Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
No, not the ignorance of Muslim leaders but the ignoring of them. Just recently I had a conversation with someone who is generally pretty aware of the world, certainly far more than the average American. He's not some gung ho war supporter or a xenophobe at all. But he did say, at one point while discussing radical Islam, that he doesn't understand why more Muslim leaders had not spoken out against Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and other radical Muslims who commit violence in the name of their religion. His mundane ignorance of the many statements made by major Islamic leaders on such matters is echoed by what can only be the virulent ignorance of Thomas Friedman, who really must know better. But in the New York Times recently, Friedman says:
How many fatwas -- religious edicts -- have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Very few.
But in fact, lots and lots of major Islamic leaders all over the world condemned the bombing of the World Trade Center, condemned Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and have condemned the use of terrorism consistently. Juan Cole linked to many such statements more than four years ago and there have been more in the meantime. Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina quotes dozens and dozens of them on his website.
My friend's ignorance is mundane rather than virulent because he is simply unaware of those statements. Once informed of them, he responded the way any rational person would - "Oh, I didn't know about all those. That's good, I'm glad to hear about them." But Friedman, a self-professed expert on the Middle East, should damn well know about them. That list on Cole's page was compiled specifically in response to an identical claim by Friedman in 2005; it clearly has not registered with him.
The fault here lies with the media, of course. Americans as a whole have a mundane ignorance of this reality because they get the vast majority of their information from the media and the media rarely mentions such things. That omission has a real impact on American opinion, and not for the better.
Politics
Comments
It's not just the media; it's America's political extremes, "left" and "right," both of which have a vested interest in denying, minimizing, and ganging up on the sensible middle. Right-wingers won't acknowledge the moderate/liberal Muslim voices because they want to paint a simple Christians-vs-heathens picture for their bigoted base; and left-wingers won't acknowledge them because they want to paint a simple blame-America-first picture for those of their own base who haven't had a single new thought in their heads since the Vietnam War ended. Muslims who think killilng people indiscriminately is bad, and are willing to say so, and who don't blame America for everything that's wrong in the Muslim world, can't fit into either of these simpleminded caricatures of reality; therefore they're ignored.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 9:32 AM
Juan Cole is a man with no credibility due to his sucking up to the mad mullahs in Iran until even he was outraged by their blatant stealing of the election there last summer. He has consistently lied in claiming that the Iranian leader, Mr. Ahmadinejad had not called for the removal of the State of Israel from the map. His mistranslation of Mr. Ahmadinejads' statements was exposed by the New York Times and Christopher Hitchens in Slate.
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2009 9:55 AM
SLC-
And therefore....none of the dozens of statements from leading Muslim scholars and organizations that he provides links to really exist? If someone else linked to them too, would they then exist?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 28, 2009 10:03 AM
Re Ed Brayton
Good point. However, given Prof. Coles' penchant for mistranslation, I would certainly check out those links before accepting his interpretation of the subject matter therein, just to be sure that he is not misrepresenting them.
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2009 10:15 AM
In my dealings with the right-wing I have found a willful ignorance of moderate Muslims and their condemnations (and battles) against the radicals. Whenever I provide evidence of such things, they merely dismiss it as the exception and not the rule, no matter how many instances they are presented with. They really don't want to know.
Given the parochial nature of American news consumption and the continually rabid nature of the right-wing news outlets when it comes to covering anything Muslim, it's no real surprise to me that the supposed lack of moderate Muslim resistance to the radical fringe has become the conventional wisdom amongst a wide swathe of American people.
Posted by: tacitus | December 28, 2009 10:22 AM
Raging Bee wrote:
I am not sure how ignoring moderate or liberal Muslim condemnation of terrorism plays into a blame-America-first mentality? Wouldn't acknowledging such language play better if you were making the claim that America is the aggressor? I would think that ignoring actual radicalism in Muslim society would be a better fit for this attitude.
However, I think you have caricatured "the left" here. You are equating leftists with the silly behavior of groups like Code Pink and the self-serving narcissism of Cindy Sheehan. I am not claiming that such an attitude exists among some on the left, but it is hardly mainstream - even among that faction of the left that takes an anti-corporatist view that necessarily involves strong criticism of US policy.
Posted by: thinkoplex | December 28, 2009 10:45 AM
thinkoplex: you're right, I am indeed speaking of an idiot fringe of leftists, who I hope will remain irrelevant for the foreseeable future.* These are people who (as I've heard them) think that Islamist radicalism and violence is a perfectly reasonable response to America's (and Britain's) evil imperialist policies, which they try to blame for everything that's wrong in the Islamic world. (Cases in point: George Galloway and "Red Ken" Livingstone.) Since these idiots themselves support and excuse the extremist violence (without necessarily understanding, or even caring, what the extremists are really about), they're less willing to admit that the people they're allegedly fighting for aren't as happy about the violence done in their name as the white lefties who support it expect them to be.
