in purportedly objective models of events. PE believes the Zionist enterprise in Muslim lands was morally indefensible. Therefore he sees the marginal cause of Palestinian terror to be Israel..... "
Again, false. I don't think an assertion can get any falser than that.
What is the proximate cause of Palestinian terrorism against Israel in the absence of which there would be no Palestinian terrorism against Israel? It is clearly dispossession (from pre-1967 Israel) and occupation (of the West Bank). The moral valuation I personally place on these events is irrelevant.
2465. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:14:49 AM
Message # 2459: "Ah, here it is: the phrase "root cause".
But you fail to note that Rask used the term Message # 2199 and I used it in replying to him.
I agree with everything else in Message # 2459 and Message # 2460. But I don't understand the relevance the remarks. One can go back ad infinitum in history in order to identify prior causes of proximate causes of any current phenomenon. But why would you? If one is asking about the marginal causes of historical events, then logically you're asking for the proximate cause(s). And the proximate cause of Palestinian terrorism against Israel in the absence of which there would be no Palestinian terrorism against Israel, is clearly dispossession (from pre-1967 Israel) and occupation (of the West Bank).
Message # 2461 and Message # 2462 are highly disputable assertions but are not relevant to the current topic. And I really can't engage another enormous topic.
Message # 2452: "If the cause of terror is indeed simply retributive or retaliatory, then why is incitement so necessary?"
Because you need to coax people to leave their ordinary lives, live of the life of a fugitive, and become mentally prepared to actually commit violence?
2466. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:19:02 AM
Message # 2446
"What you are saying now is quite different from 2011...."
How? I stand by everything in Message # 2011. Nothing I said on 12 July is in the least inconsistent with #2011 or anything else said before 12 July.
"No mention anymore about more abstract reasons not having any role. I see this as a substantial change in your position."
The abstract reason mentioned in #2011 is generic religious anti-westernism. I don't think it's one of the necessary determinants.
"Now you are making distinctions between necessary and sufficient causes, implicitly allowing that there are other motivating factors...."
But that's implicit in any causal analysis of social phenomena! All social phenomena have multiple causes. But one is usually interested in behaviour on the magins. Why did you defend me in Message # 2293 if this was not obvious to you?
2467. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:32:21 AM
Message # 2447: "Well, I don't consider terrorist retaliation for US support of Israel particularly reasonable either....I would also add objections over the US role in the gulf war as well."
Well, I don't know what you mean by "reasonable" in this case. You've changed from understandable grievances now to "reasonable" grievances. That has the making of tautology. Earlier you had said: "if a certain action isn't a reasonable provocation..., than it doesn't make sense to say that the US presence is causing the reaction. The cause lies in whatever is provoking the unreasonable response." Raining bombs on people typically pisses them off, and pissed off people seek revenge. Why doesn't it make sense? Millions of Palestinians are dispossessed, and thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and thousands of Islamists have been killed or rotting in jails by regimes which the USA props up. As I said, the retaliation for such things is not morally legitimate, but you can't say that desire for retaliation is bizarre and lunatic.
"My focus as an example has specifically been al Qaeda, not the Palestinian groups. Al Qaeda generally ignores Israel, against whom Arabs have much more legitimate, common, and understandable gripes, in favor of the US."
As I've said repeatedly, you are reducing al Qaidah, a large international network, to Usama bin Ladin. We know that Usama bin Ladin is fixated with US troop presence in Saudi Arabia. What makes you think his many Egyptian comrades are the same? Egyptians, as I've said repeatedly, are obsessed with Israel and Palestine.
2468. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 3:10:18 AM
Message # 2448: "Yet for all we know there would have been, since some "marginal cause" other than clap transmission might as well set off someone who is "fundamentally depraved" (your "necessary cause")."
I thought you structured your own hypothetical to illustrate that clap transmission WAS what precipitated the murders, even though Tyson's "fundamental depravity" was (in your reasoning) the more important cause. That's the only reason I called the clap-transmission the marginal cause.
2469. stostosto - 7/12/2002 7:23:42 AM
Sak, Message # 2441
You hate Arabs, too?
No, I just resent the fact that they have failed to reach even a half-assed accommodation with modernity.
2470. stostosto - 7/12/2002 7:39:50 AM
Pseud, Message # 2399
"Reaction to modernisation" does not work as an explanation. The concept cannot explain why this "reaction" did not exist significantly in the 1950s and 1960s or even the early 1970s, the period of greatest social transformation in Iran as well as in the large Middle Eastern states such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Algeria.
Well, the story might be that as long as modernisation delivered the goods, the reactionaries were kept in check. When it failed to do so, even on its own terms, it fell in disrepute and the reactionaries' were quick to declare "We told you so" with a vengeance. And a lot of resonance. (Other than that I admit to being woefully ignorant about Iranian history).
I naturally have my own ethnocentric model for perceiving these things, in this case the Nazis. And the Nazi anti-modern reaction didn't gain a large popular support either until the latent discomfort with modernisation was compounded by economic crisis.
Hell, why was the Algerian resistance to French occupation secular and left-wing and not Islamist?
At that time, as you said earlier, the Soviet Union (and maybe China) were powerful models of development. After Algeria's FNL regime's failure to deliver became clear -- and after the Soviet Union's humiliating disinteration -- the Islamists became the force for change.
The only armed opposition to the Shah throughout his whole reign (the Tudeh) was also secular.
Could be a variant on the same theme.
2471. stostosto - 7/12/2002 7:42:37 AM
I should add that the Soviet Union was also a powerful source of financial and military support in the Cold War area, essentially playing the role that you outline for the Wahhabis post-1973.
2472. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 8:12:35 AM
Well, naturally, and I believe I said that.
I am growing a tad vehemently bored, as it were, with Islam Middle East Islam Middle East Islam Middle East Islam Middle East.
2473. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 9:52:47 AM
I recommend that Sto spend a few days in Dubai or Abu Dhabi or, hell, Kensington, to ascertain if Arabs have indeed " failed to reach even a half-assed accommodation with modernity".
What is unmodern about Syria, or Lebanon, or indeed Egypt to boot?
I find that most comments here about the Arab polity actually reference sparsely-populated Saudi Arabia and Yemen and perhaps Kuwait.
2474. stostosto - 7/12/2002 10:24:44 AM
Marj,
Kensington? I've actually been there. You're right, it's fairly modern.
My "half-assed" comment was, if you haven't detected it, a Pincher Martin quote which sparked a recent lengthy exchange between him and Psoood. I thought it fabulously amusing myself in light of Pseuder's anti-Arab tirade.
Did you see the article from the Economist on Egyptian social trends that I linked upthread? If not, here it is again. "Kinder, gentler Islam".
Also, an interesting article in today's NYT:
A Few Saudis Defy a Rigid Islam to Debate Their Own Intolerance
IDDA, Saudi Arabia — Prompted by the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, a cautious debate is taking place in Saudi Arabia's closed society over intolerance toward non-Muslims and attitudes toward the West that are now viewed by some as inspiring unacceptable violence.
The debate appears to represent a significant shift in a society whose Wahhabi branch of Islam tends to make such questioning taboo.
In it, there is also this gem:
"Well, of course I hate you because you are Christian, but that doesn't mean I want to kill you," a professor of Islamic law in Riyadh explains to a visiting reporter.
2475. Wombat - 7/12/2002 10:28:23 AM
Islam if a faith in dire need of a Reformation, with some religious wars thrown in.
2476. RustlerPike - 7/12/2002 10:54:11 AM
The difference between you and me, Pe, is that you spend reams of of browser pages on refuting her various arguments, whereas in my thread, she has readily admitted to wearing a bra but no panties, without so much as a nudge on my part.
2477. RustlerPike - 7/12/2002 10:55:33 AM
'Her' being Ando, of course.
2478. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 11:05:54 AM
Pseudo:"But that's implicit in any causal analysis of social phenomena! All social phenomena have multiple causes. But one is usually interested in behaviour on the magins. Why did you defend me in Message # 2293 if this was not obvious to you?"
It is obvious to me that you *usually* do this, but you did not seem to be doing it in this specific instance. I was defending your track record, disputing that you tend to see things in monocausal terms. My point was that your current argument is an exception. Or seemed to be. As I said, you may have meant this all along, but if so Pincher and several others missed it as well.
"Well, I don't know what you mean by "reasonable" in this case. You've changed from understandable grievances now to "reasonable" grievances. That has the making of tautology."
No, I am using "understandable" and "reasonable" interchangably. And my definition is not tautological. I would describe a reasonable, or understandable grievance as one in which a majority, or even a substantial minority, of people would react similarly (or support others who acted similarly) in similar circumstances. Examples: partisan attacks in the rear guard of an invasion, is understandable. So is a guerrilla struggle for liberation from under a totalitarian regime, or an imperialist occupier are totally understandable.
But that isn't what we are talking about in the case of Al Qaeda attacks on the US. It is akin to the IRA ignoring England, and bombing the US because of US military sales to the Brits.
2479. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 11:06:51 AM
"Earlier you had said: "if a certain action isn't a reasonable provocation..., than it doesn't make sense to say that the US presence is causing the reaction. The cause lies in whatever is provoking the unreasonable response." Raining bombs on people typically pisses them off, and pissed off people seek revenge."
But we aren't talking about Afghan or Iraqi terrorists. We are talking about terrorists from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who the US hasn't bombed! You seem to think we are talking about the terrorists that killed Klinghoffer.
You can argue "but the US is attacking fellow Arabs", but so did Saddam Hussein, and their weren't any substantial Arab terrorist reprisals against him that I know of. Yes, you have mentioned responses to these arguments, but they are not reasonable ones. A WWII analogy would be Germany attacking Britain, US troops landing in England, and some English terrorist group starts blowing up American barracks because of the presence of foreign devils in sacred Albion. Sure, they can't spout some tortured logic in their defense, but it isn't anything that reasonable people would understand.
"Why doesn't it make sense? Millions of Palestinians are dispossessed, and thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and thousands of Islamists have been killed or rotting in jails by regimes which the USA props up. As I said, the retaliation for such things is not morally legitimate, but you can't say that desire for retaliation is bizarre and lunatic."
You don't get it. When Americans talk about "what motivates the terrorists". The major group in their mind is al Qaeda, who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which killed ~3000 people. Any other terrorist group is secondary, or a minor player.
2480. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 11:07:00 AM
"As I've said repeatedly, you are reducing al Qaidah, a large international network, to Usama bin Ladin."
In this instance, you cited bin Ladin's screed as evidence of the diversity of al Qaeda's grievances. When I point out in response that I don't see any reasonable grievance, it isn't quite fair to criticize me for harping on bin Ladin. You brought him up.
"We know that Usama bin Ladin is fixated with US troop presence in Saudi Arabia. What makes you think his many Egyptian comrades are the same? Egyptians, as I've said repeatedly, are obsessed with Israel and Palestine."
Look, al Qaeda bombed New York and Washington, killing thousands of people, in an attack that involved the suicide of 19 members. If their gripe is against Israel actions, why aren't they bombing Tel Aviv? if their Saudi members hate US support for the royal family, why aren't they commiting suicide attacks of this scale in Riyadh?
This is my point. When the claimed grievance is inadequate to explain actions, it is clear that there is something else afoot.
A group pissed about Israeli actions in Palestine will attack Israel, with maybe some incidental attacks on Israeli supporters (these are the actions of most Palestinian terrorist groups).
Al Qaeda doesn't act in this way. Why? My answer is that they aren't really motivated by any reasonable response to US actions. What is your answer?
2481. RustlerPike - 7/12/2002 11:10:17 AM
Excellent tirade, Pe. I've never seen your human side before. Something good is happening to you. A child, perhaps?
2482. stostosto - 7/12/2002 11:11:10 AM
The difference between you and me, Pe, is that you spend reams of of browser pages on refuting her various arguments, whereas in my thread, she has readily admitted to wearing a bra but no panties, without so much as a nudge on my part.
That's what prolific farting, bad breath and Jewing Gum will get you. But we're just not all built that way, you know.
2483. RustlerPike - 7/12/2002 11:21:44 AM
Sto:
So you're saying - next time she sends me a nudie pic, I shouldn't open it, because she's acting out of pity?
I donno. I say, given a choice between Cal's thread and mine, I'd go for mine. Why choose between de-bating and mastur-bating when you can have both?
2484. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 11:24:04 AM
Going back a bit, I thought the explanation of why the Arab world followed a more Soviet development model was interesting. But this raises a question:
What differences were there in the Arab world and countries that also saw the Soviet model of development, but still chose capitalism? I know the US had a presence in Korea, but did the US push their successful development plan? How about Korea? Singapore?
Also, as Pseudo has said elsewhere, much of the non-Arab world was gaining the fruits of development up until the debt crisis. The development model in places like Latin America doesn't seem to be as Soviet as that in the Middle East, but also doesn't seem to be quite along the lines of those in East Asia (less based on exports of manufactured goods). How did the Middle East differ in that their economic troubles precipated a rise in fundamentalism, but no such destructive social movement was as successful in Latin America?
2485. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 11:25:46 AM
One big reason why al Qaida has not pulled off a similar attack on the Arab governments it reviles, or on Israel, is because it has not been able to. Plain and simple. The US had vulnerability to such an attack, due to what in hindsight appears to be astonishing thoughtlessness. In Egypt, or in Syria, or in Iraq or Israel, the governments and security services have been on a heightened alert for decades, and resort to completely ruthless tactics in eliminating possible threats. There are no "presumed innocent" niceties in the region, even supposedly soft states like Jordan regularly go out and kidnap and torture and assasinate threats well before they can develop to the point of execution. Ever hear of Hama, in Syria, where Assad massacred an entire city? Or of the Jordanian chief of intelligence who is reknowned as the most brutal and effective anti-extremist official in the Middle East?
Take it for granted that those fellows who pulled off 9/11 could not even have gotten onto a plane flying out of Israel, or most other neighboring countries.
Slightly relevant to this, I skimmed a fairly believable book last night by an American jihadi who trained with Al Qaeda and then fought in Chechnya, and Kashmir, and so on, but then recanted and turned to the FBI. According to him, the Intelligence agencies in the USA were tipped off, repeatedly, that several of the 9/11 hijackers were bad news, including by him personally, but infighting and lackadaisical attitudes scuttled any preventive action. I find the argument quite plausible.
2486. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 11:29:33 AM
More on the book:
From Publishers Weekly
Collins, a former mujahid and Phoenix-based FBI informant, has recently been in the news for allegedly having warned the FBI to no avail about one of the September 11 hijackers. Here he focuses mostly on his experiences fighting along with an associate of Bin Laden's in Chechnya, as well as his bitter misadventures with the FBI. (Subtitle notwithstanding, he worked primarily for the FBI but did some joint missions with the CIA.) Collins, 28, converted to Islam while serving time as a teenager in a California prison for attempted robbery. After his release, he decided to make jihad in Bosnia in the early 1990s, and thus began an odyssey with the mujahideen that took him to training camps in Kashmir and Afghanistan and to the front lines in Chechnya. He became disillusioned, however, when some extremist factions began terrorizing civilians, and decided he could best preserve the sanctity of jihad by helping Americans rout the true terrorists. But his FBI gig wasn't much more fulfilling; Collins scathingly critiques what he casts as the Bureau's willful ignorance (they didn't understand, for instance, that mosques were the wrong places to look for extremists), their self-defeating rules (he was not allowed to go undercover to a camp actually run by Bin Laden himself) and their general bureaucratic bumbling. The book doesn't offer much historical or political background, but Collins is a vivid raconteur and his accounts of illegal border-crossings in lawless Afghanistan and Dagestan are as gripping as the descriptions of actual battles. His firsthand view of the FBI, though clearly one-sided, should interest readers as well.
