New at Reason

David Weigel | June 26, 2006

Cathy Young determines when critics of Islam cross the line into outright bigotry.

Comments

|6.26.06 @ 9:38AM|#

Cathy is generally right about people making nasty generalizations about Islam. Unfortuneately, it is only going to get worse if there are any more terror attacks on the west and especially this country. Ultimately, radical Islam is not a threat to destroy the West. It is a threat to destroy Islam. If the radicals ever do get ahold of a nuclear weapon or chemical weapons the hatred for Muslims in general would be unimaginable. There would be no stopping the mob and people would put an end to the "Muslim problem" once and for all. That of course would be a horrible tragedy. In that sense radical Islam is a much bigger threat to other Muslims than it ever will be to the West.

SPD|6.26.06 @ 9:46AM|#

True, unfortunately. For most organized religions, the largest threats comes not from outside, but from within. One needs only to recall the countless and prolonged religious wars that erupted in Europe following the Protestant Reformation.

|6.26.06 @ 9:49AM|#

Cathy cites plenty of bloggers and columnists to make her point, but what about the 300 million Americans who are not part of the opinion business? What do they think?

Washington politicians are often accused of having a "beltway" mentality. I think the same can be said of the blogosphere. Publishing one's opinions of other bloggers' opinions seems rather incestuous and weirdly narcissistic in my view. This insular way of looking at things does, at times, obscure the bigger picture.

If Americans are bigoted toward Islam, tell me who they are, where they are, and why they are. But keep the editorialists and fellow bloggers off the questionnaire, please. I already know what they think.

|6.26.06 @ 9:52AM|#

Long before 9/11, while I was in Ranger school, I met a black Air Force dude who had converted to Islam.

He said that he had been black all his life, but had not experienced true prejudism until he converted to Islam.

I imagine the terrorism angle only makes things worse.

Brian|6.26.06 @ 10:04AM|#

Can I be bigoted against Islam if I'm bigoted against Christianity too? Inquiring minds need to know!

|6.26.06 @ 10:11AM|#

While I applaud Cathy's article and the deference with which she handles the subject, she glosses over or ignores some of the factors that, IMHO, help Muslims create their own problems.

First, it may be ignorance on my part but my observations suggest a worldwide anemic response by moderate Muslims toward jihadists. Sure, a few groups have denounced them but without a more unified response, I'm afraid I remain unimpressed.

Second, while Muslims may claim Islam to be a tolerant religion, in the Middle Eastern countries - which are where our most immediate threats exist - the only effective word to describe Islam as it is practiced is frankly, "Intolerant".

I think rest of the world see riots in France, bombings in London, attacks in the U.S. and murders and kidnapping in Indonesia and worries that if Islam gains a substantial foothold in their country, it will become just another middle-eastern shithole.

Rightly or wrongly, I think most western countries see Muslims - moderates or otherwise - and simply do the math. With any Muslim community, a certain percentage will always be intolerant and committed to violence.

And I don't think the western world sees the more moderate Muslim community as an effective partner in combatting or preventing the violence and extremism.

|6.26.06 @ 10:12AM|#

Cathy is generally right about people making nasty generalizations about Islam. Unfortuneately (sic), it is only going to get worse if there are any more terror attacks on the west and especially this country.

Goodness! I'm with you. I hope that when they blow us up again we don't say mean things! That would be just terrible!

Ron Hardin|6.26.06 @ 10:14AM|#

Islam seems to have no doctrine of ``Our duties to those with whom we have nothing in common.''

Religion of peace or not.

Western rights, a gift to the world given as if a priori, as Levinas put it, is originally protecting the other guy's rights, not your own.

That's how it started as moral, rather than a simple war of wills.

Which Islam fails to do, at every opportunity.

I'm just watching the news, is all.

|6.26.06 @ 10:17AM|#

Brian,

YES.

They are belief systems. There is no such thing as "bigotry" (as the word is properly understood) against belief systems--or, for that matter, their adherents. Otherwise, I am a monster bigot: I am bigoted against Nazis, Communists, animal rights loonies and racial bigots of all stripes--hell, I am even bigoted against supporters of George W. Douchebag.

It's only the fairy tale peddlers of religious bullshit who nowadays expect NOT to be held accountable and judged for their beliefs--everybody else has seemed to understand, for ever, that it is perfectly fair to be despised for what one espouses.

Deal with it, religious wussies.

|6.26.06 @ 10:21AM|#

Someone I know with political connections says if a WMD is denotated in the U.S., the public will demand with nuke Mecca if the perps cannot be immediately identified. So what should the U.S. response be if a small nuke is detonated in, say, San Francisco, and the perps can't be found?
(Please, no snarky comments about the People's
Republic of San Francisco deserving it.)

|6.26.06 @ 10:24AM|#

So what should the U.S. response be if a small nuke is detonated in, say, San Francisco, and the perps can't be found?

Well I hope if that happens no one says mean things that could hurt the genociders' feelings, 'cause that would be bad.

|6.26.06 @ 10:28AM|#

"Someone I know with political connections says if a WMD is denotated in the U.S., the public will demand with nuke Mecca if the perps cannot be immediately identified."