These are, I suspect, also people who support the most radical Palestinian interest-groups, and have been known to ignore and edge out actual Palestinian leaders who support more moderate policies. Like the old stereotype of the early-20th-century Communist, they're gonna tell the oppressed colonial peoples what they want whether they want it or not.
______________________
* Note, yet again, that unlike "the right," we on "the left" aren't letting our fringe wackos take over center stage.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 12:02 PM
Note, also, that Muslims aren't the only moderates being ignored by the extreme left and right, and by a tabloid "MS"M desperate for simple chair-throwing spectacle in lieu of grownup dialogue. Today's Republicans are now routinely trashing everyone to the left of them (including white Christians in Flyover Country) as "socialist" and "Hitler-inspired" (notice how quick they were to dump Mike Huckabee the minute he mentioned public health-care reform?), while the extreme left just as routinely reject all attempts at moderation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 12:09 PM
Ah, a "no true Scotsman" in reverse.
There really should be a name for that.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 28, 2009 12:12 PM
@Raging Bee
If they didn't, you couldn't call them "extreme" anymore.
Posted by: mewol | December 28, 2009 12:25 PM
Raging Bee,
I understand the point you were trying to make now, and it is a good one. Although today that sort of attitude is confined to the wacko fringe, it was far more common during the sixties, as you pointed out. The people who still believe in that kind of radicalism have failed (if not refused) to adapt to changing conditions, which makes them a perfect parallel to the modern right-wing. Unfortunately, of course, on the right-wing this attitude is not confined to the fringe, but is held by a growing number of mainstream conservatives.
Posted by: thinkoplex | December 28, 2009 12:46 PM
Statements against terrorist acts by Muslim leaders is a good thing, in general. But they need to be backed up by actions that promote peace in order to have any real effect. After scanning through a few of the statements Charles Kurzman had compiled, this one caught my eye:
Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran:
“Killing of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weopons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington.”
First, it was clear that this statement was meant to be a rebuke of the U.S. as much as it was against the 9/11 attacks. Second, it greatly lessens its value to have it coming from a leader of a country pursuing its own atomic weapons.
Posted by: JasonTD | December 28, 2009 1:12 PM
'bee,
I would have to ask though, to some degree, aren't you throwing some reasonable arguments in with the fringe arguments? This is akin to the "they hate us for our freedom" bullshit if you dismiss the fact that we, and Russia (as the modern day representative of the old Soviet Union) do own some culpability for the insanity that is the Middle and Near East. Add to this the British, the French, as well as the old Ottoman Empire and ages old conflicts that existed before any one of the afore mentioned entities entered the fray.
I mean that if you simply assume that extremists are insane, evil, unreasonable, irrational, you open yourself up to a lot of bloodshed that isn't actually necessary. Assuming that terrorists are irrational eliminates an ability to potentially predict and prevent their acts. 9/11 wasn't a crazy irrational attack, it was a rational act. Cold-hearted, yes, cruel, arguably, bloody? Certainly. But if you assume that your opponent is irrational or insane, you underestimate them.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 1:22 PM
Presumably, you have some evidence for this assertion? The IAEA has indicated dissatisfaction with the secrecy of the Iranian nuclear power program and some issues with respect to the handling of nuclear materials, but has turned up no evidence of a bomb program. In his comments on the issue, the President (like Bush before him) is blowing nothing but air.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 28, 2009 1:34 PM
This is akin to the "they hate us for our freedom" bullshit if you dismiss the fact that we, and Russia (as the modern day representative of the old Soviet Union) do own some culpability for the insanity that is the Middle and Near East.
Care to give us some more specifics there? Which foreign power "owns" what degree of culpability for which of the Mideast's current problems? Or are you just asserting that terrorism is to be considered an appropriate response to ANY historical injustice? (And how come no one said this sort of thing in response to KKK terrorism?)
And let's remember one thing: Middle Easterners are NOT the only people who have suffered historical injustices at the hands of outsiders. They just happen to be the only people in whose name such undisciplined acts of violence are so routinely committed.
I mean that if you simply assume that extremists are insane, evil, unreasonable, irrational, you open yourself up to a lot of bloodshed that isn't actually necessary.
I'm not ASSUMING they're insane and/or evil, I'm CONCLUDING this after observing their actions.
Assuming[?] that terrorists are irrational eliminates an ability to potentially predict and prevent their acts.
No, actually it doesn't. Acknowledging the truth does not preclude sensible response.