2487. stostosto - 7/12/2002 11:30:05 AM
Rask,
I think the 9-11 bombings can only be explained as one of two, or, possibly, a combination.
It's pretty obvious that this attack, or even hundreds like them, would never achieve "victory" over the American infidels in any meaningful sense of the word. The military significance of such incidents is completely non-existant. So, it only makes sense as
1) An act of religious confession. Evil is evil and must be fought, even if victory is impossible, simply to prove the purity and depth of one's faith. The fact that no one took responsibility (in fact, all suspects have denied any complicity as far as I know), or explained the reasons, much less made negotiable demands, all point to the confessionary nature of the act itself.
2) To ignite pan-Islamist feelings in the Arab, and possibly, wider Muslim world. If America could be led to lash out blindly and indiscriminately against Arabs and Muslims, it might be possible to rally the masses in a cathartic uprising against America and its local corrupt cronies.
Both reasons presuppose that America a priori is accepted by al-Qaeda's perceived constituency as The Great Satan. Whether it is, I don't know, but if that is the case it could conceivably be a product solely of clerical ranting. However, that would hardly have the same impact absent American use of force in the Middle East.
2488. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 11:38:27 AM
Marj: I considered that, but it doesn't make much sense given the destruction suicide attacks in Israel have had. You seem to be saying that Al Qaeda isn't able to pull off what Hamas has been doing a couple of times a week.
And I am not just talking about flying airplanes into buildings. Al Qaeda *did* pull of a successful car bombing in Riyadh. They just chose to target *Americans*.
2489. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 11:46:50 AM
Sto: I think it makes sense only if Al Qaeda views the US as a bigger problem than Israel and the corrupt Arab regimes they despise.
But why? This isn't justified by any reasonable examination of Arab grievances, where other governments have done much more immediate and long lasting harm to their interests.
2490. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 11:49:15 AM
Al Qaida is not Hamas. It appears to be a closely-knit set of operatives, with a high degree of training and motivation, with the added fillip that most seem to be Arabs from a handful of countries.
Rask, if 20 Saudis and Egyptians moved into any part of the West Bank, Israel would know even before they got out of their jeeps, and most probably a helicopter would already be shooting missiles at the destination. You underestimate the diligence and reach of the security forces not just in Israel but beyond in the region.
Hamas sends straggling and ill-trained youths by the score out of a population in which they are undistinguished by background or political motivation. They can use these guys like the US uses guided missiles, or the Israelis use helicopter armament - like expendable ammo.
Al-Qaida seems to work on a grander scale, and with far greater concern for husbanding resources. If it does attack Israel it will be on a grand scale, most probably in one way or another from another country. Doubtless the reason it has not done so already is because the Israelis naturally make it extremely hard to do so.
2491. stostosto - 7/12/2002 11:49:40 AM
Rask, the Great Satan part is best played by the Greates Power on earth. I think you're right to consider the 9-11 attackers as religious lunatics (except for those of them who apparently weren't let in on the suicidal aspect of their mission).
2492. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 11:51:22 AM
I can't pretend to have a hard answer to Al Qaeda motives, but my immediate interpretation is in the primary direction of the "abstract" motivations that Pseudo has derided - a perceived clash of civilizations, the destiny of Islam, the influence of US culture, etc. However, I can only support this argument from analysis of Al Qaeda rhetoric and what I see as the inadequacy of other explanations, for reasons described above.
2493. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 11:58:52 AM
In fact, if you believe what the American security services have said about the 9/11 attackers, the religious component of their motivation is being greatly overblown here.
Strict Muslims don't drink, go to topless bars, and indulge themselves with lap dances. These guys were more like low-key, amoral, well -trained intelligence operatives working off nationalist and political impetus. My gut feeling is that all this stuff about religion and Islam is misleading in the 9/11 case, more an attempt to garner popular support by Bin Laden than anything else.
2494. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:02:55 PM
marj:"Rask, if 20 Saudis and Egyptians moved into any part of the West Bank, Israel would know even before they got out of their jeeps, and most probably a helicopter would already be shooting missiles at the destination. You underestimate the diligence and reach of the security forces not just in Israel but beyond in the region."
Uh Huh. The security forces which are swiss cheese to suicide bombers. You are going to have to do better than that.
"Al-Qaida seems to work on a grander scale, and with far greater concern for husbanding resources."
You mean like by engaging in guerrilla actions in Afghanistan and Chechnya? You seem to mistake Al Qaeda for SPECTRE (pseudo used that one on me a few months ago, and I liked it).
"If it does attack Israel it will be on a grand scale, most probably in one way or another from another country. Doubtless the reason it has not done so already is because the Israelis naturally make it extremely hard to do so."
A few months ago, Al Qaeda bombed a synogogue in Tunisia. This was their first strike at a Jewish target, and was something they could have done years earlier, if they had deemed it a priority.
And again, they *have* carried out acts of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, but they chose a US target.
I also have heard that al Qaeda also plotted to kill the Pope in the Phillipines in 1995.
Now, are these acts of a group with specific nationalist grievances merely couched in religious terms, or are these the acts of people whose *motivation* is religion?
2495. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:05:42 PM
"Strict Muslims don't drink, go to topless bars, and indulge themselves with lap dances."
Strict Muslims don't engage in terrorism, either. I am not arguing that Al Qaeda consists of good Muslim boys that are just following the dictates of the Koran.
2496. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:09:43 PM
And Pseudo: I have to say that your rant was a gem.
2497. stostosto - 7/12/2002 12:10:46 PM
Marj,
Two answers to the "lap dance" conundrum:
1) Most of the hijackers were just enlisted as muscle, they weren't told they were on a suicide mission and didn't have to be indoctrinated with religious sentiment.
2) The immense act of martyrdom, the embrace of death in ultimate obediance to Allah, might be construed to cancel out any improper earthly behaviour -- especially if endulged in in infidel country.
Anyway, if there was indeed a concrete political motivation for 9-11, what would you say it was? Which conditions or demands should be fulfilled by whom in order to satisfy the perpetrators or their superiors?
2498. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 12:19:06 PM
Rask,
I submit, again, that Hamas sending out people from the fringes of a crowd of indistinguishable people is vastly different from infiltrating a country with outsiders. The latter was and to some extent is possible in the US without detection, it is not at all possible in Israel or its holdings.
Sto,
I think the reasons for 9/11 are threefold and straigtforward:
1) A warning and message to the USA that it cannot meddle in the Middle East and remain untouched by the blowback.
2) An express attempt to get the USA to reconsider its Middle East policies, an attempt to frighten the US with the idea of real costs and consequences to its policies which it previously conducted in impunity.
3) An express attempt to stir a massive conflict, in which the regimes in Saudi Arabia and other hostile-to-extremists regimes in the Middle East might be weakened and their strangleholds loosened.
--
Then there is the window dressing about Palestine, and dead Iraqi babies and so on.
2499. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:21:31 PM
"When the claimed grievance is inadequate to explain actions, it is clear that there is something else afoot."
That about sums it up.
2500. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2002 12:37:18 PM
Rask
marj is right about the efficiency (and brutality) of the security forces in the ME. This is the only area where Arab regimes excel. The Israelis cannot possibly achive the same degree of penetration of Palestinian groups.
2501. Andonly - 7/12/2002 12:40:01 PM
I have to agree with Rask, too, that from all appearances al Qaeda's acts seem motivated by religion. But I do get the sense that there might be an element of sheer power-consolidation involved on the part of the leadership, and that the US military-diplomatic reponse to 9-11 may have set that back considerably.
What al Qaeda's ultimate political purpose may have been is unclear to me, however, unless it was to incite the Arab masses to revolt against their secular regimes. Once the all-controlling Great Satan had been shown to be a weakling, the umma would have been freed to free itself...
2502. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:41:02 PM
I agree that the lack of demands, and the denial of responsibility, is telling. It strongly implies that there are no actions they expect the US to be able to willing to take, and that they view it as a war between diametrically opposed groups.
2503. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:42:31 PM
"I submit, again, that Hamas sending out people from the fringes of a crowd of indistinguishable people is vastly different from infiltrating a country with outsiders. The latter was and to some extent is possible in the US without detection, it is not at all possible in Israel or its holdings."
You keep saying this, but haven't provided any evidence.
2504. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:43:35 PM
"marj is right about the efficiency (and brutality) of the security forces in the ME. This is the only area where Arab regimes excel. The Israelis cannot possibly achive the same degree of penetration of Palestinian groups."
But again, Al Qaeda *has* committed terrorist acts in Saudi Arabia. They just chose a US target. What does that tell you?
2505. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 12:51:54 PM
What am I expected to prove? In the occupied territories, Israel has vast intelligence resources and electronic surveillance to the point that a donkey can't stray over a particular line without being detected. A Palestinian who has always lived in his village is able to be armed and set on the road to Tel Aviv, but that is about all that can be achieved by would-be terrorists. Hence, that is all that is achieved by would-be terrorists.
Israelis living in settlements can be attacked by neighbors, too, of course.
There are no other military threats from the Pals. That's the sum of it, and will remain the sum of it until portable weapons of mass destruction are available to the Pals and other anti-Israeli forces. This last is a matter of time only, as Friedman and others have repeatedly pointed out.
Also as Friedman has pointed out, the only way to circumvent the inevitablity is to win over a Palestinian leadership that will energetically rout out terrorists on its own, and to mitigate the regional loathing of Israel by withdrawing from an unconscionable and unsustainable occupation.
2506. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:56:13 PM
Also, consider al Qaeda's role in embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and support for the opposition in Somalia. These aren't even Arab countries, and Kenya and Tanzania aren't even predominantly Muslim.
This points more toward a sort of pathological anti-Americanism than any specific goals with regard to changes in US mideast policy.
And how about trying to kill the Pope?
2507. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 12:59:09 PM
"What am I expected to prove? In the occupied territories, Israel has vast intelligence resources and electronic surveillance to the point that a donkey can't stray over a particular line without being detected. A Palestinian who has always lived in his village is able to be armed and set on the road to Tel Aviv, but that is about all that can be achieved by would-be terrorists. Hence, that is all that is achieved by would-be terrorists."
You are overstating Israeli capabilities, given that if they knew where the leaders of Hamas were, they would be dead. You make it sound as if every Palestinian has a bar code on his neck.
2508. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2002 1:00:44 PM
Rask
But again, Al Qaeda *has* committed terrorist acts in Saudi Arabia. They just chose a US target. What does that tell you?
It tells me that at the time Al Qaidah caught the Saudis unaware. They are not unaware anymore.
It further tells me that Al Qaidah is very good at spotting soft targets and is capable of elaborate planning in order to hit them.
2509. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 1:07:32 PM
Let's start again.
It is obvious that there is some pathological anti-Americanism at work in Al Qaeda. Why does it target America according to its own rhetoric? For fairly logical reasons if you follow its reasoning - it opposes US actions in the Middle East, and beyond, that are percieved as anti-Muslim, humiliating to the ummah which has been besieged and beaten down since the fall of the Ottomans.
Why does it hit America in a range of countries? Because it can, because the US is thinly-spread and vulnerable abroad. Why did it hit America at home? Because it could.
Why does it not hit Israel instead? Because Israel is not as vulnerable.
Why did it try to kill the Pope? (a) I don't know that they did and (b) the Pope is an even better target than the US if you want to evoke and return to the days of the Crusades and get the ummah to rise up in defense of itself and cast off the unbeliving despots and eject the unbelievers from Muslim lands.
2510. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:12:24 PM
Marj:
"It is obvious that there is some pathological anti-Americanism at work in Al Qaeda. Why does it target America according to its own rhetoric? For fairly logical reasons if you follow its reasoning - it opposes US actions in the Middle East, and beyond, that are percieved as anti-Muslim, humiliating to the ummah which has been besieged and beaten down since the fall of the Ottomans. "
But this is exactly what I have been saying, and includes the type of "abstract" motivations that Pseudo has been criticizing!
"Why did it try to kill the Pope? (a) I don't know that they did and (b) the Pope is an even better target than the US if you want to evoke and return to the days of the Crusades and get the ummah to rise up in defense of itself and cast off the unbeliving despots and eject the unbelievers from Muslim lands.
"
Bingo. We have a theological motive.
2511. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 1:14:36 PM
You are overstating Israeli capabilities, given that if they knew where the leaders of Hamas were, they would be dead. You make it sound as if every Palestinian has a bar code on his neck.
1) Israeli intelligence falters a bit in Gaza. There, you have a concrete maze, extremely heavily populated, and while entry and exit is monitored, what goes on strictly in the interior can be opaque. That is where Hamas operates.
2) Israel could, almost without a doubt, still take out the Hamas leaders if it felt it had to, and if it felt the world would not react with extreme outrage at the hundreds of civilian casualties that would be necessary - the Hamas boyos are always surrounded by a mob.
3) It is not an uncomplex picture. Israel itself helped set up the Hamas, doubtless has moles and potential allies in the organization, and has corridors of communication with it.
2512. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 1:17:40 PM
I disagree, I suppose I've been unclear.
You have purported theological motives, a great deal of religion-based window dressing, all for what is in fact a core of straightforward political aims.
That's the long and short of it.
2513. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:24:06 PM
While I agree with Pseudo's points about necessary, sufficient, and marginally sufficient cause, his description was incomplete for modelling the subject at hand. I have two main points:
1) It is possible to have more than one marginally sufficient cause. It takes hydrogen and oxygen to make water. It can plausibly take both American provocations and something else to create terrorism.
2) A causal model does not have to universal in its application. There can be different causal models for different terrorist groups, and different terrorist actions within those groups. The causes of Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks can be different from Hamas' suicide bombings.
This may be elementary, but my argument with Pseudo is basically that he is trying to cram al Qaeda into a model better suited for a group like the PFLP.
In the case of most of Al Qaeda's attacks on the US (and some others, like the plot to kill the Pope), I think the evidence points to some cause other than (or in addition to) American provocations as being a marginally sufficient cause.
2514. stostosto - 7/12/2002 1:27:44 PM
The Bulgarians also tried to kill the Pope.
2515. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:27:45 PM
"It tells me that at the time Al Qaidah caught the Saudis unaware. They are not unaware anymore. "
You miss the point. Al Qaeda's major grievances, according to their rhetoric, is against Saudi Arabia. Opposition to the US is partially based on support for the hated Saudi royal family. Yet, when al Qaeda launches a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, they ignore Saudi targets in favor of US targets.
Point being, they hate the US more than they hate the Saudi Arabian government, which makes no sense if their reason for hating the US is its support for that government.