Well, since last time I checked the launch codes for American nukes aren't accessible via referendum, I don't see what the issue is.

|6.26.06 @ 10:29AM|#

So what should the U.S. response be if a small nuke is detonated in, say, San Francisco, and the perps can't be found?

I never thought I would ever say this, but if it ever comes to that, Ann Coulter's idea about bombing their cities, killing their leaders and converting them all to Chrstianity start looking pretty good.

Seriously though, while I don't know what

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 10:31AM|#

So what should the U.S. response be if a small nuke is detonated in, say, San Francisco, and the perps can't be found?

Then it should be presumed that the US government did it, unless and until the US government can prove otherwise.

Such an arrangement would provide the US government with better incentives to avoid that kind of behavior.

|6.26.06 @ 10:34AM|#

ed-

I know what you mean. It's always interesting to hear that there are freaks among the commentariat, but it's not terribly surprising either.

In defense of Cathy Young, however, writing an article on mass opinion (as opposed to the commentariat) would boil down to "52% in a recent poll said this, but if you change the wording you get that....and with a margin of error of 3% it means that...but when other alternatives were included the approval fell to 23%..."

So, on the one hand, the commentariat may not be the most important subject to write about. On the other hand, the commentariat may make for the most interesting articles. So, it's a really tough call here.

(And that's my Cathy Young impersonation.)

|6.26.06 @ 10:35AM|#

Creech,

If a small nuke was detonated in SF or anywhere in this country, the dumbasses at CAIR and their enablers in the media would shoot their mouths off and snicker about it and there would be a lot of dead Muslims in this country.

The turth is that countries that are majority Muslims tend to be intolerant shitholes. There is no denying that. That maybe the result of those places being intolerant shitholes to begin with and Islam having nothing to do with it or there maybe some connection between the practice of Islam and your country being an intolerant shithole or some combination of both.

No question that there are a lot of nice tolerant hardworking Muslims in the world. That said, anyone here want to wager what kind of a country this would be if it were ever to become majority Muslim? I am thinking intolerent shithole.

|6.26.06 @ 10:36AM|#

Of course, the follow-up question is: What if it turns out to not be Muslims, but turns out to be extremist terrorists destroying our modern Sodom?

Nuke the Bible Belt?

Tim Cavanaugh|6.26.06 @ 10:37AM|#

I'm just watching the news, is all.

Proving once again Thomas Jefferson's belief that a man who reads nothing at all will be better informed than a man who reads nothing but newspapers.

|6.26.06 @ 10:37AM|#

John...I think that's what I was going for, though you captured it with much more flair.

|6.26.06 @ 10:40AM|#

John,
Considering the vast majority of the Muslims coming to this country left their countries to LEAVE intolerant shitholes, my guess would be the Muslims that come here do not share those views.

Also, I've never seen Muslims stand outside of church's on Easter with placards that say "Jesus is Not the Son of God" or "All Christians are going to hell." I have however seen Christians stand outside mosques on Eid with placards that said, "Mohammed is a False Prophet" and "Muslims are going to Hell." So there's plenty of intolerant assholes in all religions.

Tim Cavanaugh|6.26.06 @ 10:42AM|#

He said that he had been black all his life, but had not experienced true prejudism until he converted to Islam.

I'm not going to lecture a brother about what constitutes real prejudice, but I'd say there's a difference in degree, and maybe in kind, between believing you can know something about a man's personality because of the color of his skin and believing you can know something about his personality because of the religion he chooses to follow.

That's even more true with somebody like your friend, who was not born into the religion but made a conscious adult decision to convert to it. If he believes in the faith, then he should believe in it enough to endure the disbelief of others.

|6.26.06 @ 10:45AM|#

Mo,

If and when I ever see Christian nutcases engaging in terrorism beyond shooting the occasional abortion doctor, then damn straight nuke the bible belt. That hasn't happened so I am not too worried about it. The Christians are just as bad posters on here kill me. It is inevitably followed by pointing to Tim McVeigh. For the record McVeigh claimed to be an atheist who turned against he U.S. government because of the injustice he saw during the first Gulf War. McVeigh in some ways was if anything right out of central casting for the Democratic Underground. Had he not been a homicidal lunatic, he would probably be camping out on the Cindy Sheenen tour these days. Yeah, he was pissed off about Waco, but so were a lot of people. McVeigh was a lot of things, mostly a piece shit nobody with inflated sense of self-importance, but he was not a fundamentalist Christian.

|6.26.06 @ 10:47AM|#

Considering the vast majority of the Muslims coming to this country left their countries to LEAVE intolerant shitholes, my guess would be the Muslims that come here do not share those views.

You should maybe ask Denmark and France what they think about that logic. Arguably most of the *ahem* 'tolerant' Muslims came to those coutries for the same reasons.

Jennifer|6.26.06 @ 10:47AM|#

I sometimes worry about a smarter version of Tim McVeigh (who only got caught due to a combination of dumb mistakes on his part and dumb luck for the cops) doing something horrible, and then Muslims taking the blame. Talk about killing two brids with one stone--wipe out all the goddam gays in San Francisco or goddam liberals in New York, and Mecca, too!