9/11 wasn't a crazy irrational attack, it was a rational act. Cold-hearted, yes, cruel, arguably, bloody? Certainly. But if you assume that your opponent is irrational or insane, you underestimate them.
The mere fact that a group of people made a plan and carried it out, does not, in itself, make the act "rational." There's a difference between "premeditated" and "rational."
There is, of course, a case to be made that acts of terrorism are routinely enabled and supported by certain regimes and/or interest-groups as part of a plan to use such acts to further their own particular interests. But this fact alone does not make the acts any more "rational," nor does it automatically guarantee that the acts really do anyone any good. Nor, most importantly, does it say anything about which injustices the US should be trying to correct, or how we should do so. Injustice is injustice, whether or not it's used as an excuse to justify terrorism. And terrorism is terrorism, whether or not it's done in (alleged) response to any injustice.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 2:41 PM
Jason,
Do you ignore condemnations of violence and terrorism from the president of the United States? How about similar statements from the leaders of Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, Israel, Pakistan, and India?
Or is "might have nukes" more ethically suspect than "known to have nukes" and "has threatened to use those weapons"? (Remember "mutually assured destruction" and "launch on warning"?)
If leaders of the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war can reasonably condemn terrorist—and I agree that they can—it seems a bit fishy to dismiss other nations' statements on the subject on the grounds that they might have nuclear weapons. But there seems to be a sort of "thus far, but no farther" attitude in which the acceptable number of nuclear-armed nations is however many there were at some date not very far in the past.
Posted by: Vicki | December 28, 2009 3:02 PM
Iran's (limp-wristed) condemnations of terrorism are not suspect because they "might" have nukes; they're suspect because Iran is a known supporter of terrorism (particularly Hezbollah), its mullocrats actively pander to a culture of irresponsible scapegoating in which terrorism thrives, and its government is currently "led" by a Bush-league bigot and Holocaust-denier who knowingly panders to irrational hatred of Israel and Jews in general.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 3:20 PM
Re kehrsam
Unfortunately, the mad mullahs who run Iran may have a nuclear weapon as soon as a few weeks.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364500273&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2009 4:44 PM
You're joking, right 'bee? Just in the last 50 years the US and Soviet Union used the Middle East like a chess set (while Europe benefited). I'm not making judgment for or against the actions of either the US or USSR, I'm simply pointing out the reality. While those policies may have benefited the US or the Soviet Union, they generally were detrimental to the local population. Whether it was the propping up of a hated regime (the Shah), the overthrowing of a legitimate regime (Iraq in the 50s), recruiting and training people to kill our opponents (Bin Laden anyone?), etc. Whether our policies actually made them better off in the long run is hard to say, but those who see us as enemies can legitimately point to any number of policy decisions that, from their point of view, were detrimental to their people and legitimate (again from their POV) excuses to wage war on the United States.
This is actually amusing. Are you trying to claim that Middle Easterners are the only ones who have resorted to violence to avenge past wrongs? American "frontier history" is based upon conflicts that were dedicated to vendettas and revenge. Neither is a concept limited to Middle Eastern culture. On top of that you're arguing historical versus contemporary. The manipulation of Middle Eastern politics, society, and culture is (again from their point of view) on going. Our nation building expedition in Iraq is a perfect example. There are currently Middle Eastern "terrorists" who were either directly or indirectly impacted by these events. They responded in a rather natural way, attempting to fight back.
When it comes to their actions, they are rational choices whether you choose to see it or not. They also aren't particularly even when compared to some of the events that sparked their actions. You consider flying planes into the World Trade Center insane and evil, right? Okay, then what is lobbing 16" shells into the city of Beirut? Justify our actions in Iraq. Justify the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
Also, their actions are insane? Really? They're going up against the most powerful country in the world who, from their point of view, has declared war on them. Would you walk up to a tank and pound your fist against it? THAT would be insane. Instead, you toss a grenade into the open hatch, you wait for the crew to get out and then attack them, you don't go against the enemy's strength and butt your head against it, you attack them where they are weakest. That is simple military strategy. For the terrorists going up against the US, the writing is clearly on the wall. Hussein's Iraq went toe to toe with us, he's dead, his military is in ruins, his country is conquered and occupied. Going toe to toe with the US might make for great fiction, a couple of nifty poems a'la Charge of the Light Brigade, and all that, but it wont accomplish anything. On the other hand, flying a couple of planes into buildings has, beyond a doubt, changed a lot of how the US does things.