2516. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:28:42 PM
"The Bulgarians also tried to kill the Pope."
Ergo, they must have been provoked by the Americans.
2517. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 1:32:15 PM
You have it backwards, Rask.
Bin Laden hates the Saudi royals mostly for being complicit with the Yanks, and for allowing American troops to base themselves in the land of Mecca and Medina. When he talks of the Saudis, he refers to them as unIslamic for that reason, not for being corrupt and hypocritical dictators. Don't forget that he is also a Wahhabi.
2518. stostosto - 7/12/2002 1:34:25 PM
Well, the Bulgarian attempt at the Pope did occur during the Cold War. Other than that I have no idea why anyone might want that frail man in the funny hat dead.
2519. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:42:25 PM
"You have purported theological motives, a great deal of religion-based window dressing, all for what is in fact a core of straightforward political aims."
Let us hypothesize two groups. One group is a standard national liberation group, that uses religion as window dressing for their otherwise straightforward political aims. They want freedom from a hated government, and are pissed at the superpower that backs that government.
The other group truly is religiously motivated. They also hate the local government, but they hate its superpower backer even more for theological reasons, as the chief representative of a foreign culture and religion that they see as threatening.
Both face a strong state with an effective intelligence apparatus. How would you hypothesize that the two groups would behave differently? Here is mine.
Group 1 will primarily attack the oppressive state. Most of their domestic targets will be state targets, with the occasional pot shot at the state's sponsor. If driven out of the country, they will attack the foreign embodiments of that state: oil tankers, embassies, visiting politicians, etc. They might make occasional pot shots at the superpower sponsor, but that won't be their main focus. Their rhetoric will have both theological and nationalist characteristics, but their actions won't be much different from that of other secular groups.
2520. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:42:35 PM
Group 2 will primarily attack the superpower sponsor. When given the choice, both at home and abroad, they attack the superpower in preference to the local government. Instead of bombing embassies of the local government, they bomb embassies of the superpower, for instance. Incidental targets will also not be nationalist in origin, but theologically inspired. Their rhetoric will be almost solely theological, and their actions will match that. They will behave quite differently from secular national liberation groups, in that they attack the financial backer, not the local oppressor.
Which description better fits al Qaeda?
2521. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:46:14 PM
"You have it backwards, Rask. Bin Laden hates the Saudi royals mostly for being complicit with the Yanks, and for allowing American troops to base themselves in the land of Mecca and Medina."
But now we are back to theological reasons.
Look, I am addressing Pseudo's arguments that Al Qaeda hates the US for supporting despised governments. Pseudo is arguing that this is an understandable grievance against the US. My argument is that if this is the case, one should expect those despised governments to feel the brunt of Al Qaeda's wrath, with the US being a secondary target.
If you want to tell me that al Qaeda hates the US for theological reasons involving Mecca and Medina, fine, but you are simply proving my point through a different route.
2522. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 1:48:48 PM
But Al-Qaida, Rask, is not state-based but International. Its political aims are not limited to one country but several. And who is the primary backer of many of its declared enemies?
The US.
Follow the Al Qaida logic for what it is. Who is the alien power in Saudi Arabia? Whose unstinting backing keeps the Palestinians under occupation? Whose armaments are those which are used by the Israelis? Who has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Who intervened when the corrupt Kuwaitis were overthrown? Who maintains a stranglehold on the price of the Arab main resource - oil?
2523. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 1:50:22 PM
How about Al Qaida partly hates the US for nationalist reasons, based on a revulsion for foreign military personnel housed on Arab soil?
2524. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:50:29 PM
"I disagree, I suppose I've been unclear."
No, you were very clear. You are just backtracking. You keep giving theological explanations of Al qaeda's actions, but when this is pointed out to you, you claim it is window dressing. But then in your next post, you give *another* theological reason, the presence of US troops near Mecca and Medina.
Make up your mind.
2525. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:54:33 PM
Marj: You are tendentiously trying different arguments until you hopefully find one that works. In one post, they hate the Saudis because they allow US troops, in another they hate the US because they support the Saudis. This is patent hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
2526. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 1:56:54 PM
There is no disagreement that is possible to fabricate facts that will allow you to continue to point to US actions as the cause of al Qaeda actions. As you are clearly grasping at contradictory arguments, it is clear you don't have any idea *what* the facts are, and therefore have nothing to contribute to what is an empirical argument.
2527. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2002 2:03:02 PM
Rask
What marj, PE and I maintain, (with emphasis on different points), is that the US was attacked because it is the main supporter of Al Qaidah's primary hate object, Saudi, and secondary object, Israel, both of which are difficult to penetrate while America is (was?) easy.
You seem to be unable to accept this simple dy is hatet analysis because for you America must always be Number One, also as a hate object. "Nobody is hated like America is hated."
2528. marjoribanks - 7/12/2002 2:06:15 PM
Well, I don't know, Rask. I don't clearly see any contradiction in my comments, none of which are meant to directly address your arguments with Pseuder - which I haven't followed closely in the first place.
My arguments have been made in a series of responses to your posts, starting with the one questioning why Al Qaida has not attacked Israel rather than the US. I also fully admit that there is some degree of speculation in my posts, as there is in most which attempt to divine motives from Al Qaida's actions in addition to its rhetoric.
I'm quite happy to leave it where it lies, with my numerous posts speaking for themselves.
2529. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 2:12:29 PM
"What marj, PE and I maintain, (with emphasis on different points), is that the US was attacked because it is the main supporter of Al Qaidah's primary hate object, Saudi, and secondary object, Israel, both of which are difficult to penetrate while America is (was?) easy."
And I maintain that this is not borne out by the facts, as most Anti-american actions have taken place outside America. If Saudi Arabia were indeed the primary hate object, why wasn't a Saudi oil tanker bombed instead of the Cole? Why wasn't a Saudi Embassy bombed instead of the American embassy in Tanzania and Kenya? Why were US barracks in Riyadh blown up instead of a Saudi government building? And why was the Pope even targeted?
"You seem to be unable to accept this simple dy is hatet analysis because for you America must always be Number One, also as a hate object. "Nobody is hated like America is hated."
If you think this, you aren't understanding me at all. I am saying that al Qaeda is an *exception*, in that they primarily target the US instead of their direct sources of grievances. Every other terrorist group in the world hates someone else more than the US, and that is where they focus their attention.
I am saying that since al Qaeda's behavior is so different, so are their motivations.
2530. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 2:14:52 PM
" I also fully admit that there is some degree of speculation in my posts, as there is in most which attempt to divine motives from Al Qaida's actions in addition to its rhetoric."
Well, I'll also admit that I am speculating on their motives as well, but I am not speculating on the dissimality between their actions and the standard motives and actions of national liberation groups.
2531. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:22:36 PM
Well, I will put off responses on the terrorist motivation question until next week. But this post caught my attention.
Message # 2484: "Going back a bit, I thought the explanation of why the Arab world followed a more Soviet development model was interesting:"
Who the hell said the Arab world followed the Soviet model of development?
The Arab world followed a typical Third World model of develoment, i.e., a planned industrialisation with emphasis on heavy industry, state ownership and import substitution, but still with substantial private ownership as well as traditional agriculture. That's not the Soviet model.
"Also, as Pseudo has said elsewhere, much of the non-Arab world was gaining the fruits of development up until the debt crisis."
The Arab world was also very much part of the post-war economic boom experienced by developing countries. I think the median per capita growth rate of Arab countries was 2.8% per annum between 1950 and 1973, which is higher than the Third World median as a whole of 2% or so. Between 1960 and 1973, Syria's per capita income grew nearly as fast as Taiwan's -- with Iran, Tunisia, and Morocco not far behind.
If we go solely by the growth record of 1950-73, "Third World socialism" really didn't do too badly. It's only after 1973 that problems really emerge. In fact, dozens of non-East Asian Third World countries which are vilified or dismissed today in the neoliberal narrative as nightmares of corrupt overregulated bureaucratic statism, actually did well enough (or even really super well) between 1950 and 1980 that one begins to think someone is hiding something.
2532. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 2:35:32 PM
Pseudo: "Who the hell said the Arab world followed the Soviet model of development? "
You did. In 2398:
"Thus, the USSR -- which was transformed in one generation from an overwhelmingly agricultural economy of peasant labourers to an urban, industrial one which defeated in war the industrial-military giant of Germany -- was the only credible model in the first few decades after WW2."
But I still have my questions. Why is it that the collapse of third world socialism led to a rise in radical fundamentalism in the Arab world, but no similar destructive force in other developing countries, such as those in Latin America?
2533. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:45:05 PM
"You did."
No I didn't. You leapt to a conclusion.
The Soviet model was the only credible model of development in the Third World in the post-war period. That's true. But what the Third World adopted, however, was a serious dilution.
"Why is it that the collapse of third world socialism led to a rise in radical fundamentalism in the Arab world, but no similar destructive force in other developing countries, such as those in Latin America?"
I already talked about this. Funding for revolution dried up in most of the Third world. It still exists in the Arab world, largely thanks to oil revenues.
2534. pseudoerasmus - 7/12/2002 2:46:23 PM
Anyway, I'm sick of talking about Islam, Islamism, fundamentalism, terrorism, etc. Let me take a break for a few days.
2535. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 2:52:39 PM
"No I didn't. You leapt to a conclusion. The Soviet model was the only credible model of development in the Third World in the post-war period. That's true. But what the Third World adopted, however, was a serious dilution."
This is a quibble, given that I said "the Arab world followed a more Soviet development model". Nothing in this implies that they collectivized agriculture.
2536. Wombat - 7/12/2002 4:15:31 PM
Rask is not differentiating between what us terrorism types call the primary and secondary targets of terrorist actions.
If Osama Bin Laden's primary target is the Saudi regime--as an end in itself, or as a stepping stone to an Islamic world--one of his goals would be to expose "contradictions" between the existing regime and its stated beliefs and actions, and force it to take actions that weaken its legitimacy in the eyes of the audience that Bin Laden is trying to reach.
The United States makes an ideal secondary target, as the Saudi regime is dependent on it for protection and trade, even though the United States is the antithesis of what the Saudis' politico-religious ideology stands for.
By forcing the Saudi regime to choose between what it allegedly stands for and its relationship with the United States, Bin Laden places the Saudi regime in an unpleasant and difficult situation, which may also go a long way toward understanding the Saudi's apparent reluctance to support the "War on Terrorism" wholeheartedly.
2537. Andonly - 7/12/2002 4:50:23 PM
Spanks: "But Al-Qaida, Rask, is not state-based but International. Its political aims are not limited to one country but several."
No one knows what al Qaeda's political aims are. And the fact that it is "international" in character speaks to the fact that the group is not nationalist, as many terrorist groups are, but is unified rather by pan-Islamism.
It's larger motivations therefore are religious.
2538. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 5:06:50 PM
Wombat: That is an interesting analysis, and I'll confess that this line of thought hadn't occurred to me, but I don't think your explanation adds up. The country that was most put in an "awkward situation" was not Saudi Arabia, but Afghanistan, as that was where bin Ladin was based. Afghanistan was a horrible choice strategically, as it was non-Arab. The next country most put into an awkward situation was Pakistan, the leaders of which have benefited tremendously.
As such, I have trouble believing that Al Qaeda is really thinking about how its actions would put the screws on Saudi Arabia.
2539. Wombat - 7/12/2002 10:12:23 PM
Rask:
If one is feeling grandiose, broaden the analysis to existing regimes in Moslem countries as the primary target. The attack on the United States forced all of them into more or less acute forms of the Saudi dilemma.
It is still far some certain whether Pakistan will be able to negotiate the dilemma that Bin Laden placed it in. One way that Musharraf attempted to ameliorate his position was to ease up on infiltration into Kashmir, and perhaps to encourage ex-Taliban and sympathizers in Pakistan to take their struggle there. India closed that option off.
I think that it is safe to say that without sanctuary in Afghanistan, Al Quaeda would not have been able to grow and develop the way it did.
Bin Laden may have made a number of miscalculations: he probably thought that Taliban was more firmly entrenched than it turned out to be, and he no doubt believed his own propaganda about the weakness and decadence of the United States. He may have hoped for less cooperation with the United States from countries in the region, but to him, even this failure would plant the seeds of future revolutions, as the "street" would be outraged by allegedly Moslem governments cooperating with the US.
2540. Raskolnikov - 7/12/2002 10:58:23 PM
I think it is easy to lose the thread of the argument here. My comments about the incomprehensibility of Bin Ladin's target selection is a response to claims that he is just another would-be national liberator, detesting the US for supporting a regime he despises.
Showing that there are potentially rational explanations for his target selections, even if his goal is the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian government, is useful, but it stops short of a full explanation, as it still doesn't get at why Bin Ladin wants a change in the SA leadership. Based on Al Qaeda's coziness with the Taliban, it is hard to argue they are national liberators, fighting an oppressive SA government. The better argument is that their motivations for wanting a change in the SA leadership are religious.
So even if AQ actions are intended to put the screws on Saudi Arabia, or the Muslim world at large, we are still left with a theological motive.
2541. RustlerPike - 7/12/2002 11:20:17 PM
You know Ando, I read your last few posts on the roots of the early Muslim hostility to the Jews, and this is my initial reaction.
My initial reaction is - I can totally understand these guys.
They want an Islamic empire. This is what their religion - which was inspired in large part by our religion and its daughter Christie - prescribes. They have a certain world order they think will please God, and it involves them conquering the world. They figured with the colonial powers finally out of their region and the non-Arab Turkish empire finally out of their skin, their time had finally come.
And yet, the British left the region, but they left something behind: a tiny little stain that seemed harmless enough at first, but quite soon began exposing its true nature. A messianic people with a messianic religion (that guides even its 'secular' majority, which sings songs about rebuilding the Jewish Temple even as it conquers the Haram el Sharif). A people with the power of the West, who were the catalyst behind the development of much of that power. The people who developed the atomic bomb!
A small people, numerically, but held with the highest esteem in the West - an esteem that often turns to violent hatred, but esteeem nonetheless - as people with tremendous power, both on the personal and national levels. And worst of all - a people with an irrefutable, bona fide claim to the land they had come to settle, antedating any Arab claim to that land by millennia.
Obviously, these people will not rest until they fulfill their messianic prophecy. Obviously they will stop at nothing less than a total defeat of the Arabs -perhaps worse - and a kingdom which will necessarily be established at the expense of the Arabs. Obviously they must be fought to the death. Even if we lose - we will have done right by Allah, al rakhman al rakhim.
2542. RustlerPike - 7/12/2002 11:23:39 PM
Yep. I totally understand these guys. And with all of their deception, they're being a lot more straight up than we are.
2543. Raskolnikov - 7/13/2002 12:29:44 AM
Wombat: Also, claiming that Al Qaeda's goal is to indirectly put pressure on Saudi Arabia and other key Muslim states is at least plausible, but it seems tenuous and speculative. Al Qaeda has been more direct, in other circumstances, in taking the regime that they want gone (in Chechnya and Afghanistan).