The turth is that countries that are majority Muslims tend to be intolerant shitholes.

This is true. On the other hand, a few centuries back the Muslim countries were the civilized places to be and Christian Europe was a barbaric shithole. I don't think there's anything inherent to Islam that is to blame--any country will be a vile place if religion and faith are elevated about science and reason. Hell, we might be headed down that road ourselves.

|6.26.06 @ 10:50AM|#

McVeigh in some ways was if anything right out of central casting for the Democratic Underground

That's so much crap it's beyond belief. McVeigh's beliefs had more in common with Montana Freeman and various other anti-government groups. And they are invariably right wing nut jobs...not left wing ones.

|6.26.06 @ 10:51AM|#

I'm not going to lecture a brother about what constitutes real prejudice, but I'd say there's a difference in degree, and maybe in kind, between believing you can know something about a man's personality because of the color of his skin and believing you can know something about his personality because of the religion he chooses to follow.

What can you learn about a person to know that they're Jewish. It depends if they're Reform, Conservative or Orthodox. You can't even tell if they keep kosher or not unless you get more than "Jewish". Same with Christians, are you Protestant (which type, Baptist, Presbyterian, 7th Day Adventist), Catholic (strict or cafeteria) or Orthodox (Coptic, Greek, Eastern)? With Muslims you have your Sufis, Shia and Sunni. Within Sunni you have the crazies like the Wahabbis and the moderates like whatever the heck my family is (I think it's just straight up moderate Sunni). And this is just sects, what about level of religosity, how you interpret different doctrines and what you agree and disagree with in your church's teachings.

Granted, hating someone for their skin color is as silly as hating someone for the color of their hair. But hating someone for their religion, without any more information than "I am a(n) _______" is like hating someone for the city they live in.

|6.26.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Guys, John just said that if a few really dangerous lunatics came out of the Bible Belt and did something truly horrible, then he'd be OK with nuking a bunch of civilians in retaliation.

John, you've just been added to the filter!

|6.26.06 @ 10:55AM|#

This is true. On the other hand, a few centuries back the Muslim countries were the civilized places to be

You're only as good as your last gig, so whatever the heck they were centuries back is meaningless.

|6.26.06 @ 10:56AM|#

Madpad,

There is about a hairs worth of difference between the nuts on the left and the nuts on the right these days, espcially since the fall of communism. Whatever McVeigh was he was not a Christian. What is really scary is the idea that there are nuts on the right and left who just nihlistic enough to cooperate with radical Muslims. There are of course all of the unsubstantiated rumors about McVeigh and Nicols learning how to make bombs from Al-Quada connections in the Philipenes. I don't really believe them, but I wouldn't object to hanging Nicols up by the balls to find out if they are true or not.

|6.26.06 @ 10:58AM|#

On the other hand, a few centuries back the Muslim countries were the civilized places to be and Christian Europe was a barbaric shithole.

8 to 10 centuries ago, the Middle East was a beacon of Muslim tolerance. I don't think most folks think that Islam is inherantly any more or less intolerant that any other faith.

But it's current track record as being either violently intolerant or the perception that it is tacitly excusing it is what we are faced with here and now.

Yes, I worry over the threat of intolerant (and potentially violent) Christian extremists in my own country. But that does not lessen the threat of jihadism.

|6.26.06 @ 11:00AM|#

madpad,
Check your sources. Most French Muslims are Algerians. They didn't go there for freedom or opportunity like Muslims coming to the US do. There's a lot of beefs not related to religion in Franch. Things like discrimination, high unemployment, difficulty assimilating, old beefs from colonial times and disrespect of culture (like orders from the government to not wear headscarves). I don't know the whole story behind the Danes and their Muslim situation, but judging from your treatment of the French situation as analogous to ours, I'm guessing you don't either.

Considering the press every random Islamic whackjob gets, don't you find it surprising that there haven't been more attacks? Most Muslims came here to do 3 things, make money, live freely and be left the fuck alone.

Jennifer|6.26.06 @ 11:00AM|#

You're only as good as your last gig, so whatever the heck they were centuries back is meaningless.

Agreed; I am simply pointing out that there is nothing inherent in either Islam or Christianity which guarantees that a country of either religion will be civilized or barbaric.

|6.26.06 @ 11:01AM|#

John,

Granted. Crazy People are Crazy People.

|6.26.06 @ 11:03AM|#

"On the other hand, a few centuries back the Muslim countries were the civilized places to be and Christian Europe was a barbaric shithole."

That is not really true. Yes, the center of civilization was in the Eastern Med and Persia during the middle ages. However, that was true before Islam ever got there. Persia and the the Helenistic Eastern Med had been the center of civiliaztion for centuries. The Muslims walked over already established civilizations and incorporated them. Places like Alexandria and Domascus were great and learned places in spite of Islam not because of Islam.

|6.26.06 @ 11:05AM|#

Thoreau,

I was kidding to make a point. No I would not support nuking the Bible belt over a few crazed Christiians. My point is that it is not going to happen so who cares if you agree to the "what if" contingency.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Tim McVeigh

Assuming he did it. Cue FOIAs, roll video.

|6.26.06 @ 11:08AM|#

Have you guys heard about the radical cleric out in Indonesia who yesterday blamed the earthquakes and natural armegeddon out there on 'loose morals'. What a plonker. Religion sucks ass.