Here is the fatal flaw in your argument. At this point you are basically arguing the position of the Bush administration. We go after them and wipe them out. Problem is (without the whole idiocy in Iraq) if you don't conduct the operation intelligently you run the very serious risk of making things worse. Despite the claims of success in the war on terror, the fact is we've seen a dramatic increase in the use of terrorist tactics worldwide since 9/11. Why? Because it works. Also, our efforts to kill or capture those responsible have been incompetent, heavy handed, and indiscriminate. For each innocent person in Gitmo, we have likely created a new terrorist. For each bombing of a wedding that was believed to have been a terror cell meeting, we have created a dozen new terrorists.
Their acts are rational from their point of view and that is the key to judgment of rational decision making. They see a potential benefit that is greater than the cost. You and I don't have to see it, you and I don't have to agree with it, that is irrelevant. From their POV, the US has declared war, from their point of view, we have killed innocents, we have attacked their faith and society, we have supported hostile regimes and suppressed friendly ones. They recognize that traditional attacks against the US are doomed to failure, on the other hand guerrilla attacks have been shown to work (US in Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, etc.), and terrorist attacks do have an impact on the decision making practices of governments, whether this impact is the desired one is really irrelevant, the impact is real.
I mean think about it, some of the GOP rhetoric against the Obama administration is fueled by the war on terror and their argument that he is mishandling it. THAT is an impact on how our country functions, the end result of that conflict and the overall polarizing of our political structure is tied to the attacks on 9/11. Part of our current economic conundrum is related to the fact that we continued to try to operate as if everything was fine and dandy domestically while at the same time trying to fund two wars in the Middle East. IF our overall economy collapses it can be argued that no small part of that is due to the hundreds of billions of dollars spent fighting the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
I'm not defending nor justifying their acts or their methodology, I am also not blaming the US, I am simply pointing out that ignoring their motives, ignoring their reasoning, "concluding" that they are insane and/or irrational opens us up to making dreadful errors in how we conduct the war against them. Understanding *what* makes your opponent tick is a very important part of defeating them. Dismissing their acts as lunacy or irrational without fully evaluating their reasoning sets you up to fail.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 4:59 PM
Michael Scheuer may come across as a kook when he's on FoxNews (when he's there and says "We need to get attacked again..." he's leaving out "...so that we're forced to have a dialogue about what interests are in our national interest, how best to defend them and what kind of a price we're willing to pay for doing so."), but his books are well researched, well though out and, complete with dismaying conclusions (that we're doing it wrong and are unwilling to re-examine our presuppositions, tactics and place in the world), seem right.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 28, 2009 5:13 PM
At this point you are basically arguing the position of the Bush administration.
And there's the fatal flaw in your argument: you are basically equating me with "the Bush administration" merely because I criticize terrorism.
Also, their actions are insane? Really?
Well, yeah, indiscriminate suicidal attacks against unarmed people, without regard to who those people are or what they were doing at the time, and without regard to the fact that such attacks aren't actually accomplishing anything, does classify as "insane." You got a problem with that?
They're going up against the most powerful country in the world who, from their point of view, has declared war on them.
Excuse me, but you really need to take a closer look at the dates: they attacked the US first, THEN we "declared war on them."
I am simply pointing out that ignoring their motives, ignoring their reasoning, "concluding" that they are insane and/or irrational opens us up to making dreadful errors in how we conduct the war against them.
First, I'm not "ignoring" their motives, I'm merely stating that they're largely influenced by insane thinking. And second, most of the terrorism we're seeing in that part of the world -- like most of the terrorism we see elsewhere -- is indeed indicative of certain forms of mass-irrationality, such as irresponsibility, scapegoating, and the unwillingness of some very entrenched interest-groups to take responsibility for their own affairs. Refusing to see the irrationality is just as stupid, and just as likely to lead to serious mistakes, as refusing to see their legitimate interests.
...you attack them where they are weakest. That is simple military strategy.
Um, no, indiscriminately killing noncombattants, merely because you can't kill the combattants, is not "simple military strategy;" it's bloodthirsty cowardice, and in addition to being totally contrary to the basic values of any civilized society, it doesn't actually serve any military objective.
And if you're willing to justify the killing of unarmed civilians, merely because the poor terrorists couldn't get at our army, then what other atrocities are you willing to justify on the same grounds? How about lynching black civilians because the poor powerless racists couldn't attack the legal system that was trying to give them the freedom the racists didn't want to give them?
Just in the last 50 years the US and Soviet Union used the Middle East like a chess set (while Europe benefited). I'm not making judgment for or against the actions of either the US or USSR, I'm simply pointing out the reality. While those policies may have benefited the US or the Soviet Union, they generally were detrimental to the local population.
I wish I had the time to describe exactly how simpleminded, misguided, and totally inadequate this sort of rhetoric is. Do you really think the history of ANY region is that simple? Do you really think you can lump both US and SU policies together as one, and make a blanket statement that they were "generally detrimental to the local population," without regard to any specifics?