I also do tend to think that what an organization says its goals are is important. While you do have to critically examine claims, I am hesitant to posit goals that aren't there (incite universal Islamist revolution by revealing the true character of Arab governments), without some evidence.
Personally, I take what bin Ladin says quite seriously, but I am careful to try to distinguish between intermediary and self-evident causes. If the claim is "because the US killed my brother", you pretty much have a self evident cause right there. But if it is "because the US supports the corrupt X regime", you have to dig further. When I do that to bin Ladin's screed, I see a peculiar theology at the heart of it.
2544. Andonly - 7/13/2002 11:04:01 AM
"... I am hesitant to posit goals that aren't there (incite universal Islamist revolution by revealing the true character of Arab governments), without some evidence."
My main objection to Wombat's thesis is that al Qaeda should have had no need of exposing putatively Islamist regimes' alliance with the US, since Muslims already recognize the discrepancy between their claims and their dependence on US support, and so can form revolutionary ideas about this corruption without al Qaeda forcing regimes to "choose" between Islamist principles and an accommodation with the Great Satan. They have already chosen fifty times over.
It makes more sense to speculate that al Qaeda's aim was to expose the US as a paper tiger, and this suggestion tracks more closely with bin Laden's rhetoric.
2545. jexster - 7/13/2002 3:33:05 PM
BERLIN (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) is alive, probably in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan ( news - web sites), the head of Germany's BND foreign intelligence network said in a newspaper interview due to be published on Sunday.
2546. concerned - 7/14/2002 3:33:13 AM
I have read that, post 9/11, the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion and Mein Kampf became the best-selling books in the Islamic world.
If this is even close to being true, then we have a huge problem with some very deluded, hateful people.
2547. concerned - 7/14/2002 4:01:16 AM
Al Qaeda planned, through 9/11 and subsequent attacks, to not only expose a perceived weakness of the US but to use that as leverage to encourage Islamic extremists to initially overthrow more moderate Islamic regimes and ultimately spread Islamism throughout the world as the dominant religion/lifestyle.
Rhetoric about 'discrimination' against Muslims by Israel and the US was little more than window dressing for the credulous.
2548. concerned - 7/14/2002 4:07:47 AM
Who has forgotten the maps showing the Ummah encompassing the entire world by 2100 AD?
2549. RustlerPike - 7/14/2002 8:20:47 AM
If I were a murrcan (which I am, but only technically) I would take CNN to task for their headline about "The Myth of Bin Laden". He's a fucking enemy. What kind of wuss is running the news desk there? Prolly some lady who gets the shivers just thinking about Ossama-asshole.
2550. transient1a - 7/14/2002 3:23:59 PM
pseudofacsist's summary comments Message # 2407
--- the whole of my professional training is the estimation of weights or coefficients --- for variables which are hypothesised to be the causal factors behind certain phenomena. ---
People trained in the social sciences are frequently confronted by humanists with accusations of monocausality. But such criticisms reveal confusion or ignorance in by the humanist much more than any analytical flaw on my part.
deserve to be placed in suitable historical context:
PseudoAnalysis and the Arabian Nights
Once, in the midst of the worst heat wave in living memory, a great scholar watched from his window above a busy market square while a merchant finished loading numerous and large containers on the back of an unfortunate camel. A mischievous child leaned over the balcony directly above the camel and dropped a straw which became embedded in the burlap wrapping of the largest container. Instantly the camel dropped to its knees and, in a few moments, expired.
The scholar immediately proclaimed that he had seen a miracle -- the actual incarnation of the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The camel was interred in a vast tomb along with the straw as well as the body of the child who had been whipped and then hanged for causing the death of the camel.
The economic loss due to the untimely death of camel weighed heavily on the scholar's conscience. Thus, in an attempt to obtain enlightment on whether his actions had been sufficiently congruent with those of the hypothetical truly rational economic agent so as to leave his honor unblemished, he went on a pilgrimage to a distant mountain. There he chanced on the encampment of a kingdomless king and his entourage.
Con't
2551. transient1a - 7/14/2002 3:25:57 PM
Con't
Con't
The king appeared sympathetic to the scholar's plight and told the him of a truly benevolent ruler who would provide wise council. But, to prove himself worthy of the council of this ruler, the king demanded that the scholar must pass a test. Whereupon the king pulled aside a large blanket to reveal ten boxes, each labelled with a single number chosen from 1 to 10, and said:
Suppose one of these boxes contains a full chamber pot.
Now if you open the boxes in order of their numeric designation, I assert that you will not know in advance of the opening of the box containing the chamberpot that the chamber pot is in that box.
Do you agree with this assertion?
The scholar thought for three days and nights without sleeping and then came before the king and said:
Suppose the pot is in the tenth box. Well that could not be unexpected, so the pot must be in one of the other nine boxes. But now by a similar argument, the pot cannot be in the ninth box. And so on -- which rules out the pot being in any of the boxes; assuming, of course, that the presence of the pot is to be unexpected..
With an exultant flourish, the scholar flung open the box labelled with the numeral one only to unexpectedly find a reeking, full chamber pot.
Having failed the test, the contents of pot were poured over the head of scholar before he was ejected from the encampment. But the man escorting him out of the encampment took pity upon the scholar and told the him how to find the truly benevolent ruler.
Con't
2552. transient1a - 7/14/2002 3:33:21 PM
Con't
The truly benevolent ruler also appeared sympathetic to the scholar's plight. But stated:
OK shithead, if you can pass this test I will give you enlightenment; but, if you can't, you will be beheaded.
Consider:
These are my three trusted servants. When answering the questions of foreigners: One is always truthful. One always lies. And one is always unpredictable.
You may ask each one, in turn, only one question -- not necessarily the same question -- that will be answered with either yes or no. However, they will answer you in their own dialect either "fuckoff" or "pissoff" -- but, I will not tell you which is "yes" and which is "no".
From their answers you must deduce who is truthful, who lies and who is unpredictable.
And since I am truly benevolent, you may have a week to formulate your question or questions.
Fortunately, the scholar almost immediately realized that the task was beyond even his incredible intellect, and was able to escape from his room and flee the city under the cover of night.
Eventually, he returned to his home where he devoted his life to writing a carefully planned, thousand and one volume Ph.D. dissertation which precisely detailed the moral, ethical, economic, scientific and political determinants of the camel's demise.
Con't
2553. transient1a - 7/14/2002 3:34:44 PM
Con't
To this day (see, for example,Message # 2407), scholars still apply his lucid conclusions to successfully illuminate seemingly unravellable Gordian knots of impenetrable conjecture as so succinctly given in the last two paragraphs of his dissertation:
It is normal, especially in social phenomena, that many determinants are necessary for a phenomenon to occur, but they may not be sufficient for the occurrence of that phenomenon. Furthermore, it is possible that the difference between necessity and sufficiency is a single determinant. Borrowing a word loosely from economics, I label this key single determinant marginal.
I argue that the marginal cause of the death of the camel was the straw. Truly, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
2554. glendajean - 7/15/2002 11:59:33 AM
He may be dead to me, but the Guardian says Bin Laden is still alive.
According to the story, he's waiting on another big attack on the US to stir up anger in the Arab world against America.
2555. marjoribanks - 7/15/2002 12:08:45 PM
I'd say that Bin Laden is 99% sure to be in his grave.
2556. Jenerator - 7/15/2002 12:14:45 PM
He's alive. I saw him in the Enimen video.
2557. Jenerator - 7/15/2002 12:15:03 PM
Eminem, that is!;-)
2558. rubberducky - 7/15/2002 1:00:11 PM
Lindh pleads guilty to aiding Taliban
RICHMOND, Va., July 15 — In a surprise bargain with prosecutors, American John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty Monday to two charges that spared him a possible life prison sentence. “I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban ... knowingly and willingly, knowing that it was illegal,” said the 21-year-old Lindh, who faces a maximum 20-year sentence.
“I PLEAD GUILTY. I plead guilty, sir,” Lindh told the judge as he entered the plea to one charge of supplying services to the Taliban, the hard-line Muslim government of Afghanistan ousted by a U.S.-led military coalition, and another charge that wasn’t in the original indictment alleging he carried explosives in the commission of a felony.
He originally was charged with 10 counts, including conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens, contributing services to al-Qaida and the Taliban and using firearms during crimes of violence. Three of the 10 counts carried maximum terms of life imprisonment for Lindh, who was captured in early December and transferred to civilian custody in late January.
first smart thing he's done. 2559. CalGal - 7/15/2002 1:30:38 PM
I think he should lose his citizenship. But 20 years is at least no slap.
2560. Ms. No - 7/15/2002 2:34:44 PM
20 year max. How much time will he actually serve? And yes, he should lose his citizenship.
Those whiny little silver-spoon pukes who run around promoting facism and intolerance in the name of hippy-freak ideals their parents raised them on but never adhered to make me sick.
2561. jexster - 7/15/2002 5:26:57 PM
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) was wounded in a U.S. bombing raid on Afghanistan ( news - web sites) in December but is in good health, the editor of a London-based Arabic newspaper said Monday.
Abd al-Bari Atwan, the editor of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, said sources close to the al-Qaida leader "confirmed to me that the man is in good health."
2562. sakonige - 7/15/2002 6:15:15 PM
As if it would make any difference to John Walker Lindh to lose his US citizenship.
2563. jexster - 7/16/2002 1:38:56 PM
2564. Jenerator - 7/16/2002 6:09:51 PM
Twenty years is nothing. Just think of how ripe and ready to serve the terrorists he will be at age 41.
2565. jexster - 7/16/2002 6:28:40 PM
Wacko Paul Wolfowitz was in Ankara today looking for Turkish assistance in GWII.
"No dice. You're nuts" the essence of the Turk response.
"That's alright. We'll do it all by ourselves if necessary."
Just think how ripe FP decision makers in the Bush Regime are NOW!
2566. RustlerPike - 7/17/2002 3:53:02 AM
Well, it's analytical prediction time. My calculations say this: according to Israeli press experts, including the number one Arabist out here, Channel 2's Ehud Yaari, Arafat is totally up shit creek, in a way that he has never ever been, ever. His own lieutenants are starting to ignore him.
This means that the pressure is now on Saddam, Hairy's boss (and object of his sexual desire, imho). I don't know to what extent Saddam and Al-Qaeda are coordinated, but I figure either Saddam will make a provocative move, or speech, or something, very soon, or maybe he'll do it through the Qaedans.
End of prediction.
2567. Wombat - 7/17/2002 8:07:39 AM
Jen:
If past examples are any indication, John Walker Lindh will leave prison with his values changed for the better and will lead a life of quiet obscurity (after selling his life story, of course).
2568. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 9:23:23 AM
Several months ago, hysterical JoeZan was asserting that Lindh would definitely be executed, because the US would also need to be executing plenty of other Muslims in the process of prosecuting the 'War on Terror'.
What a laugh. I bet you Lindh will be out well before his 35th birthday.
2569. joezan - 7/17/2002 9:35:09 AM
Well, considering he's got to serve at least 17 years (and that's with exemplary behavior as well as carrying out his part of the plea bargain - to squeal everything he knows), Marj, you've already lost that bet.
Still -he should have been executed, just so's no one can cry foul when we start executing the real muslims.
2570. PincherMartin - 7/17/2002 9:36:29 AM
Banks --
Shall I remind everyone what you were predicting would happen to "Babyface" Lindh? Or do you just want to skip that part?
2571. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 9:39:03 AM
Zan,
Your yearning to see a whole bunch of Muslim co-citizens executed is almost touching in its fervor.
Any day now, Zan, any day now, right?
2572. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 9:41:26 AM
I said that he will be minimally punished, and that he and his would be on Larry King Live before long.
That deathless television ghoul has already had the Lindh pappy in his interviewee's seat. I predict that Lindh's sentence will be commuted or vastly reduced within the next few years and just what I predicted will come to pass.
2573. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 9:52:21 AM
By the way, Zan, who exactly are the "real Muslims" you're wistfully dreaming about seeing executed?
2574. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:14:02 AM
banks
Please. Stop making predictions. You still have this one (from May) to shoulder.
I'd say 6 months for Sharon to be replaced, another six for a deal to be inked. Then, according to whatever timetable, you'll see Arafat accorded the trappings of a head of state, Palestine rebuilt, and a painful withdrawal from the occupied territory before a flag-raising ceremony in Al Quds.
Do you even know how a sentence is commuted?
2575. PincherMartin - 7/17/2002 10:16:37 AM
I said that he will be minimally punished, and that he and his would be on Larry King Live before long.
That's one of putting it.
Another more accurate way of putting it is that you thought Lindh would get a slap on the wrist and appear on King's show rather quickly. You said the American people wouldn't be able to punish Lindh.
Plainly, twenty years is not exactly most people's idea of a slap on the wrist, even with time off for good behavior. And Polls show the American people were not in a particularly forgiving mood towards the young traitor.
Lindh simply lucked out. A combination of reasons -- having little to do with anything you mentioned earlier -- pushed both sides to a plea bargain. The government's case was never airtight and Lindh's side was clearly worried he would get life.
There also appeared to be a host of other reasons the government wanted to quickly settle the case, none of which had to do with U.S. public opinion.
2576. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 10:21:20 AM
Hey, I've been far more correct than not in my string of bold and visionary predictions after 9/11, not to mention more correct than anyone else in this forum.
My prediction from May stands, hell even our fearless President has said that his administration will put its might behind a three-year timetable with components much like the ones I outlined above. Powell underlined this yesterday.
One year by my estimation, three years as per the Pres plan, both are inifintely more rapid in intent than what has been usually bandied about by the usual assortment of talking heads.
2577. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 10:22:17 AM
There also appeared to be a host of other reasons the government wanted to quickly settle the case, none of which had to do with U.S. public opinion.
Nonsense.
2578. PincherMartin - 7/17/2002 10:27:56 AM
Marj --
You often take both sides of an issue, and are given to emotional outbursts of prognostications depending on what is currently the news of the day. The only issue I can recall in which you were largely accurate and consistent was in your prediction the U.S. government would hike up its foreign aid and increase funds to other overseas programs.
2579. PincherMartin - 7/17/2002 10:28:57 AM
Daniel, a pop quiz for you in Movies.
2580. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:34:40 AM
pseudo
At your leisure.
I said "The fact is, as Andonly and Rask and Cal and Pincher have noted, the vicious reaction of the Muslim world to American involvement is a different kettle of fish than the reaction of other peoples...."
You responded
No, that is not a fact. That is so far an unsubstantiated assertion. There have been assertions in this thread that there is something unique about Middle-East-origin terrorism, but no hard facts have been presented to support this assertion. I think I will use this opportunity to restate my position in its entirety.
Which you do, and to which I respond (in relevant part):
Middle-Eastern-origin terrorism directed against the USA, whether Islamist or non-Islamist, would not exist in the absence of specific US interventions and involvements in Muslim countries, such as the unconditional support of Israel, the Gulf War & the sanctions regime against Iraq, and the propping up of corrupt dictators in the Arab world.
To the extent we did not exist to the Arab world, I agree. If we were of the power and scope of Andorra, it is unlikely Middle-Eastern-origin terrorism would be a bother.