Islam needs it's very own Henry VIII (without the tights).

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 11:09AM|#

My point is that it is not going to happen

how the hell would u know?

|6.26.06 @ 11:10AM|#

Mo, I'll go along with some of that. France has handled its situation deplorably, although I doubt most French Muslims these days are simply Algerian (30 years ago, maybe). Over the past 15 years or so, Europe has seen large numbers of Muslims moving there from all over.

Besides, I'm less concered with why the French and Danish are having their individual problems and more concerned with the fact that it contributes - rightly or wrongly - to the worldwide perception of a "Muslim Problem".

I simply asert that the French riots and the silliness over the Danish cartoons does little to assuage a worldwide perception of peace and intolerance.

|6.26.06 @ 11:10AM|#

Mo, I'll go along with some of that. France has handled its situation deplorably, although I doubt most French Muslims these days are simply Algerian (30 years ago, maybe). Over the past 15 years or so, Europe has seen large numbers of Muslims moving there from all over.

Besides, I'm less concered with why the French and Danish are having their individual problems and more concerned with the fact that it contributes - rightly or wrongly - to the worldwide perception of a "Muslim Problem".

I simply asert that the French riots and the silliness over the Danish cartoons does little to assuage a worldwide perception of violence and intolerance.

|6.26.06 @ 11:11AM|#

Mark VIII,

So that Islam can get its own Stuarts, and its own Oliver Cromwell? :)

|6.26.06 @ 11:12AM|#

how the hell would u know?

Because I go to all the secret Christian meetings Dave. We are not going to take over the world and forcibly convert everyone until the next century. Until then we are just going to tap your phone and read your mail.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 11:15AM|#

all the secret Christian meetings (emphasis added.

All of them? How the hell would you know this?

Ron Hardin|6.26.06 @ 11:15AM|#

> I'm just watching the news, is all.

> Proving once again Thomas Jefferson's belief that a man who reads nothing at all will be
> better informed than a man who reads nothing but newspapers.

You must have missed the lines above it

Western rights, a gift to the world given as if a priori, as Levinas put it, is originally protecting the other guy's rights, not your own.

Have you read Levinas? (_Outside the Subject_ ``The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Other'')? Would that suggest that something other than news had been read? Would that affect your ``proves''?

|6.26.06 @ 11:23AM|#

methinks Mr. Hardin has issued forth a 'slam' against Mr. Cavanaugh.

|6.26.06 @ 11:23AM|#

The United States would never "nuke Mecca" for two reasons:

1. It's a major city in one of the few predominantly Islamic countries that we actually consider an ally in the WoT, not to mention a critical source of oil.

2. If we nuked the Muslim's equivalent of Vatican City, the terrorist acts we experienced prior to then would seem like salad days by comparison.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 11:25AM|#

GOOGLE makes that kind of thing pretty easy donnit?

One time Johnny Hart issued a "slam" against Islam. That was funny because it was so cryptic. I like cryptic.

|6.26.06 @ 11:27AM|#

Jennifer,

"I sometimes worry about a smarter version of Tim McVeigh (who only got caught due to a combination of dumb mistakes on his part and dumb luck for the cops) doing something horrible, and then Muslims taking the blame."

I agree, I'm even more worried that the even smarter Chinese will will blow up San Fran, make it look like some religious fanatic did it to frame Muslims so that half the public wants to kill Muslims and the other half wants to kill the bible belt! Or even worse, what if the crazy Serbs did it, made it look like the Chinese did to frame some Timothy McVeigh guy, who would have done it to frame Muslims!

|6.26.06 @ 11:30AM|#

I hate it that whenever a Muslim does anything bad in the world, people want CAIR to immediately release a statement condemning it. Whenever an old person does something bad, should AARP be expected to immediately condemn the act, and if they don't, are they gonna be called terrorist enablers?

|6.26.06 @ 11:30AM|#

a few centuries back the Muslim countries were the civilized places to be and Christian Europe was a barbaric shithole.

Were they Jennifer? I know they were better at maths but not too sure they were surging ahead in the social sciences department.

Also, from know on, thanks to Phileleurherus, I am to be referred to with full regal title as Mark VIII. Lets be honest, I am smarter, more sophisticated and basically, just a lot lot sexier than you bozos, so a little bit of respect please people.