I'm not defending nor justifying their acts or their methodology...
Yes, when you call the indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed civilians "simple military strategy," you are.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Re dogmeatib
Whether it was the propping up of a hated regime (the Shah), the overthrowing of a legitimate regime (Iraq in the 50s),
1. Compared to other tyrants in the Middle East, the Shah wasn't all that bad (Saddam Hussein or Hafez Assad anyone?).
2. The US certainly didn't overthrow the government of Nuri a Siad in Iraq in the 1950s. He was a British puppet.
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2009 5:50 PM
Actually that was a typo, meant Iran in the 1950s, two different thoughts going on, Iraq-Iran war in the 80s, overthrow of Iranian government in the 50s, etc.
I wouldn't argue that the people that we put into power or helped remain in power were better or worse than those who would have arisen normally, but if they were unpopular, how are you going to convince opponents of the US that they were better than they would have gotten, or not as bad as their contemporaries? I'm not arguing in defense of terrorism or terrorists, simply pointing out that they aren't rabid mad dogs who can be dismissed as insane, etc.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 6:47 PM
The US is bogged down in two oversees wars, spent $5.5 trillion dollars that we didn't have in the last decade, and they didn't accomplish anything? The Bush administration managed to piss off just about every one of our allies while fighting the war on terror and the war in Iraq and the terrorists didn't accomplish anything? You really have to ask, what their goal is. I don't think their goal was to force the US to bargain with them, or anything that congruent, I think it was more along the lines of destabilizing the US and potentially getting the US to leave the Middle East alone. They've certainly helped accomplish the former and there is significant support for the latter.
So yes, I would argue that they very well might have accomplished some of what they set out to do. But, for similar comparison, what have we accomplished since we set out to win the war on terror in September 2001?
Not from their point of view. That's the problem with so many Americans, if it happened more than ten or fifteen years ago it either didn't happen or it's ancient history that should be forgotten and forgiven. We implemented a variety of policies in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, including the still ongoing involvement in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia that the members of Al Queda saw as hostile. This argument is as silly as claiming that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor for "no reason."
I didn't say it was noble or principled, I wasn't aware we were ignoring reality and instead pretending we're in Canterbury Tales. I also wasn't defending them, simply explaining their motives. I despise their motives, but at least I recognize the root cause of their efforts. So, let's be completely honest, to your frame of reference, then the United States was insane, cowardly, and bloodthirsty for bombing Dresden and Nagasaki? Also, explain to me how 9/11 is qualitatively different from carpet bombing Saigon or indiscriminately lobbing 16" shells into Beirut? [FYI that latter part is one of the many reasons why so many terrorists are pissed off at us]
Expecting your opponent to fight by some sort of rules of conduct you establish that benefit you but hamper them is childish and naive, which makes your following comment even more ironic:
I am beginning to see why you have such a problem with this issue, you can't recognize a rational, unbiased evaluation of the issue. I'm not saying we didn't have legitimate motives, I'm also not pretending that the region probably would have been as messed up without us, it is a fucked up region, but ignoring our role in the local conflicts and pretending we're somehow completely innocent victims is naive. In fact, our manipulation of the region might have actually made things better than they would have been without us. The problem is because we did get involved, those who are unhappy with the status quo are wrongly or rightly going to blame us. That's just normal human nature. To ignore that facet of the problem is quite simply, silly and childish.
Wow, "if you aren't with us, you're against us." Way to emulate dubya in your thinking. So let me guess, now I'm one of those "America blaming fringe lefties," eh? Problem is I'm not trying to romanticize war or reality. Also, as I learned in ROTC, and to be honest, life in general, know your enemy, understand what motivates them. If you stick to simplistic "they hate us for our freedom" or "they're insane" evaluations of our opponents, you're doomed to struggle onward for decades.
Finally, I can recognize the reason for the tactic they employ without supporting it or approving of it. Whether you like it or not, it is a tactic, just like bombing industrial centers, just like land mines, just like shelling an enemy occupied city, just like sinking ships in the ocean, just like nuking a city off the face of the earth. All of them are horrendous, all of them inflict pain, mutilation, mayhem, and murder. All of them inspire fear, that's part of their intended role in conflict.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 7:26 PM
That's the problem with so many Americans, if it happened more than ten or fifteen years ago it either didn't happen or it's ancient history that should be forgotten and forgiven.
What I'm saying is that sooner or later, whatever evil things someone else did to the peoples of the Mideast in the past, the people themselves have to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and stop automatically blaming others for the consequences of their own actions. The Shah was overthrown more than a quarter-century ago -- the Iranians can't blame him or America for what their own rulers did AFTER the revolution, any more than George Washington could have blamed the British for his mistakes as President. (And, in fact, only the mullahs and other right-wingers are still doing this, and even they're starting to get sick of it.)