2581. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:35:16 AM
You go on:
(1) The "vicious reaction of the Muslim world to American involvement" does not appear -- on first approximation -- to be a "different kettle of fish than the reaction of other peoples". There have been anti-American terrorist attacks all over the world, by groups with and without connexions to the Middle East, with or without a religious ideology, by Muslims and non-Muslims, by a large variety of nationalities, ranging from Brazilian to Japanese to Italian to Lebanese to Saudis, etc. This is really the crux of the argument, and this is what Andonly's and Raskolnikov's arguments never address. Only Pincher has addressed it, and I am most likely to being persuaded out of my position by arguments in this area.
Your first approximation is wrong. Yes, there have been other attacks all over the world by varying groups. Hence, separate kettles of fish. But look at State Sponsors of Terrorism
Majority Muslim Countries
Iran
Iraq
Syria
Somalia
Libya
Afghanistan
Lebanon
Palestinian Authority
Indonesia
Sudan
Yemen
Non-Muslim Countries
Cuba
North Korea
Phillipines
Georgia
2582. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:37:37 AM
There is disproportion in this list.
You have also stated There have been anti-American terrorist attacks all over the world, by groups with and without connexions to the Middle East, with or without a religious ideology, by Muslims and non-Muslims, by a large variety of nationalities, ranging from Brazilian to Japanese to Italian to Lebanese to Saudis, etc..
But take all the world, with its large bag of grievances, over the last 25 years versus the Muslim world and its bag of grievances, compare terrorism perpetrated and/or funded by the former against the United States and its interests, and terrorism perpetrated/funded by the latter against the United States and its allies. There is both a disparity and manner that is not attributable to standard U.S. involvement, but I'm becoming convinced that nothing less than a compendium will do.
2583. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:38:17 AM
After all, you cannot say it is significant that there isn't much African-origin terrorism against the USA, since sub-Saharan Africa can boast no attention from the USA comparable to the Gulf War or the unconditional support of Israel . . . . Furthermore, the disproportionate involvement of Muslims in anti-American terrorist attacks -- if that is indeed factually true -- would still have to be seen in light of the disproportionate American intervention in the Middle East.
Disproportionate to what? I'll let Pincher respond to your comments with regard to East Asia. But see Latin America, an area of the world where we have meddled with impunity since the Monroe Doctrine through Manifest Destiny through the anticommunism of the late 20th century. Our involvement there dwarfs our involvement in the Muslim-Arab world.
Take you own list suggesting the bases for Muslim terror (unconditional support of Israel, the Gulf War & the sanctions regime against Iraq, and the propping up of corrupt dictators in the Arab world). We've done the same in Latin America - unconditional support of repressive, unpopular regimes, military actions, toppling governments, sanctions, and the propping up of corrupt dictators. Occasional actions by Shining Path or FPMR don't really rate, and massive Colombian narco-terrorism is not on point.
Moreover, your suggestion of "that was then, this is now" fails because "then" - when American involvement was massive and quite heavy-handed - there was no parallel terrorism with regard to Central and South America (again, you suggest parallelism with regard to Pincher's offer of East Asia - I will let him respond).
2584. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:39:49 AM
Military regimes in Latin America had no compunction about murdering literally tens of thousands of suspected subservives. But in the Middle East, with the exception of Syria and Iraq, the supposedly pro-American regimes have been too terrified to actually exterminate the Islamists. So the Islamists have merely been blocked and stymied in these countries, not exterminated, and implicitly encouraged to go abroad. I wonder whether 9/11 would have even happened if Ayman Zawahiri never left Egypt or Usama bin Ladin never left Saudi Arabia but stayed to subvert their regimes back home and were all actually exterminated in the process.
You inadvertently make the point: The Muslim world is so cowed by its indigenous population that it does not confront it, and as we all know, regularly finances and stokes it. Moreover, it is rickety for you to rely on the brutality of Latim American authoritarians. The brutality was there, but it was geared toward keeping the regimes at issue in power, not stopping terrorist actions against the United States.
The alleged disproportionate involvement of Muslims in anti-American terrorist attacks -- again, if that is indeed factually true -- would also have to be seen in light of the difference in financing.
This is a canard (i.e., the Arabs have so much money, it makes them more effective killers, whereas the other fields of terrorism are infertile because they lack cash). Terrorism is cheap. If the world were similar, the Muslim world would be aped by the East Asian world or the Latin American world in this regard.
2585. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:40:12 AM
The willingess to commit suicide -- though not new or unique, since it is a long-standing practise among the non-Muslim Tamil Tiger terrorists of Sri Lanka, the world leaders in suicide-based terrorism if we go by the actual number of attacks carried out -- is certainly an element which has amplified the deadliness of Middle Eastern terrorist attacks. And of course I acknowledge that those international terrorists willing to commit suicide pose a unique danger, and a greater danger than those unwilling to commit suicide. But once again I still don't understand what the amplification of deadliness has to do with the nature of motivations.
If Arab terrorism is of the stripe to produce suicide attacks, it is clearly a different (unique) kettle of fish. The amplification of deadliness is a fair gauge in differentiating. The use of the separatist Tamils is not exactly an answer on the issue of proportion.
2586. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 10:42:22 AM
marj
Pincher is correct. You are excitable, and when energized by something you saw or read on BBC News, you veer to wild, often inconsistent prediction. Remember the streets of Pakistan flowing red with blood?
2587. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 11:06:37 AM
Puhleez, that was not a prediction but an (admittedly overstated, I was talking to Spades) expression of my priorities. In fact, much of what I predicted wrt Pakistan has come to pass, including a war on the ISI Islamists and a behind-the-scenes campaign to de-fang the jihadis and the worst-offending madrassas and groups.
--
I saw a Bill Moyers special a couple of days ago, about Islam, with a Bangladeshi friend. We noted that the sole participant in the panel who totally reflected our views on the Islamism matter was Fareed Zakaria, a fellow subcontinental.
Zakaria rather authoritatively described the whole phenomenon as politically motivated, a regionally fuelled thing, one based not on larger religious desires but fairly straightforward geo-politics wrapped up in a cynical use of religion.
See, he gets it. We get it. Some Yanks refuse to get it, perhaps it is easier to see the matterin terms of religious conflict for you, something like 'they hate our freedoms' etc. That perception will always be deeply flawed to those of us who actually have some idea of what it is we're collectively talking about.
2588. Raskolnikov - 7/17/2002 11:11:54 AM
"Next on Crossing Over with John Edwards: Noted psychics Jean Dixon and Marjoribanks tell what is in the future for Julia Roberts new marriage, peace in the Middle East, a cure for cancer, Pakistani politics, and Oprah Winfrey's wasteline. Next on the Sci Fi Channel."
2589. PincherMartin - 7/17/2002 11:13:39 AM
Marj --
As usual, you are your biggest fan.
Rask --
Hahaha!
2590. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 11:27:27 AM
Nonsense again, my fans are legion.
--
My prediction for Pakistani politics is that there will be a serious assination attempt in the coming months against Musharraf. My former collegemate, Omar Sayeed (now sentenced to death), threatened as much, and the jihadis have a better base in Pakistan to launch large-scale operations than in any other place on earth.
Pak will be roiled, but Musharraf or a Musharrafite will retain power, with Western blessings and if necessary military intervention. I wish we knew what the succession ladder is, but there must certainly be one in place.
2591. Raskolnikov - 7/17/2002 11:28:49 AM
In fairness, I have no idea what Marj's track record for prediction is. I just tend to have this sort of reaction when anybody touts their prowess as a prophet.
2592. Raskolnikov - 7/17/2002 11:30:46 AM
Marj: What about the Denise Richards / Charlie Sheen union? How many months or years before the Big D, according to the spirits?
2593. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 11:30:52 AM
And yes, when this eventuality comes about, I expect to be anointed House Seer here.
And I will expect the proper respectful genuflections from the impertinent who have doubted me, even if as half-heartedly as the current culprits.
2594. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 11:31:49 AM
Rask,
Sickles knows.
I have a good run indeed, usually beating the curve of prognostication by weeks.
2595. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 11:33:54 AM
I find that the Richards/Sheen union will bear fruit, they will produce offspring. Beyond that, it is a murky picture.
Again, I will expect permanent deference when this eventuality comes to pass.
2596. RustlerPike - 7/17/2002 11:39:23 AM
Create your own terror alert.
2597. RustlerPike - 7/17/2002 11:41:21 AM
Hey, I've been far more correct than not in my string of bold and visionary predictions after 9/11, not to mention more correct than anyone else in this forum.
Marj is asking for it. Where's Ando - she probably remembers some of his humungous gaffes. Or joezan. I forget them, there were so many and they were so embarrassing, I just erased them from my hard disk.
2598. Raskolnikov - 7/17/2002 11:46:26 AM
Ack. Oprah's waistline, not wasteline. We need a spellchecker so we can avoid wrecking decent jokes with an orthographic brain fart.
2599. RustlerPike - 7/17/2002 11:47:10 AM
Oh, I see sickles has already cast the first stone. Matter of fact, what I thought was marj showing off is in fact marj shouting some last epithets before the firing squad finishes him off. Good. No need for my contribution then.
2600. RustlerPike - 7/17/2002 11:49:52 AM
I predict that Lindh's sentence will be commuted or vastly reduced within the next few years and just what I predicted will come to pass.
That's good marj. You predict that eventually your predictions will cease being false.
I predict that you will still be predicting this when you are being strolled around the Jivanjee Center for the Senile, in 2052.
2601. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 11:51:15 AM
Piffle.
Name one humongous gaffe, dear Spike.
WRT your own region, I have been counselling you for a long time to accept that you'll be living with a Pal state over the Green Line.
I also repeatedly stated, immediately post 9/11, that the US government would make unprecedented steps in the right direction to augur such a state, and simultaneously lean on your guys to rein in. Both eventualities have come to pass.
I rest on my laurels.
2602. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 11:54:36 AM
Spike,
It amuses me to point out that the Zan pro-death position was that Lindh was certainly done for, and that a line of other American Muslims was heading for the gibbet.
My "slap on the wrist", while vociferously denounced at the time, is roughly what has happened. The man will (rightly) walk out of prison with most of his life ahead of him.
2603. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 12:04:42 PM
marj
Again, exactly who will commute Lindh's sentence?
2604. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 12:14:37 PM
Come on Sickles, is that the best you can do? Arguing legalisms?
I have a strong feeling that Lindh's sentence will be reduced greatly after some ritual time spent in jail. That is what I meant.
Do better, please, our mutual buddy Spike is counting on you.
2605. Raskolnikov - 7/17/2002 12:17:07 PM
"I have a strong feeling that Lindh's sentence will be reduced greatly after some ritual time spent in jail."
But this isn't just a legalism. *who* will reduce his sentence. Who has the power to do it, given that he plead guilty and signed a plea agreement (making any appeal very unlikely). I think what Sickles is getting at is that it would therefore take Presidential intervention to reduce his sentence. Do you really feel that is likely?
2606. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 12:18:02 PM
In any case, I shall be retiring from this undemanding fray in a few minutes, for most of the day.
I suggest that the impertinent reflect, soberly, on the required future genuflections during my absence. Private rehearsal may be called for.
2607. RustlerPike - 7/17/2002 12:20:19 PM
marj:
You are a character straight out of Dickens.
2608. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 12:20:25 PM
I have a strong feeling that Lindh's sentence will be reduced greatly after some ritual time spent in jail.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh. A strong feeling. Why didn't you say so?
Your use of a term of art confused me. I thought you had something intelligent to add.
2609. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 12:20:49 PM
Yes, I think Presidential intervention is quite likely - given a demonstrated surge in public opinion, and a best-selling book or two about this wayward lad's repentance and assistance in a patriotic war.
I seriously doubt that he will spend 17 years in jail.
2610. Daniel Sickles - 7/17/2002 12:28:06 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I can see the Democratic nominees vying to be the first to say "We were a little harsh on John Walker Lindh and I, as president, would commute that sentence."
I wonder who will get there first, Gore or Lieberman or Gephardt?
2611. marjoribanks - 7/17/2002 12:34:18 PM
We'll see, Sickles. Don't be surprised if it's your boy Dubya who does it.
--
I'm outta here, but I must give you doubters this article on Musharraf to ruminate over while rehearsing prostrating yourselves in my direction.
2612. Raskolnikov - 7/17/2002 12:47:13 PM
I don't think Presidential intervention is impossible, given the right circumstances (say, an Islamist coup in the United States), but I currently see no evidence that those circumstances are likely to arrive.
2613. Indiana Jones - 7/17/2002 1:28:43 PM
Why did Walker take the deal? Was it...
a) He thought a trial would likely result in worse.
b) He had a subcontinental defense lawyer who realized some Yanks just don't get it and that 20 years is really a slap on the wrist, especially given GWB's history of commuting and pardoning (just ask Carla Faye Tucker).
c) Some other reason?
2614. jexster - 7/17/2002 7:06:25 PM
Brosnahan is an extremely sharp lawyer.
"You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em."
He'd never have taken the deal if in the ND Cal but he was in NVa. and that's why he took it.
The more interesting question is - given that, why did the gov't give it.
And even MORE interesting question,
As I have decided to sign up for Obergruppenfuehrer Trashcroft's Citizen Spy Corps, should I change my monker to Mata Hari?
2615. jexster - 7/17/2002 7:09:13 PM
James J Brosnahan, MoFo
2616. jexster - 7/17/2002 9:58:42 PM
In the name of God
Most Compassionate, Most Merciful
"Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which Thou didst lay on those before us; our Lord! lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins, and grant us forgiveness. Have mercy on us. Thou art our Protector; help us to triumph over those who stand against the Faith."
God’s words are True - SPEECH OF HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN
2617. marjoribanks - 7/18/2002 9:08:16 AM
I went looking for the transcript of that Moyers special from a few days ago. Didn't find it, but found a similar one, with similar participants (including Fareed Zakaria) called Jihad and Justice.
Now, i've not really been a huge fan of Zakaria, in that I don't follow his stuff closely ever since he took over Newsweek International. But this transcript, and viewing that show mentioned, shows that Zakaria has been persuasively and eloquently making an informed case for many of the core arguments that some here have also been making - politics is more important than religion in this war, the US needs to configure a Pal state immediately in order to best serve its own interests, a re-think of American foreign policy has to be a priority, etc.
Anyway, I shall be watching Fareed a bit closer now.
2618. jexster - 7/18/2002 12:58:21 PM
"WASHINGTON, July 17 — Concerned that the United States is rushing headlong toward a full-scale military confrontation with Iraq, many Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans are urging the Bush administration to provide a public accounting of its plans"
Congress Balks at Bush Adventurism
2619. wonkers2 - 7/18/2002 6:22:56 PM
Bush's plan for an Iraq attack is all but dead.
2620. iiibbb - 7/18/2002 6:44:42 PM
I have a strong feeling the only way Lindh is going to commute his sentince is to strap a belt of dynamite to his waist and go give Osama a big hug.
2621. jexster - 7/18/2002 7:00:21 PM
In the name of God
Most Compassionate, Most Merciful
We asked for the Big Osama and got Lindh the Big Doofus.