Tim Cavanaugh|6.26.06 @ 11:32AM|#

What can you learn about a person to know that they're Jewish. It depends if they're Reform, Conservative or Orthodox. You can't even tell if they keep kosher or not unless you get more than "Jewish". Same with Christians, are you Protestant... Granted, hating someone for their skin color

First of all, I'm not hatin' on the brother. The word kwais used was prejudice (or actually the kwais-coined neologism "prejudism"), which only means to pre-judge. The range of sects makes it foolish to believe you can know everything about a person based on his religion, but that doesn't mean you know nothing about him when you already know that he chose to convert to that religion. There hasn't been a convert in the history of the world who converted to a moderate version of any religion. Everybody makes snap judgments all the time, and here's mine: If a guy has converted to any religion-be it Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, or Bokononism-I consider that person suspect. Cradle religionists can't help what they are, but adult converts have made an adult decision, and should be willing to put up with the consequences.

|6.26.06 @ 11:35AM|#

And just what happened to the economics/immigration thread?

|6.26.06 @ 11:38AM|#

If a guy has converted to any religion�be it Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, or Bokononism�I consider that person suspect.

Hear Hear.

Any born again convert has done one of the following:

a) Jailtime
b) Jailbait
c) Crack

Fact.

|6.26.06 @ 11:41AM|#

Or even worse, what if the crazy Serbs did it, made it look like the Chinese did to frame some Timothy McVeigh guy, who would have done it to frame Muslims!

Would you consider a job as a writer for 24?

And, with regard to converts: I have a friend who was born into a fairly strict Protestant sect. He has started attending a much more moderate Protestant church. He hasn't done the formal conversion thing yet, he may never do it with an official ceremony or anything, and he'll probably continue to attend his original church when visiting family, but it's pretty clear that he has joined a new church for all practical purposes.

Some converts really are seeking moderation.

|6.26.06 @ 11:46AM|#

I hate it that whenever a Muslim does anything bad in the world, people want CAIR to immediately release a statement condemning it.

Wrong. Whenever jihadist/terrorists/insurgents murder innocent civilians - often fellow muslims - in violent, senseless ways to advance their version of Islam, they want CAIR to establish where it stands on the issue.

Since the most apparent expression of Islam is that of violent intolerance, it would seem in CAIR's best interest to advance an alternate expression for the well-being of the less violently crazy practitioners of the Muslim faith.

Tim Cavanaugh|6.26.06 @ 11:47AM|#

Islam needs it's very own Henry VIII (without the tights).

If there's one thing Islam has had in spades, it's Henry VIIIs. You might also say Islam needs its own Martin Luther, but it's already had that too: His name was Muhammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.

I realize you're making a funny here, but the idea that Islam is an analogue to Christianity is one that many people take seriously. Unlike some others here, I'm a long-range optimist about the future of Islam, but the idea that the problems of Islamism are going to be solved by something as simple as another "Protestant Reformation" (an easy thing to wish for, since none of us had to live through the original) is fanciful.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 11:48AM|#

Would you consider a job as a writer for 24?

tv rots your brain.

|6.26.06 @ 11:50AM|#

Recently I converted to Pastafarianism. The Flying Spaghetti Monster touched me with his noodly appendage. Ramen!

Tim Cavanaugh|6.26.06 @ 11:50AM|#

Some converts really are seeking moderation.

I was exaggerating for effect, and I hope you're right.

Jennifer|6.26.06 @ 11:51AM|#

Were they Jennifer? I know they were better at maths but not too sure they were surging ahead in the social sciences department.

By modern standards of individual rights they were nothing to brag about, but they were in many ways better than what Europe had to offer. For one example: medieval Islam oppressed Jews by requiring them to pay special taxes; medieval Europe oppressed Jews by killing them or kicking them the hell out of the country. Which is better?

But again: I'm not trying to brag about Ottoman glory days; I am simply pointing out that there is no automatic formula whereby a mostly Islamic country is guaranteed to be bad but a mostly Christian country is likely to be good. Who knows? Maybe all this Sunni-Shiite-Wahhabi infighting will ultimately lead to a more moderate form of Islam. I suspect that centuries of infighting among different Christian sects helped lead Europeans to the conclusion that life is better when the Church doesn't have too much secular power; Islamic countries need to get there, too.

The problem is, an Islamic Henry VIII wouldn't need to get a divorce and found a new religion just to marry Anne al-Boleyn; he'd just make her wife number two.

|6.26.06 @ 11:53AM|#

To add to Herrick's comment, back in 2002, there was a Jewish man that had a bunch of bombs, a bunch of guns and lists of mosques for targets. I his name was Robert Goldstein. Nowhere in the CNN story was he called a terrorist, no one asked the ADL to issue an apology, he was just called a lone nut.

The wierd JudeoChrIslamic group that the FBI just busted was labeled as Islamic off the bat, when it was none of the above.

fyodor|6.26.06 @ 11:54AM|#

Whenever an old person does something bad, should AARP be expected to immediately condemn the act, and if they don't, are they gonna be called terrorist enablers?

No telling for sure how people are going to hypothetically react to hypothetical (and absurd) examples, but IF old people repeated committed horrendous crimes ostensibly in the name of the cause of old people, then I think it's likely many non old people would certainly like it if old people made it damn clear that they did not support these actions, and might possibly risk ageist bigotry if they failed to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean it's ever "right" to hold all members of a group responsible for the actions of a few, even when those few are claiming to be acting on behalf of the whole group, but it's probably a good idea when such behalfness is being loudly proclaimed to loudly counter-proclaim that it's not true.