...you can't recognize a rational, unbiased evaluation of the issue.
What's so irrational about pointing out that a political situation is more complex than your slogans make them out to be?
I despise their motives, but at least I recognize the root cause of their efforts.
So do I -- and I'm telling you that a large part of that root cause arises from mass irrationality, specifically blaming "Crusaders and Jews" for homegrown problems they're unwilling (or unable) to deal with themselves.
Wow, "if you aren't with us, you're against us." Way to emulate dubya in your thinking.
So everyone who doesn't like the idea of calling indiscriminate killing a "military strategy" is "emulating dubya?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 10:45 PM
@Raging Bee:
That's actually pretty funny. How many civilians have been killed in Iraq again? You know, because Saddam was behind 9/11 and stuff. What about in Afghanistan? How many massacres have we been responsible for in South America?
9/11 wasn't justified, and neither was killing a bunch of innocent people in the wrong country in response to it. I'm not blaming America so much as I'm blaming the politicians that pull this sort of shit. Of course they're being killed in our name, so that kind of blows that all to hell.
Posted by: JThompson | December 29, 2009 5:48 AM
Not from their point of view.
So now you're saying "they" -- the peoples of the Middle East -- all see things from ONE point of view? All those moderate clerics attacking terrorism, and clearly not buying your reasoning, seem to disprove that opinion. Which could be why (like the right-wing ideologues) YOU'RE IGNORING THOSE MODERATE MUSLIM CLERICS. (There, how's that for getting back to the original subject of this post?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 9:31 AM
The phrase "indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed civilians" applies equally well to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden.
Committing terrorist acts because you believe you're being persecuted is not necessarily irrational. Committing them because "that's what god wants" is.
Posted by: Taz | December 29, 2009 1:19 PM
Committing terrorist acts because you believe you're being persecuted is not necessarily irrational.
It is when the said acts are not directed at those who really are persecuting you (if any); and/or said acts have no reasonable likelihood of diminishing or stopping the persecution. And such acts can be considered especially irrational if they result in MORE persecution and the perps continue to insist they're beneficial when in fact they're clearly harmful.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 1:30 PM
Except the US has continued to support and assist opponents of Iran in the region. Weapons to both Israel and Iraq, sanctions, etc. You act as if the moment the Shah left power it was all puppy dogs and kittens between the US and Iran. We have reasons to distrust and dislike the Iranian government, they have reasons to distrust and dislike us. Those conflicts extend to the individual peoples of our respective countries and, right or wrong, they develop strong feelings against their respective adversaries.
I feel we do have legitimate reasons for containing the aspirations of the Iranian regime. We have legitimate reasons for wanting to keep them from developing nuclear power, for wanting to keep them out of the rest of the Middle East, etc. I agree with these policies, but I also recognize that they are likely to piss off the people of Iran just like someone implementing similar policies towards the United States would be likely to piss off Americans.
The same can be said for any number of other countries in the region who are impacted by our policies. It isn't as if we have withdrawn from the region, we have something like a quarter million troops in the region, we have two countries occupied, two more heavily under our influence, and a staunch ally in the region that many of the other countries in that region don't get along with. To suggest that our policies in the region are a thing of the past and they should just get over it is laughable.
And, I'll say it again, we may (and often do) have legitimate reasons for implementing our policies, but that doesn't mean that people who disagree with those decisions aren't going to be annoyed, especially if those policy decisions are seen to negatively impact their quality of life.
What "slogan" am I promoting? I am pointing out that even the best intended, most well thought out, best implemented policies are likely to have consequences and people who "suffer" those consequences (or believe that they are) are likely to blame those they see responsible.
If anything you're the one who is simplifying a complex situation by ignoring concrete motives behind their actions. They're "irrational," they're "insane"
So you're arguing that every single terrorist is an irrational person who blames the US for their own problems and can't accept responsibility for their own actions? That's as bloody idiotic as "they hate us for our freedom." Yes, there are definitely some who fall into that category, but to ignore those who have tangible motivations for their hatred of the US is pure folly.
-Some members of anti-American organizations are there because of loved ones killed through US actions [sorry, but really it doesn't matter if it was 30 years ago, they're still going to be pissed off, I know I would be]
-Some members of these organizations joined because the US invaded their country [you might have heard of Iraq?]
-Some members joined because the US brought them (or a relative) in as "terrorists" ignored that they were innocent, then beat the shit out of them, tortured them, etc. Why do you think we have innocent people in Gitmo that we can't release? I'll tell you again, quite honestly, if you held me for the better part of a decade, tortured me, etc., I would likely want revenge.