2622. joezan - 7/18/2002 11:34:53 PM
How'd I miss this?
2573. marjoribanks - 7/17/02 9:52:21 AM
By the way, Zan, who exactly are the "real Muslims" you're wistfully dreaming about seeing executed?
Well, your man Zak Moussaoui for starters.
You still in a betting mood, spanky?
2623. CalGal - 7/19/2002 3:51:48 AM
I have no sympathy for Zak. But in reading and listening to what he's doing, it is extremely clear that he really doesn't understand our system. Not just ignorant of the finer points of law; he just doesn't get it at all. He really thinks the judge is out to burn him, that this is all a farce of a trial--when the real joke is that he'd have been dead without anything like a trial had he been in most Muslim countries, charged with the same crime.
It reinforces my belief that a very large percentage of the Arab/Muslim population mouth the jargon of Americans without the slightest understanding of it.
2624. marjoribanks - 7/19/2002 9:29:32 AM
So, Moussaoui, a man who apparently didn't do much more than flit around in some European countries before coming to the US and being nailed for acting suspiciously at flight school, is a "real Muslim" - and Lindh, a kid who actually attended al-Qaida training camps and was armed and captured in the course of a real shooting war isn't one.
Zan's contortions are as unpleasant to watch as his pro-death candle-holding vigil for executions.
Anyway Zan, you impotently puffed your chest up and rabbited on about legions of American Muslims who'd be frying in your hopeful new reign of terror against co-citizens. Moussaoui doesn't qualify.
2625. marjoribanks - 7/19/2002 9:31:41 AM
My own belief, wrt 2623, is that a very large percentage of the US population at large mouths the "jargon of Americans" without the slightest understanding of it, added to a total lack of understanding about the way this country actually operates overseas and the way it is perceived abroad.
2626. marjoribanks - 7/19/2002 9:34:30 AM
Moussaoui, who is obviously a kind of lunatic, has found himself in the hands of an excellent judge. It is my opinion (in this case you can't predict much other than a conviction) that she will eventually give him the rope he needs to hang himself, which may include the diatribes he intends on delivering to the nation before long. In effect, Moussaui is attempting to be an ideological suicide bomber, to disseminate ideas rather than explosive materiel, before he goes to his martyrdom.
2627. Indiana Jones - 7/19/2002 9:42:58 AM
The nostalgic, perhaps ambitious, Hashemites
2628. jexster - 7/20/2002 10:11:06 AM
FBI: Evidence Against Moussaoui Is Weak
2629. RustlerPike - 7/20/2002 11:39:53 PM
When I said this some time back, you guys all jumped me.
2630. RustlerPike - 7/20/2002 11:49:11 PM
Hajji Saifullah, the leader of the Gardez ruling council, said the Americans had relied on faulty intelligence provided by a local warlord, Padsha Khan Zadran.
Mr. Zadran, who was then vying to become governor of the area, told the Americans to strike the town in order to eliminate a village that had refused to support him, Mr. Saifullah said.
"The Americans got it completely wrong," Mr. Saifullah said in an interview. "Those people were not Al Qaeda. The Americans are listening to the wrong people."
One of the most deadly of the questionable American raids came when Mr. Zadran apparently used his influence with the Americans to call in a strike on his political foes.
On Dec. 20, according to rival Afghan commanders in Gardez, Mr. Zadran ordered fighters at a checkpoint south of the city to halt a convoy of tribal elders from Khost who were heading to Kabul for the inauguration of the new interim government. They demanded that the elders pressure Mr. Karzai to appoint Mr. Zadran the governor of Paktia, Paktika and Khost Provinces. The elders, Afghans in Gardez say, refused.
A few hours later, the convoy of elders was hit by a succession of American attacks, which killed most of the occupants. The survivors scrambled up a hill, toward the villages of Asmani and Pokharai, and the American planes, circling back, struck both villages, destroying about 20 homes.
Rival warlords in Gardez say Mr. Zadran used his satellite phone to tell the Americans that the convoy was filled with Qaeda fighters.
So that's what happened.
2631. jexster - 7/21/2002 12:23:16 AM
Why has Islam been so astonishingly successful? Why is it resistant to secularization?
Marx's Failure and Mohammed's Triumph
Ernest Gellner
2632. Andonly - 7/21/2002 9:00:33 AM
Fascinating piece, Jexster.
2633. jexster - 7/21/2002 11:07:40 AM
You might enjoy the expanded treatment Ando in his book on Nationalism. Gellner had a fascinating background. A Czech jew, he grew up with Hitler and Stalin before finding refuge and academic sucess in England. You can see that personal history at work in his intellectual efforts which were considerable.
2634. jexster - 7/21/2002 11:44:02 AM
Speaking of intellectual achievement, I'll be damned if I can find any sign of intelligent life in the Bush Regime's foreign policy decision-making....
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkey's embattled prime minister on Sunday warned the United States risked becoming bogged down in a long war if it moves ahead with plans to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).
AP Photo
"Iraq is ... so developed technologically and economically despite the embargo, that it cannot be compared to Afghanistan ( news - web sites) or Vietnam," Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said in an interview on state-run television.
"It will not be possible for the (United States) to get out of there easily," Ecevit said after a recent visit to the crucial NATO ( news - web sites)-member country on Iraq's northern border by Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz. The Pentagon ( news - web sites) No. 2 was in Turkey to lobby for it's assistance in any U.S. move against Saddam.
2635. jexster - 7/21/2002 11:48:09 AM
Ando...off topic but from other comments you've penned in other contexts, I think you'd also enjoy Gellner's bitch slap of Hannah Arendt in an essay found in Culture, Indentity & Politics
2636. jexster - 7/21/2002 4:33:28 PM
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is waging a concerted campaign to improve relations with countries in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere in the Middle East in what senior Bush administration officials say is an attempt to forestall any U.S. effort to topple him.
U.S. officials say the diplomatic offensive, aimed at ending more than a decade of isolation in the region, is a direct response to repeated vows by President Bush and administration officials to seek a change of leadership in Baghdad.
Search for Signs of Intelligent Life Continuing
2637. Andonly - 7/22/2002 2:14:33 PM
From MEMRI:
Special Dispatch - Reform in Arab and Muslim World
July 21, 2002
No. 401
To view this Special Dispatch in HTML format, please visit:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD40102
Liberal Columnist Calls on Hamas to Stop Terrorism
Tunisian liberal Al-'Afif Al-Akhdhar, who resides in Paris and writes for the London-based Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat, published an open letter to Hamas in which he called on the organization to stop suicide bombings. Following are excerpts from his article:
Serving Israel
"...Your suicide operations and your arrogant declarations regarding the necessity of eliminating the State of Israel, which is a U.N. member, gives Israeli propaganda a trump card [that enables it] to win the propaganda war with the claim that the Palestinians do not want a state alongside Israel but a state on the ruins of the State of Israel. This statement is not acceptable to international consensus, and thus is not fitting for a reasonable politician because it leads to diplomatic and media isolation and exposes his people to tragedies..."
"What is the aim of these suicide attacks, and can this aim be accomplished in the foreseeable future?"
"The armed violence used by national liberation movements [across the world] since the second half of the 20th century, for example in Algeria and Vietnam, did not intentionally target civilians. Its declared aim was to force the enemy to sit down at the negotiating table to reach a settlement. In contrast, you, in Hamas, have broken away from this political-military path by choosing to target Israeli civilians, and by stating that negotiating with Israel is a crime. You even refused to participate in the 1994 elections, because the Palestinian National Authority which organized them was born from the womb of negotiations with Israel..."
2638. Andonly - 7/22/2002 2:15:10 PM
"Irrational Nihilist Behavior"
"This irrational nihilist behavior has a name: 'worst-case nihilistic policy.' It is the worst because it takes unwise risks, following the logic of [Biblical Samson] 'let me die with the Philistines.' It is nihilist because it effectively negates all the values and norms underpinning the international community. You are indifferent to the destructive results of [suicide operations], such as the increased repression of your people and the war's spread to Arab countries in the region, with the aim of disseminating anarchy in them and making them ungovernable."
"This indifference to human pain, considering their blood to be cheap, being contemptuous of their lives, and expropriating their future on the altar of the naïve illusion of 'liberating Palestine to the last grain of soil' expresses a hallucinatory paranoia that views murder and suicide as goals in themselves, and the kind of identity beloved by those who hunger for power and blood, [who] despise religious values as well as the values of this world."
"This worst-case is the source of all political blindness. It is what has made you shoot yourselves in the foot and explode human bombs [against] the future of your people. It is what has made your political options converge with everything that benefits the enemies of your land. The proof of this is the timing of your suicide attacks and your shameful [cooperation] with Sharon about resistance to anything promoting peace."
2639. Andonly - 7/22/2002 2:16:22 PM
You Failed All Chances in the Last Decades
"In 1996, you timed your suicide attacks to coincide with Israeli elections, in order to extend a helping hand to Netanyahu, to cut off the peace process, and to topple Peres, whose agenda was to go down in history as the crafter of the Arab-Israeli peace. In 1997, the late Syrian president [Hafez Al-Assad] said, 'Had Peres been elected, there would already be peace between us and Israel.'"
"Rabin's assassination by a Jewish terrorist, and the toppling of his ally Peres by you killed the peace dynamic. The sick Palestinian people and its leaders are still paying for this mistake. Hamas and the Likud leadership's common denominator is resolute opposition to every direction of peace, and preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state, which the Likud sees as the beginning of the end of Israel and you see as guaranteeing Israel's existence! Thus, when Sharon voted, in the Knesset, against Egyptian-Israeli peace, you voted against it in the streets of Cairo, through the Muslim Brotherhood... Sharon voted against the Madrid peace conference, and so did you, in your own special way. He voted against the Oslo accords, and so did you, saying these accords were heresy. The hero of Sabra and Shatila voted against the Israeli-Jordanian peace, and so did you."
2640. Andonly - 7/22/2002 2:17:19 PM
"What makes your positions converge with those of the enemies of your people and your nation? Could it be collaboration? God forbid! There is another reason, with results no less grave. It is your inability to move from theology to politics."
"[The journalist] Huda Al-Husseini wrote: 'In a phone conversation, a British expert on Islamist movements told me that Hamas' aim was to eliminate the State of Israel...' This expert said, 'While meeting with the Hamas leaders, I was surprised to discover that most of its members maintain that the founding of an Islamic state in Palestine would come about in 2022-3... There must be some mistake with the date, because a 1999 religious ruling by Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin says that the date of the establishment of the Islamist state in Palestine, on the ruins of Israel and in accordance with his understanding of Torah prophecy, would be in 2027 – that is, 40 years after the outbreak of the first Intifada.'"
2641. Andonly - 7/22/2002 2:17:47 PM
Without a Change You Will Lose More
"I ask the intelligent among you: 'Do your religion and your moral conscience permit you to brainwash the Palestinian youth whose lives you risk with such nonsense?' How can you allow your strategy to be based on a hallucinatory reading of Jewish theology? Isn't this theological reading of the issue of the Palestinian people what created its tragedies? [Because of such theology,] Haj Amin Al-Husseini collaborated with Hitler and rejected the settlement offered him by the Peel Commission in 1937 to partition Palestine, with 20% going to the Jews and 80% to Palestine. Then, he repeated his mistake by rejecting the Partition Plan that this time would have given 55% to the Jews and the rest to Palestine...you rejected Clinton's proposal, which gave your people 96-97% of the West Bank, citing the religious ruling that you rejected it because it was an American-Jewish conspiracy against the Palestinian people..."
2642. Andonly - 7/22/2002 2:18:02 PM
"I am not demanding that you develop strategic thought, although your political activity is impossible without strategy. All I demand of you is that you maintain a degree of realism that will help you understand the disconnect between your desires and regional and international reality. If you do not abandon this approach, you will continue to carry out, to the bitter end, the role of stubborn rejectionists who err with illusions about themselves and the world."
"[Without change], you will not grasp the message of September 11 - that the era of suicide operations is over and any violence whatsoever is unacceptable internationally and constitutes terror, whatever the reasons behind it. Violence will achieve no political reward whatsoever. The pre-emptive war, that is, offense as the best form of defense, is the strategic rule of the war on terror. It is no accident that the E.U. countries recently added the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine] and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to their list of terrorist organizations - the list in which you and Islamic Jihad were the first."(1)
Endnotes:
(1) Al-Hayat (London), July 14, 2002.
2643. Andonly - 7/22/2002 2:19:53 PM
Jexster,
I have heard of Gellner, but haven't ever read anything by him. Thanks for the recommendation.
2644. Wombat - 7/22/2002 2:44:41 PM
"Not intentially targeting civilians..." Both the Algerians and Vietnamese did, but otherwise a very forceful piece that underlines what appears to be obvious to most observers of the region. Too bad one has to go to Paris to read that from an Arab writer.
2645. Andonly - 7/27/2002 10:30:00 PM
This interesting article in Partisan Review describes the difficulties Europeans are having facing up to their problem integrating fundamentalist Muslim immigrants. The author (who lauds Pim Fortuyn alongside several progressive Muslim leaders and media figures) thinks the fundies, their apologists, and Euros' persistence in seeing their nations almost unconciously in ethnic terms, pose a distinct threat to liberalism in several European states.
2646. concerned - 7/29/2002 6:54:42 PM
The News Editor of Arab News takes questions, part deux (from Little Green Footballs):
Hi Joe,
The excited little kids just won't shut up so that us adults can have a proper conversation.
If you can find another website that has an invigilator, and which will allow ordinary Saudis to post comments as well, I will be happy to resume this debate.
How am I supposed to answer 74 postings, most containing streams of questions?
littlegreenfootballs reflects the mainstream American media in the way it completely shuts out one side of the debate out while allowing, indeed encouraging, the other to spew forth just about anything without reason or restraint.
And all out of sheer ignorance!
Is this the wonderful democracy I'm supposed to feel nostalgic for?
While I'm not in the habit of hanging out with white trash, this experience has been welcome in as much as it reminded me of the kind of blind intolerance, complete lack of ethics and general stupidity that now largely defines political discussion in the United States.
Yes, we're still pushing for more freedoms over here; but you guys just went and threw yours away. If you would like to reminded of just how low you have sunk as a media culture, have a read of Gerg Palast's
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth about Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High Finance Fraudsters
I'm off for a stroll down Jeddah's fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . .
John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2647. jexster - 8/1/2002 11:30:14 AM
"The UN went into abrupt reverse yesterday and said it no longer intended to release a report compiled by a team of UN officials who visited the site where a US warplane attacked a wedding party in Afghanistan on 1 July. The change of tack by the UN was apparently the result of pressure from within its own hierarchy, particularly in Afghanistan itself, and from the US not to release the report that allegedly contradicts claims made by the US about the circumstances of the attack. The controversy first erupted on Monday when it emerged that a first draft of the report written by the UN fact-finding team featured a number of potentially embarrassing allegations. They included the charge that the US had under-reported the numbers of people who had died and US soldiers had removed evidence from the site, suggesting a cover-up. A UN spokesman said on Monday that a final draft would be made public within 24 hours" -but then Bush scrubbed it
2648. Indiana Jones - 8/4/2002 11:19:30 AM
Reaping the whirlwind
Bin Ladin later claimed in a video for private consumption that the 'brothers' knew nothing about the operation, "not even one letter... until they are there and just before they boarded the planes". [33] But an operation on so ambitious a scale required detailed reconnaissance by a skilled pilot, able to time an aircraft's flight path, judge when it had reached cruising altitude and observe what visual landmarks could be used to substitute for the crew's navigational equipment and guide a successful hijack to its target. At the barest minimum, a stop-watch and compass would serve to plot the course, but global positioning devices produce preciser results. While the choice of which flights to seize, each taking off in a narrow time-band and with a full load of fuel, could be left to a planner not directly involved in executing the last phase of the mission, one or more of the pilots were needed to reconnoitre the selected flights, since familiarity with each one's flight plan was crucial to knowing the exact moment to take control.
2649. jexster - 8/5/2002 12:41:23 AM
Colin Powell arrives this Monday in Southeast Asia, where he will visit several countries with large Muslim populations, including Malaysia and Indonesia. Meanwhile, America's hand toward the Islamic world grows heavier. In Washington, discussion of a unilateral military strike against Iraq has sidestepped the "if" stage of debate and gone straight to "when." George W. Bush has promoted Palestinian self-determination and democracy by calling for a separate state and open elections, but he has told the Palestinians to turn out Yasser Arafat, flouting the concept of democratic choice.
The Bush administration has rejected the idea of a reformist movement in Iran's theocracy, choosing to back anti-government demonstrators whom it assumes are pro-democracy.
Whatever the arguments for these individual policies, their accumulated weight is worrisome
Listen to Islamic Moderates - Brookings
2650. ronski - 8/7/2002 1:14:41 PM
Blogger James Lileks on Islamic Websites for Young People (Scroll halfway down, to "Wednesday")
2651. Andonly - 8/8/2002 11:09:34 AM
Surprising stance for the Economist.
2652. PelleNilsson - 8/8/2002 11:33:46 AM
Yes, isn't it? I would have expected them to stress the complications of the aftermath, etc, etc. Perhaps key people are on vacation. And then perhaps not.
2653. marjoribanks - 8/8/2002 11:40:45 AM
Who could, really, oppose a campaign to replace Saddam Hussein?
The goal is a good one, the liberation of the Iraqi people is both inevitable and extremely necessary at this precise juncture.
The only question comes when you deliberate over the fact that it appears that the US will be doing it, almost unilaterally.
The US has largely lost its bona fides to conduct such a campaign in that region, and any reasonable person would come to conclusion that it shouldn't wage such a war until it improves its standing wrt the biggest ME matter - Israel/Palestine.
It is a big gamble, one which this country should take its time considering.
If articulated correctly, and then followed through in fact, the US has a strong and principled basis to attack Iraq.
2654. marjoribanks - 8/8/2002 11:42:50 AM
But that basis would and should be immensely strengthened via a principled stand wrt Israel and Palestine that brings the inevitable Pal state into focus as a supported reality.
2655. PelleNilsson - 8/8/2002 12:02:37 PM
Of course, Saddam should be gotten rid of. My question is whether the US will be able to do it in a proper way, which means not only destroying what is there but putting something else in place.
The Bush administration, in my view, looks insecure, morally weak and locked into political short-termism determined by the two-year election cycle. Moreover, it is made nervous by the fate of Bush pere and by the doubtful way Bush fils came into power. The risk is that it will bomb Baghdad into smitherens and then withdraw claiming victory. And up pops a defiant Saddam from some hole in the desert.
2656. marjoribanks - 8/8/2002 12:21:01 PM
That's a silly analysis, Pelle.
If this administration takes the US to war over Iraq there may be some truly severe consequences (pssoibly the use of WMD), but nothing like your scenario could ever come to pass.
2657. concerned - 8/8/2002 12:30:15 PM
....and any reasonable person would come to conclusion that it shouldn't wage such a war until it improves its standing wrt the biggest ME matter -Israel/Palestine.
Such a statement presumes that the US has much greater influence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, absent direct military intervention, than it does.
I would suggest that it is the UN, not the US which is the entity that should show that it has the 'bona fides' implied in its charter by becoming more directly involved in the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian violence than by passing effete, toothless resolutions.
2658. concerned - 8/8/2002 12:36:42 PM
And up pops a defiant Saddam from some hole in the desert.
I don't see why the US couldn't keep the lid on him just as effectively as it has bin Laden.
2659. concerned - 8/8/2002 12:58:16 PM
I have to admit that I'm a little ambivalent about a US military incursion into Iraq, but not because the US would lack any 'bona fides' to do so.
We have a situation where the bulk of Iraqis could be lifted out of relative impoverishment by a change to a more enlightened regime, and, thus I have few qualms on this basis.
My main concern is the the US action be or appear to be suitably quick, decisive and effective in both the short and medium term. If the world is presented with what amounts fait accompli as a result of something close to a 'weekend war' with much visible support from the Iraqi citizenry for a change to a democratic secular government, the US should have relatively little to worry about if it stays the course thereafter, since the Kurds, Iran, etc. should be relatively manageable.
2660. concerned - 8/8/2002 12:59:54 PM
...amounts to a fait accompli....
2661. sakonige - 8/8/2002 1:03:55 PM
With his own head and not just his most recent conquest at stake, and especially when he calculates that he has nothing to lose, Mr Hussein might very well use the unconventional weapons he has collected. The casualties this time -especially the civilian casualties - could be much larger than they were before.
Well, I would enjoy seeing the White House get nuked preemptively with Bush and his advisors in it. If so many people are going to get killed in a war Bush insists on causing, George W. Bush definitely should end up one of the dead. If Americans want war so much, war should strike them, too. Bring on the terrorists and the TV cameras.
2662. concerned - 8/8/2002 1:08:18 PM
Sakonige, what good does it do to wish people dead? Why don't you grow up?
2663. concerned - 8/8/2002 1:10:49 PM
Sakonige sounds just like the Islamist knotheads, saying: Kill! Kill! Kill!
Here's a clue: We're not in the stone age anymore.
2664. jexster - 8/8/2002 1:13:00 PM
Slate claims to have approximately reproduced
Taking Saudi Out of Arabia
Laurent Murawiec
RAND
Defense Policy Board
July 10, 2002
The recreation appears at the end of the article which describes the author's shady background and connection to Lyndon Larouche and Bushie Richard Perle.
Truly the inmates have taken over the Bush Asylum.
2665. jexster - 8/8/2002 1:14:13 PM
We're not in the stone age anymore
But we are on our way back.
2666. concerned - 8/8/2002 1:18:48 PM
Re. 2665 -
Well, it makes me tired to have people pretending that eating dirt and flies and cooking with shit if they even know about fire is somehow preferable to what Western civilization offers and can offer.
2667. sakonige - 8/8/2002 5:59:28 PM
concerned,
Drink shit and die.
2668. sakonige - 8/8/2002 6:12:01 PM
What kind of a dumbfuck poseur would advocate war and at the same time pretend he doesn't want to see people killed?
2669. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:24:56 PM
Re. 2667 -
I'm on well and septic. Neener neener!
Btw, Sak, you're invited to come over and drink my safe water if Islimeoterrorists start poisoning reservoirs.
2670. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:27:01 PM
Re. 2668 -
One difference between me and terrorist slime, Sak, is that I realize that one has to break eggs to make an omelet while your buddies suck eggs.
2671. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:37:25 PM
Or, you could say that one difference between me and terrorist slime is that I realize that one has to break eggs to make an omelet whereas your buddies would rather stomp the hen to death and then drink the puree out of her cloaca.
2672. sakonige - 8/8/2002 6:42:21 PM
So you say, hypocrit. I still want to see some real evidence of all these weapons of mass destruction millions of Muslims are going to be slaughtered for supposedly possessing.
2673. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:42:25 PM
I don't want to even think about what they would do to the hen after that.
2674. sakonige - 8/8/2002 6:44:08 PM
Nuke the White House. If millions of lives are to be squandered, I want to see the opposition at least put up a fight.
2675. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:48:39 PM
Re. 2672 -
Well, Saddam has proved that he's a world class blowhard. A dangerous one, but still a liar who would cause the mythical Baron Munchausen to come to life just so he could expire with envy.
Then there's the fact that the US is very likely to have developed effective countermeasures for most of the dirty tricks Saddam can concoct, short of his well known propensity for murdering his own people.
Plus, the sooner the Iraqi forces surrender, and surrender they will within days, if not hours, the less punishment they (and they alone, from American weaponry at least) will endure.
2676. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:50:10 PM
Sak -
Why is it you automatically give a pass on criticizing genocidal primitives?
2677. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:51:11 PM
Let me rephrase:
Sak -
Why is it you automatically take a pass on criticizing genocidal primitives?
2678. concerned - 8/8/2002 6:52:52 PM
Re. 2674 -
You don't want that, because then the US would own the Middle East.
2679. concerned - 8/8/2002 7:04:13 PM
Contrast this:
Western Civilization and science offer the potential for humans living elsewhere in space than on earth, with extended lifespans, lack of disease, unimagined vistas of existence, and unlimited affluence.
And Islamists and their fellow travelers, well, what they have to offer are short, miserable existences grubbing for sustenance in filth like human cockroaches, half insane with all the power going to the most bestial.
2680. sakonige - 8/8/2002 8:42:04 PM
Message # 2677
Obviously, I don't buy the argument that primitives are typically genocidal. What primitives want is to be left alone. It isn't the primitives who strive to impose their culture on all the world's peoples.
2681. sakonige - 8/8/2002 8:44:56 PM
Western Civilization and science offer the potential for humans living elsewhere in space than on earth, with extended lifespans, lack of disease, unimagined vistas of existence, and unlimited affluence.
You mean unlimited effluent. You don't seem to have noticed, but you're already choking on your own waste.
2682. Wombat - 8/9/2002 7:55:58 AM
I don't see why Sakonige should be concerned about the use of WMD if the US and Iraq go to war. The most likely scenario will have Saddam using them against Israel.
2683. Indiana Jones - 8/9/2002 8:27:54 AM
your buddies would rather stomp the hen to death and then drink the puree out of her cloaca.
Mmmmmm...puréed cloaca.
2684. Rama - 8/9/2002 8:54:40 AM
Nuke the White House. If millions of lives are to be squandered, I want to see the opposition at least put up a fight.
The Secret Service doesn't appreciate such expressions of hostility to the President. Will you be at home this afternoon?
2685. concerned - 8/9/2002 11:44:33 AM
Re. 2684 -
And of course Sak will claim that her incitements against the president are really all my fault, because I provoked her somehow, and, of course, Lefties never take the blame when there's someone to the right of them they can pin it on.
2686. concerned - 8/9/2002 11:53:18 AM
Re. 2680 -
Sakonige -
I was funnin' you, you know, but even so, I didn't mean to state that 'primitives' are generally genocidal.
However, it's interesting that if you study human tribal society in prehistoric times, the record typically shows different ethnic groups supplanting each other over all parts of the earth, by gaining an advantage because of some combination of violence, advance in some form of technology, lifestyle supporting a higher population density, resource sequestration or depletion, disease, etc.
2687. Rama - 8/8/2002 12:16:53 PM
RickNelson, what do you think of this comment:
but i don't mind being associated with euros...none of their governments has, as of yet, caused extremists to fly large airplanes into their tallest buildings.
2688. RickNelson - 8/8/2002 9:01:45 PM
Rama,
I like to have things in context, but this sounds like something W would say. It's ethnocentric and biased, unheadful of the necessary variables which creates extremists. I agree only that there are goverments who do not arrest known terrorists. So far only one of them has been called on that account and they're out! However, there are still going to be hawks on both sides.
The democratic governments seem to have a strongly held bias toward the middle east. The words I choose are guarded, for I cannot stand upon any direct supportive evidence. I am therefore somewhat a hypocrit, labeling these. I am labeling via my bias that these officials seem to me to cast aside viable cultural moors. For example the case made by Saudis that American troops must leave.
There's to much to cover wrt the whole picture, I stop here.
"but i don't mind being associated with euros...none of their governments has, as of yet, caused extremists to fly large airplanes into their tallest buildings."
2689. Rama - 8/9/2002 8:49:04 AM
I see what you mean about context. I think you thought the government that "caused" extremists to fly large airlines into their tallest buildings was refering to a middle eastern government. It was referring to the U.S.
2690. concerned - 8/9/2002 12:25:39 PM
Rick -
Your personal safety probably depends on the person who posted what Rama excerpted not finding out whom you attributed the sentiment in that quote to.
Be warned.
2691. ivan osokin - 8/9/2002 1:49:00 PM
Rick:
the quote is from me, in response to jexster in some recent posts in "ideologies".
i cracked up when you said "W"...but i figured it was a semantically ill-formed sentence, so i'll elucidate:
"but i don't mind being associated with euros (i.e., nations in europe)...none of their (meaning, european) governments has, as of yet, caused extremists (i.e., by doing everything possible to incite hatred and extreme hostility by muslim nations) to fly large airplanes into their tallest buildings (as happened in the US).
so what i was saying was that i would rather live in europe because there are far less chances (so far) that they will incur the same scale of terrorist acts aimed against them...because their governments have not been as diligent, effective, or dedicated to eradicating the entire culture, sovereignty, or human rights of (mainly oil-producing) muslim nations.
2692. RickNelson - 8/9/2002 8:22:18 PM
Ha, see how my bias worked there?
Rama,
That personal opinion of America is along the lines of my bias. I hold an opinion which will not coincide with ivans with regard to Europe. However, I cannot state a fact, I've never been to Europe. I can only come to certain deductions based on news, history and some interaction with friends from there. Some of my opinion comes from the Mote International thread.
For example I admire the N.Z. representative system.
I think the terrorist equation is very complicated. Very cultural, historical and extremist fed. I don't enjoy the implication ivan presents, but I cannot deny all of it. I see support for Europe, but I don't support it that way.
2693. RickNelson - 8/9/2002 8:45:00 PM
Where did he go George, huh, where did he go? Huh George, huh?!
2694. Rama - 8/9/2002 9:33:53 PM
Ha, see how my bias worked there?
I certainly did. It was quite amusing.
I don't find the "blame the victim" rhetoric particularly amusing, but it does make clear the level of moral competency people bring to discussions.
I don't think you and I really have anything to discuss.
2695. ivan osokin - 8/10/2002 7:07:10 AM
I don't find the "blame the victim" rhetoric particularly amusing, but it does make clear the level of moral competency people bring to discussions.
blame whiche victim? the first one or the recent one?
2696. ivan osokin - 8/10/2002 7:07:37 AM
that should read which
2697. RickNelson - 8/10/2002 8:06:37 AM
Rama,
Do you think America must stand solely upon moral high ground when considering terrorists? You asked what I think. I've related cautiously what I consider and excluded my thoughts which revolve around my considerations. Therefore, what has transpired might be that I've been judged by my openness that I'm morally incompetent.