(And that's not to say that moderate Muslims are not condemning Jihadists because I don't know if that's true or not, only addressing Herrick's logic.)

Tim Cavanaugh|6.26.06 @ 11:54AM|#

would seem in CAIR's best interest to advance an alternate expression for the well-being of the less violently crazy

True, but I really wish the AARP did have to issue a condemnation every time an old person fucks something up.

|6.26.06 @ 11:56AM|#

Persia had lots of great poets during the middle ages* (many of which have struck my fancy over the years), but most of them also faced persecution by "secular" and religious authorities.

There was often some religious tolerance in Muslim countries during the middle ages (though Jews and Christians were "tolerated," they weren't officially equal members of the society as far as I know), such as in Al-Andalus (the Iberian peninsula that Muslim kingdoms ruled), but even in Al-Andalus massacres of Jews occurred (such as that in 1366). Even the so-called "golden age" in Al-Andalus from the 8th century to the 13th century wasn't all golden, with some Jewish scholars actually fleeing to cities such newly "re-conquere (by Christians) cities as Toledo from the 11th century onward.

Anyway, it is probably more accurate to say that Christian and Muslim societies during the middle ages were made up of a patchwork of attitudes that were more or less strong temporally and geographically. I think that it is much more problematic to claim that one culture was a whole better than the other when judged in the light of modern values like freedom of conscience, etc.

*And my goodness, do I hate that term.

|6.26.06 @ 11:58AM|#

And just what happened to the economics/immigration thread?

Yeah dude! WTF?

|6.26.06 @ 12:06PM|#

Jennifer,

For one example: medieval Islam oppressed Jews by requiring them to pay special taxes...

Or by killing them. The history of massacres perpetrated by Muslims against Jews stretches back to the life of the Prophet.

Another example: In the 11th century in Morocco thousands of Jews were murdered by the Caliph.

VikingMoose|6.26.06 @ 12:11PM|#

Fyodor:

one other issue with "AARP Terrorists" is that
1) this group is mainly transient, with many leaving its ranks every day
2) the concussion of car bombs tend to shatter hips and disturb wiring in pacemakers.

Tim: grin! we could have a series of jobs - someone in a big van with one of those electronic signs following an AARP'er in his Mercery Medicare Sled "sorry for keeping the turn signal on!" "sorry for driving 48 in the left lane!" "sorry about the 'It's a Small World' fanny pack"

Mo: excellent comments! It's interesting to see who tends towards the absolute, black-and-white "Islam=terrorist religion" belief...

Finally, would Sammy Davis Jr. be considered an extremist for his conversion? Or did he fit into the multiple choice quiz?

:)

fyodor|6.26.06 @ 12:14PM|#

While Herrick's analogy had some glaring deficiences, which I'm discovering is a pet peeve of mine (perhaps not a healthy one!), I'm going to ostensibly "switch sides" and agree with his larger point, which I suspect was in response to madpad's earlier post that Muslims largely bring bigotry against them on themselves through their seemingly (madpad admits he may not be knowledgable on the matter) lacking response to Jihadism.

While it may possibly be the case that a stronger vocal response to Jihadism may alleviate fear of and bigotry towards Muslims to some degree (hard to say how much), madpad's implication is clearly that Muslims are culpable for not doing as much as they should know they should. Aside from the fact that there may very well be plenty of criticism of Jihadism that doesn't exactly make headlines here, I think it's quite natural for any group of people to not associate themselves with groups that they see themselves as being very different from, even if there are others who see them as very different. In other words, I would expect Muslims living in Muslim countries to feel very little automatic connection with Jihadists the way Americans might reflexively associate Jihadists acting in the name of Islamm with all Muslims. It's just perspective and human nature.

|6.26.06 @ 12:18PM|#

Jennifer,

And of course, massacres like those perpetrated against Jews in Morocco must also be seen in light of the size of the populations effected: after all, killing several thousand Jews (in the case of Morocco it was ~6,000) could wipe out 10% or 50% of a society's Jewish population. It is as much an effort to commit genocide (within a specific geographic locale) as it is an effort to "persecute" a minority.

|6.26.06 @ 12:30PM|#

fyodor-

Also, I imagine that they can only apologize so many times for something they didn't do before it gets tiring.

It may not be an apology in formal terms, but imagine if every time some thug who happens to claim to be a member of the same religion blows something up you have to say "We have the deepest sympathy for the victims, we condemn this, we can assure you that we have nothing to do with it and strongly oppose it and would turn them in if we knew them." Suppose you know that failure to do so will be interpreted by ignorant people as evidence of sympathy for the violence. After a while it must start to feel like making apologies for stuff you didn't even do.