You accused me of defending their actions, a personal accusation is far more than a dislike of terminology. I notice how you refer to it as "indiscriminate killing," but at the same time you've made no attempt to explain how our actions in WWII, Vietnam, Beirut, even, as JThompson points out, Iraq, are any different.
On August 9th, 1945 we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. It didn't have particularly important military/industrial centers, it wasn't a particularly important military target, what it did have was roughly 100,000 people. Estimates vary, but we killed somewhere between 50,000 and 80,000 people that day (and days following), mostly women, children, and old people. How is that act justified? How is that different than what the terrorists did on 9/11?
Now, once you've done that:
-Explain how carpet bombing North Vietnam, dropping more bombs than were dropped in all of WWII is different
-Explain how lobbing shells the size of VW Bugs into the city of Beirut, shells that create a crater the size of a normal baseball park and a blast wave of roughly a mile ... explain how this is different.
-Explain how invading Iraq, bombing it's major cities, dismantling its government and then basically letting all hell break loose is different.
I'm not condoning or minimizing the impact of targeting civilians, I'm simply pointing out that it is a normal part of war and those we consider terrorists consider themselves at war with the United States. You don't attack a superior enemy at their greatest strength, Sun Tsu talked about that 2000 years ago, any military commander with any intelligence at all (bar Custer) knows that. You attack them where they don't expect it, at their weakest, preferably in a manner which allows you to preserve your forces. We won the Revolution based on this concept. We lost in Vietnam based on this concept. We've taken massive casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan based on this concept.
Terrorist organizations have an agenda. They can't achieve this agenda running headlong into battle against our military forces, we have an absolute advantage in every conceivable way. They hit us in ways that involve maximum casualties and maximum political and social impact. That is quite understandable, it isn't insane, it isn't irrational. Even their targeting of civilians, while terrible, isn't that unusual.
Not from their point of view.
Are you being intentionally difficult and obtuse? It is quite obvious that I have been referring to those in conflict with the United States. I've listed numerous countries, and specifically mentioned terrorists and "organizations" opposed to the US and our policies. So please, don't try to pretend that I'm claiming that all of the peoples of the Middle East are terrorists or that they share a common point of view, such a gross distortion of this discussion is really beneath you.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2009 1:35 PM
Except, if you were a member of Al Queda, you could argue that the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, while costly to your organization, has been far more costly to the United States. It could also be legitimately argued that the economic crisis the US is currently mired within is, in part, related to the massive debt we've incurred while fighting two wars.
Those two points argue rather strongly that, despite your objections, they are having at least some success. This argument is more strongly supported when you consider the size of the organization and the fact that the majority of casualties suffered were not suffered by them.
They should give up, they have no chance of success, only more persecution? Like the Vietnamese did after Tet? Or like we did after Valley Forge?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2009 1:42 PM
Those two points argue rather strongly that, despite your objections, they are having at least some success.
And the fact that their terrorism isn't doing jack shit worth of good to people in the Muslim world -- and lots of harm to some of them, even before we started killing Iraqis -- argues rather strongly against this vague claim of "success."
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 1:50 PM
What evidence do you have that this is in any way counter to their goals? The more people suffer in the region, the more recruits they have, the more recruits, the greater possibility they have to succeed. If they ultimately succeed, then, at least in rhetoric, they can make it better for the people. How is this, in any way, different from any other culture "sacrificing" for the war effort?
I mean really, your argument boils down to "war is bad." The obvious response is "duh."
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2009 1:56 PM
We have reasons to distrust and dislike the Iranian government, they have reasons to distrust and dislike us. Those conflicts extend to the individual peoples of our respective countries and, right or wrong, they develop strong feelings against their respective adversaries.
Um, excuse me, but the Iranian people are not, by any stretch, of one mind, or one set of "strong feelings," about the US. Some of them hate our guts, some of them blame us for everything that goes wrong on their turf because that's easier than questioning their own beliefs, some of them just have a few specific complaints about US policies, and some of them never stopped admiring and respecting us, and see straight through the jihadi BS for the lame diversion it is. (Generally, it's the poorest and least educated people who tend to blame the most on the US.) Once again, your arguments fail due to over-generalization and the insistence on fitting everything into a simple "innocent natives vs. colonial superpower" picture that was never really that close to the truth in the first place.
I've listed numerous countries, and specifically mentioned terrorists and "organizations" opposed to the US and our policies.
And still you are over-generalizing. Do you really think the whole of the countries you listed are of the same mind about the US? They're not -- there are plenty of people who flatly disagree with their governments' policies and attitudes, most of whom are kept silent by state and/or religious repression. Those moderate Muslim clerics attest to that, and guess what -- you're ignoring them again, because their dissent complicates your old ideological picture.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 2:11 PM
I never said that every Iranian hated the US or was involved in anti-US movements. I said that our conflicts as countries can, and do, provide valid reasoning for why some Iranian people do see the United States as an enemy.