2698. RickNelson - 8/10/2002 8:30:34 AM
Islamist culture is not something I grew up with. However, when given the chance (one of many examples) to become acquainted with an Iranian man and his Malaysian wife, I accepted. We shared food and had talks, my little family and his. This was in 1984-85. Just 5 short years since the hostage crisis. Perhaps I should have ostrasized and judged this man. After all he is Iranian.
The moral thing to do would be to ignore his overtures, to remain aloof and judge his actions and words. Why bother trying to get in touch with his culture?
Perhaps our little understanding may allow for small growth towards interrelations of our two nations. I don't know what has become of Mohammed but I know we would be close acquaintences if we met again.
What's going to happen when our war is over? Do you know? Will we march into the "axis of evil" countries to take charge? Will we be the moral standard by which these cultures will rally behind? Our rightous cause set forth by the God of our fathers, the cause of freedom and justice for the oppressed. This previous senrence makes me sick and I post it for dramatic effect.
The justice I refer to is moral and perhaps not within the sphere of this particular rant of mine. After all, I'm judged to be morally incompetent.
2699. Rama - 8/10/2002 9:51:05 AM
Do you think America must stand solely upon moral high ground when considering terrorists?
No. But I was not speaking of "America"'s moral competance.
Therefore, what has transpired might be that I've been judged by my openness that I'm morally incompetent.
So you have demonstrated your level of moral competance. That is useful for me to know. Thanks.
2700. Rama - 8/10/2002 9:55:55 AM
The moral thing to do would be to ignore his overtures, to remain aloof and judge his actions and words.
That would be another example of moral imcompetance.
After all, I'm judged to be morally incompetent.
You seem to be more upset by the fact that you have been judged morally incompetent than that you might actually be morally incompetent. That, in itself, is not a good sign of moral competancy.
2701. magoseph - 8/10/2002 11:04:43 AM
You seem to be more upset by the fact that you have been judged morally incompetent than that you might actually be morally incompetent. That, in itself, is not a good sign of moral competancy.
You seem to want to be judged as someone who is actually competent to judge other Moties' incompetencies. That, in itself, is not a good sign of moral competency.
2702. Rama - 8/10/2002 11:11:00 AM
You seem to want to be judged as someone who is actually competent to judge other Moties' incompetencies.
While I am competent to do so, it is not a role I am particilarly interested in.
That, in itself, is not a good sign of moral competency.
That is actually completely wrong. Competency in any area is generally reflected by the ability to evaluate competency in that area in others. You can tell how much somebody knows about basketball by how they critique people who are playing basketball. An expert in antiques is able to accurately judge the ability of a buyer to evaluate a piece.
2703. magoseph - 8/10/2002 12:06:55 PM
While I am competent to do so, it is not a role I am particilarly interested in.
Rama,
It is a role in which you are most particularly interested.
That is actually completely wrong. Competency in any area is generally reflected by the ability to evaluate competency in that area in others. You can tell how much somebody knows about basketball by how they critique people who are playing basketball. An expert in antiques is able to accurately judge the ability of a buyer to evaluate a piece.
I accept your infallibility in all competencies and incompetencies of all Moties, including myself. Forgive me, God Rama, I just didn't understand who you actually were until just now.
2704. Rama - 8/10/2002 12:12:17 PM
It is a role in which you are most particularly interested.
Goodness, you seem to have become a mind reader! Did you know there is a specific term for that particular error?
accept your infallibility in all competencies and incompetencies of all Moties, including myself. Forgive me, God Rama, I just didn't understand who you actually were until just now.
Retreating into sarcasm? Probably a good choice.
2705. RickNelson - 8/10/2002 1:39:20 PM
"So you have demonstrated your level of moral competance."
Hardly Rama,
All that's been demonstrated is you set me up for your judgement. I proceed cautiously with Moties I'm unfamiliar with, from whom questions such as yours appear without pretext nor context. I've demonstrated only that I am able to post to you from the context of this preceeding sentence.
I can only discuss moral apptitude from the standpoint of various historical happenings and certain bits of information from these which I found relevent to my personal apptitude regarding my morals. If you wish to discuss these, by all means let's do so. However, you must first give me an historical context and example from which you have learned some moral appreciation. Then I will reciprocate.
2706. jexster - 8/10/2002 8:22:58 PM
If you can imagine Defense Policy Board Chairman Tom Hayden inviting Louis Farrakhan to deliver a "lecture" on Israel to top US policymakers, then you can picture Richard Perle inviting Laurent Murawiec ...
When you cut through the crap about war terrorist, evil, Saddam berry berry bad, you'll see that you ain't seen nothin yet...
Americanist Idiots eh? Just wait...
Bush is keeping the real loons in the Pentagon...don't take my word for it, tune in Capital Gang and Bob Novak will open your eyes...
2707. Rama - 8/11/2002 12:41:40 AM
I proceed cautiously with Moties I'm unfamiliar with, from whom questions such as yours appear without pretext nor context. I've demonstrated only that I am able to post to you from the context of this preceeding sentence.
That isn't exactly so. The first time we were posting on the same thread, the same sort of moral confusion arose regarding the 3000 deaths in New York. You asked why I was being so inflammatory. I thought perhaps that is was merely that I mentioned the number of people who were dead. So when I saw the same error again, I thought I would see what you really thought about the matter. And you let me know.
2708. RickNelson - 8/11/2002 7:11:28 AM
No I didn't, you're still judging from presumption as you did before. I now recall that aforementioned experience. I recall you made the error. Here is your second time to show you don't read my posts carefully and ignore decent reciprocal discussion. You're a mudslinger!
You take your judgemental assumptions out of context. The first I cannot recall all detail, but I remember it was confusion. This one you set me up and I've said absolutely nothing about the airplanes specifically.
Your set-up chosen excerpt mentions it, I didn't in my reply. What I said was that my bias is similar to ivan's however, we do not share views with regard to Europe. What my specific views are haven't been mentioned.
The only moral discussion you will receive is when you give me an example of what historical context you base your judgements upon and how you decided it was moral. Then I will reciprocate.
2709. Rama - 8/11/2002 2:52:40 PM
No I didn't, you're still judging from presumption as you did before. I now recall that aforementioned experience. I recall you made the error. Here is your second time to show you don't read my posts carefully and ignore decent reciprocal discussion. You're a mudslinger!
Exactly the response I would expect. You don't know what the moral issue is, you aren't able to see what it is and you don't care what the moral issue is. You care about what has been said about you. And you move immediately to labels like inflamitory and mudslinger.
You take your judgemental assumptions out of context.
Nonsense. There is no other context than what we post here.
The first I cannot recall all detail, but I remember it was confusion.
Are you trying to be funny?
This one you set me up and I've said absolutely nothing about the airplanes specifically.
I posted a comment, asked your opinion and you responded based on your priorities and biases. I evaluated that response. You got upset with my evaluation. Boo-hoo-hoo.
I don't know why you think "airplanes" is a particularly important part of the discussion.
Your set-up chosen excerpt mentions it, I didn't in my reply. What I said was that my bias is similar to ivan's however, we do not share views with regard to Europe. What my specific views are haven't been mentioned.
Is that intended to be exculpatory?
The only moral discussion you will receive is when you give me an example of what historical context you base your judgements upon and how you decided it was moral. Then I will reciprocate.
Demonstrating further that you have no idea how to make a moral judgement. Well, don't bother you little head about it. Just nod along with ivan.
2710. RickNelson - 8/11/2002 5:35:12 PM
Is that intended to be exculpatory?
No, it's intended to restate the post so you can understand it. Perhaps if I post very s-l-o-w-l-y-.
Ha, I don't need to explain the moral issue, you've brought it up. Therefore, you explain it!
The airplane within the excerpt you posted is exactly the clue one will need to answer your question of my opinion. Without it, and the restatement of the context via ivan, there would be no context from which I could accurately relay a response. All I could do with the excerpt you gave was guess at its context and take a chance with a response. I use my bias because its a reference from which I may draw an answer, I haven't expounded my biases. We all have bias context from which we give some answer to an issue. Bias does not equate bad.
Get out of yourself and stop sitting high on your throne of judgement. If you think I stand with blaming the victims, via awareness of Arab culture then you're a prejudice person.
2711. ivan osokin - 8/11/2002 7:32:03 PM
What I said was that my bias is similar to ivan's however, we do not share views with regard to Europe.
that's okay rick. your posts have been far more civil and intelligent than rama's attempt at rodomontade.
i should also clarify that my statement was the result of jexster associating the mote-term "americanist idiots" with Mote euros, to which i replied that i thought i had coined the term and that i am american...though i don't mind being associated with euros, etc., as i said.
2712. Rama - 8/11/2002 8:41:04 PM
No, it's intended to restate the post so you can understand it. Perhaps if I post very s-l-o-w-l-y-.
What is bothering you is not that I don't understand your post. It is that I do, and recognize that your grasp of morality is defective.
Ha, I don't need to explain the moral issue, you've brought it up. Therefore, you explain it!
Why? I'm not here to teach morality. And you have demonstrated there is no utility in discussing morality with you.
The airplane within the excerpt you posted is exactly the clue one will need to answer your question of my opinion.
Are you really such an idiot? I find that hard to believe. I think, rather, you are trying to cover you lack of understanding of the moral issue involved in the statement through obfuscation.
Get out of yourself and stop sitting high on your throne of judgement. If you think I stand with blaming the victims, via awareness of Arab culture then you're a prejudice person.
Your biases have made you completely blind. The privileged young men who flew airplanes into the building in New York did not do so because they are Arabs, or because they are Moslems, or because of U.S. foreign policy.
2713. RickNelson - 8/12/2002 5:42:40 AM
Have fun Rama.
2714. Rama - 8/12/2002 9:14:29 AM
Have fun Rama.
I shall, RickNelson, I shall.
2715. RickNelson - 8/13/2002 7:34:24 PM
I took this from Inferno:
13228. Rama - 8/13/02 5:53:16 PM
(Rama took this quote from somewhere)
"Picking and choosing whom it would save and ignore in this manner would have besmirched the US's reputation in the world"
So, do you also think there is a special set of rules for America, that is should be held to a different standard than other nations? If so, why? (this conversation may need to move to a different thread, unless you call me a dingleberry).
I'll save the labels for the Inferno Rama.
With regard to the different standards which you refer above, there is a common thread which rational beings share. Therefore it stands that the U.S. citizenry, via nature, must have morals in common with other nations.
2716. ivan osokin - 8/13/2002 10:28:16 PM
there absolutely IS a different standard for the united states, and virtually any other nation in the world would agree.
it is clear the US uses its strength as a bully to ignore local concerns (in other nations) for the environment or future sustainability (i.e., deforestation). the US uses its bullying tactics to influence local politics (in other nations), control the flow of import/export (through embargoes and the strongarming of other nations to follow suit). the US has repeatedly gotten away with shady arms deals with despotic regimes we later fight against (Iran-Contra? Iraq?). it has put economic pressure on some nations (by embargoes, threats of investment pullouts, etc.) to conform to whatever its current needs are (i.e., the "war on terrorism" which forces other nations to become america's lackey).
the US is held to a different standard in that it can get away with pretty much everything it wants...whether it's marching into other nations (by bullying the UN or by ignoring congress), selling weapons to unstable zealots in places like iraq and afghanistan, flying spy planes anywhere it wants, or destroying the basic human rights for prisoners of war (even though there isn't any) guaranteed in the geneva convention.
a recent example of the double standard: the US halted a lawsuit against Exxon-Mobil in Indonesia, for which a large number of workers had complained about torture, abuse, and horrific labor practices by E-M. the reason? it would "interfere" with the war on terror.
but there's NO double-standard, eh?
2717. RickNelson - 8/14/2002 8:30:02 AM
Rama and (Ivan I posted 2715 to open my idea of morality and this issue),
I started with the basic concrete moral standard of natural humans. There is a common thread of morals which we can see holds the race together. Life, family, community and the morals progress from there. To jump ahead these communities create our vairety of laws. Jumping again replace the word communities with countries and the cultures within.
These cultures grow their own laws, which parallel other cultures to a large degree. Also we need to add the commands of religion to this mix and its transcendental affect. But, what of free will and choice?
Laws help the rational to judge their behavior, these being transcendental or of ones mind. But, the mind goes beyond this concreteness. The mind adds a variable which must be examined (and ivan does in post 2716). What makes the people who kill others with airplanes do what they do?
2718. RickNelson - 8/14/2002 8:53:50 AM
Recapping, I started by saying there is a common standard of morals which are natural to all humans. This is to include the concrete idea of morals, which honestly, the ten commandments are an example. This however doesn't explain anything.
I don't like to consider morals within such a strict set of concrete human agreements. Many humans disobey these with extraordinary fequency. Therefore concrete morals don't give enough information to exlpain the abhorant behaviour of some humans and groups. This is the free will and dictates a group may impose upon itself.
Groups can create a distinct moral which would be considered corrupt by all the other groups. Suicide bombing is one of these. To us, there is no moral justification to kill others using the tactics the current extremist terrorists impose upon their victims. The extremist corruption is they manipulate each other, and they recruit. This is akin to cult activity.
There is an extremist faction within the Islamic populations which are doing this corruption. They've had years now to cultivate their manipulative methods and to slander their victims. The recruits have heard these messages and are manipulated to the cause and methods of such factions. These causes are propagandized and can affect the popular culture at large.
Taking a time-line I believe there will be examples of the corruptions I mention above. Al Qaeda is an easy example of this, and the Taliban are very close to this. The corruption which I speak is the rejection of the moral standard not to kill because a group used its free will to decide it has been harmed and adds retaliation to its acceptable standards. This gets to the morality of war.
These groups must believe they are taking war to their victims in some way. That they have justification from the world doesn't matter now, they've decided their group has justification. What specifically justifies the Arabs of 9-11?
2719. RickNelson - 8/14/2002 9:03:14 AM
I don't know.
I expect that it will revolve around some of ivan's post 2716. I can agree that they think we have ignored their cultures and made our profit paramount to relations. The majority of business do this to their own people, Enron for example. We now have modern examples of how corruption within a small group can screw the much larger group. It's easy to slip into another topic here, this is part of the larger picture.
A rational person must look beyond the concrete morals which they hold so dear. These are not enough to explain the world in which we now find ourselves. The mind, free will, subculture and modern medias all influence us now. There are many groups, educated or uneducated which can be influenced by these. At present the extremists are using these with many(not exclussively) uneducated populations to gain acceptance of their standards. This is dangerous to the rest of the world as exampled in Isreal and 9-11.
2720. RickNelson - 8/14/2002 9:40:06 AM
Sorry about the boat-load of misspelled words, I ought to use spell check before such a long piece.
2721. ivan osokin - 8/14/2002 1:10:23 PM
Another shining example of America's Anti-Islam bias and capitulation to christian idiots
2722. ivan osokin - 8/14/2002 1:14:20 PM
Rick...
your posts are refreshingly well-thought out and honest. thanks. even where i disagree with you i respect your clarity.
2723. Rama - 8/14/2002 4:02:00 PM
Why, Mr. Kettle, you are certainly shiny today!
And you are so yourself, Mr. Pot!
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top
Today at the DoD