I can't blame people who get tired of apologizing, or doing what sure feels like an apology, every time somebody else does something awful.

|6.26.06 @ 12:34PM|#

One more time with feeling...can someone explain why the immigration/economics thread was taken down?

|6.26.06 @ 12:38PM|#

Anyway, since Cathy Young mentions Manji, I will too. Manji makes an important point in her book The Trouble With Islam Today (excuse me in advance if I don't discuss the issue as eloquently as Manji does); namely that even if no terrorism were committed in the name of Islam that Islam as a religion would remain a problematic faith due to its various screwed up traditions, practices, etc. re: women, human rights, etc. To be frank, it is this fact that gets lost in all this terrorism talk. Also, I believe it was this fact that Cathy Young was alluding to when she mentioned Manji.

|6.26.06 @ 12:47PM|#

Viking Moose,
To which of Sammy Davis Jr.'s conversion do you refer, his conversion to Judaism or his conversion to Anton LaVey" Church of Satan?

|6.26.06 @ 12:52PM|#

Phil,
Which practices. You'll find that a lot of the practices that most people find abhorrent* are regional and traditional rather than religious. There are a great deal of very tolerant Muslims.

* Female circumcision, stoning adultresses (which is due to Judaism) and repressive governments aren't problems with Islam, but rather regional problems. Would you blame Confucianism for China's problems?

|6.26.06 @ 12:52PM|#

Let's see, now. Who would have the strongest motive to nuke an urban area in a blue state, that consistently votes Democratic and symbolizes gay pride? Does he presently work in the White House?

This conjecture is of course over the top, but no more so than the Robertson/Falwell "God is a terrorist" comments following the September 11 attacks, nor the suggestion that God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans because He disapproves of tolerance of homosexuals.

Much of the Republican party panders to those on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture wars.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 1:07PM|#

Who would have the strongest motive

It is also helpful to consider who has the best access to the most reliable nuclear bombs.

|6.26.06 @ 1:15PM|#

"One more time with feeling...can someone explain why the immigration/economics thread was taken down?"

The secret designers of secret designs decreed it.

|6.26.06 @ 1:25PM|#

The vast majority of serial killers in the United States have been Christians, yet I have never seen an official statement from any Christian church or group apologizing for the actions of the Christian serial killers. It must mean that they tacitly support the activities of serial killers, that is the only reasonable explanation.

|6.26.06 @ 1:27PM|#

I think everyone should apologise for everything. NOW!

|6.26.06 @ 1:29PM|#

Mark VIII, your idea is awful. Somebody else should apologize for it.

|6.26.06 @ 1:36PM|#

but I really wish the AARP did have to issue a condemnation every time an old person fucks something up.

I think they did...when a bunch of old congressmen and senators let that whole Medicare Drug Bill mess get through.

thoreau & fyodor,
Thank you for picking up on my point and illuminating it. And thoreau, I'm not suggesting that Islamist group need to apologize everytime a terrorist blow people up.

It's larger than that. It's moderate Muslims who act as though jihadists aren't representative of them. Like it or not, they are. It's countless Muslim states with backward justice systems. It's Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that pay lip service to our anti-terrorism effort while helping terrorists escape or avoid prosecution. It's Muslim groups that move to democratic countries and insist on denying women the rights of those countries.

There's a big disconnect between the statement that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" and the face Islam shows the rest of the world in the actions of those who profess to follow it.

For their own protection, those Muslims who sincerely stand for peace and tolerance need to realize that they'd better start standing for it a little more obviously or the world will continue to cultivate its own prejudices against them. They'd better start realizing that it's up to them to put a different face on Islam.

I don't like the notion of bigotry at all. I find it reprehensible to class all people based on the actions of others. But we live in a real world here where all is not kittles and beer and most are not as descriminating as I.

The thread is about anti-Muslim bigotry. I merely suggest that if they don't want terrorist to control the perception folks have of them, they'd better start controlling it themselves.

VM|6.26.06 @ 1:38PM|#

NoStar:

that's a pick 'em!

|6.26.06 @ 1:44PM|#

For their own protection, those Muslims who sincerely stand for peace and tolerance need to realize that they'd better start standing for it a little more obviously or the world will continue to cultivate its own prejudices against them. They'd better start realizing that it's up to them to put a different face on Islam.

What more do you want them to do? Their organizations already put out press releases condemning violence. Their rank and file have voted with their feet, showing that they'd rather live in a place with social, religious, and economic liberties and the rule of law. They are, by and large, responsible citizens of this country, opening small businesses, sending their children to good universities, some of them serving in the armed forces, and by and large acting as good neighbors in their communities.

What more do you want? You say that this isn't about sending an apology announcement every time a bomb goes off, but then you say they'd better do more for their own safety. What more can you ask from your fellow citizens aside from responsible citizenship? What more can you ask from leaders of organizations aside from issuing statements in condemnation of things that they have no control over?

Maybe I should ask one of my mentally ill relatives to apologize for those crazy guys in Florida?

|6.26.06 @ 1:50PM|#

i love all these disclaimers and stuff like "well, there is nothing *inherent* in islam that leads" ... (so many radical muslims to be evil murderous scum)...

the issue is not about theoretical analyses of the koran vs. the torah vs. the new testament etc.

it's about how the world actually WORKS (or doesn't)

christianity had a reformation. islam didn't

about the worst thing some of the most strident christians want to do is CONVERT people (lord forbid). in a marketplace of ideas one can always tells somebody to "shut up shutting up" to quote yosemite sam.

in many (if not most) majority muslim countries you can be killed/imprisoned/punished for trying to convert muslims, or in many cases even possessing a bible.

would you rather be

1) an openly christian person in a majority muslim country
2) an openly muslim person in a majority christian nation

in the former you risk death, injury, and imprisonment

in the latter case you risk being smothered by an explosion of tolerance, cultural relativism and people who want to "feel your pain"

|6.26.06 @ 1:54PM|#

"There hasn't been a convert in the history of the world who converted to a moderate version of any religion."