Why are you so intent on dealing in absolutes?
And still you are over-generalizing. Do you really think the whole of the countries you listed are of the same mind about the US? They're not -- there are plenty of people who flatly disagree with their governments' policies and attitudes, most of whom are kept silent by state and/or religious repression. Those moderate Muslim clerics attest to that, and guess what -- you're ignoring them again, because their dissent complicates your old ideological picture.Really, I have to ask again, are you being intentionally obtuse? I listed countries that have had conflicts with the United States within the last few decades. Members of the various organizations that consider us to be their enemies could come from any one of those countries, that is the obvious point given the extra-national nature of terrorist organizations. The two countries most likely to have citizens join those organizations in the last few years? Iraq and Afghanistan. That, of course, does not assume that all Iraqis or Afghanis are anti-American, or even assume that a majority, or even a significant minority, only that some members of these organizations came from these countries.
It seems that, at this point, you are arguing semantics and terminology now that it is becoming increasingly clear that your original arguments are unfounded. You haven't managed to respond to a single argument of substance, instead getting into ridiculous arguments about the unity of Middle Eastern people and now citizens of individual countries. They are properly defended Don Quixote, feel free to actually respond to a statement I made rather than unstated and unfounded alleged slights against Middle Easterners or residents of specific countries.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2009 2:26 PM
Why are you so intent on dealing in absolutes?
If by "absolutes" you mean the observable and inescapable reality that the history and politics of the Middle East are more complex than your ideology admits, then do you really have to ask?
It seems that, at this point, you are arguing semantics and terminology now that it is becoming increasingly clear that your original arguments are unfounded.
So when you argue vague generalities, and I start talking about details and specifics, you're just going to pretend I'm playing word-games? Dream on, dude.
Your excuse for analysis would carry absolutely zero weight even in a college essay-test, let alone a real policy debate. If you want to pretend you're bravely seeking "root causes" of terrorism or whatever, you really need to admit that a lot of those root causes are rooted in the Middle East, not in America. Seriously, the locals there aren't just passive recipients; they're also capable of creating their own problems without foreign help.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 2:37 PM
The problem is, I'm not simplifying the issues of the region, you are. I am saying that the motivations for those who join terrorist organizations are more complex than your ideologically driven "they're insane and irrational" allows for. You've since made broad sweeping claims that none of those who oppose us in the Middle East have any legitimate reason for being upset with us, that our policies are "in the past" and have now resorted to this silliness where you pretend that I am trying to talk about all those who live in the Middle East or even those who live in a single country when it has been obvious from the beginning that we have been discussing those who see the United States as an enemy.
You are playing word games. When I talk about specifics you pretend that I am trying to make broad sweeping statements, when I talk about generalities you argue specifics. You're simply making rhetorical arguments rather than substantive ones at this point. Again, playing games.
Wow, now we have the "this wouldn't work at college" argument. The last, desperate argument of someone who has no actual point to their argument.
Your final point I love. I said, from the very beginning, and over and over again, that the Middle East, as a region, has numerous problems and conflicts that have nothing to do with us. Now you make the utterly false claim that I have ignored that. You claim that I might want to work on my analysis skills? You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Your arguments have been laughable, you have failed to respond to any of the points I have made with anything beyond emotionally driven slights, rhetorical word games, and the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA."
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2009 2:53 PM
Dude, you equated me with George W. Bush, based solely on the fact that I criticized terrorism in a way you didn't like; and now you're accusing ME of playing "word games" and "simply making rhetorical arguments?" Go back to bed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 2:57 PM
PS: The original subject of this thread was "Ignoring Muslim Leaders." And you pretty much proved the point by going off on a tangent that had NOTHING to do with what those Muslim leaders said. Nice work.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 3:01 PM
No, you made statements that mirrored the Bush administration policy positions, I pointed that out. I didn't equate you to Bush until later and it wasn't because you criticized terrorism in a way I didn't like, you accused me of defending and justifying terrorist acts:
Now you're defensive? Wow, you really are a piece of work. You make a statement about 'liberals blaming the US,' when asked about it you get defensive and hostile, then you blame me? I make case by case points and ask legitimate questions, you fail to respond to any of the points or answer the questions yet you have the balls to make snide comments about my constructing an argument? Project much?
PS? I went off on a tangent? You're the one who was talking about the "blame America crowd," I asked you a question about your position. Don't blame me when you go off on a tangent and then figure out through our discussion that your position is an unfounded ideological one.
And "go back to bed?" Really? Are you 12?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2009 3:35 PM