Given how many converts I've met to Unitarianism, Reform Judaism, liberal Sufism, Wicca (and other forms of liberal neopaganism), and ELCA Lutheranism, I know, objectively, that you're full of it.

VM|6.26.06 @ 1:54PM|#

Thoreau:

I'd postulate that you're reacting against (the comment in italics in your most recent posting) a (perhaps not-so) subtle form of bigotry, racism, and ignorance. And you point out how pointless that faux stance is! yeaaaa! :)

The notion that Minority Group X must behave in a way to alleviate Majority Group's fears is a way of forcing X to do all the work, while smugly sitting by.

Actually, the racism expressed in that italicized part is so extraordinary, instead, I'll filter it and not even respond. Whoever wrote that is, IMO, too damned ignorant even to understand what a fucking internet tough guy bully he is. I'd recommend you also filtering that out (literally or figuratively).

It's the asshole's creed:
Hey! You! Darkie! Proactively read my mind and show me that you hate the Black Panthers in the way that I do, lest my prejudicial attitudes get applied to you too! ACT WHITE, DAMMIT! (preferably in my own cultural idiom!)

Balls.

fyodor|6.26.06 @ 1:55PM|#

I refuse to apologize anytime a Subgenius says or does something crazy.

But then, Subgeniuses are supposed to say and do crazy things....

|6.26.06 @ 1:57PM|#

It appears I've hit a nerve with thoreau. Understandable, I suppose. Listen, I don't have an answer. The question I inferred from Cathy's piece is "what can be done about anti-Muslim bigotry?"

Aside from simply telling people "don't be bigots" (which is all your suggesting), I merely make the suggestion that they should start working in a more obvious and creative way to alter those perceptions.

I don't have all the answers. I don't know how to compete with bombs and beheadings. I'm not saying it's fair. It's obviously not. But it's not a fair world we live in or anti-Muslim bigotry wouldn't exist.

|6.26.06 @ 1:57PM|#

"The vast majority of serial killers in the United States have been Christians, yet I have never seen an official statement from any Christian church or group apologizing for the actions of the Christian serial killers."

this is such ridiculous logic.

the vast majority of PEOPLE in the US are christians, which you fail to address. so, the fact that the vast majority of serial killers are christians says exactly ZERO about the practitioners of christianity. the simple fact is that muslims, to a phenomenal extent, DISPROPORTIONATELY commit terrorist acts.

the issues are ones of disproportionality.

furthermore, it IS true that when christian fanatics commit terrorist and/or murderous acts *in the name* of christianity, mainstream christian organizations are among the first to act in condemning these acts. the same is NOT true of islamic extremism.

furthermore, please show me where crowds of christians were DANCING IN THE STREETS when eric rudolph committed a bombing

.... i'll stand by...

after 9/11, there were literally STREET PARTIES of people dancing in the street's to celebrate this terrorist act. did u miss that?

compare and contrast

the comparison aint there. the contrast is.

grylliade|6.26.06 @ 2:00PM|#

For one example: medieval Islam oppressed Jews by requiring them to pay special taxes; medieval Europe oppressed Jews by killing them or kicking them the hell out of the country.

To be fair, Jennifer, some Christian countries required Jews to pay special taxes, then kicked them out of the country or killed them. Most Christian kings exacted exorbitant taxes on the interest charged by Jewish lenders (the only ones allowed to charge interest), then when they were forbidden to charge interest by the Church (and therefore had no means of income) were exiled from the country. Being Jewish in the Middle Ages really sucked.

Jennifer|6.26.06 @ 2:04PM|#

To be fair, Jennifer, some Christian countries required Jews to pay special taxes, then kicked them out of the country or killed them. Most Christian kings exacted exorbitant taxes on the interest charged by Jewish lenders (the only ones allowed to charge interest), then when they were forbidden to charge interest by the Church (and therefore had no means of income) were exiled from the country. Being Jewish in the Middle Ages really sucked.

I fully agree. But, although I know I'm repeating myself here, my point was simply that "Islam bad Christianity good" is not true, and will not help anyone get to the bottom of whatever the hell is wrong with Islamic-majority countries these days.

fyodor|6.26.06 @ 2:06PM|#

madpad,

Your original post on the subject seemed to hold moderate Muslims morally culpable (to some degree) for the bigotry against them.

Now you seem to simply be saying that moderate Muslims can help ease the bigotry against them with a more creative approach. And who can argue with that?

Glad to see the movement!!

|6.26.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Whit,

Thank you for proving the point of my ridiculous logic.

As you admit, the fact that most serial killers are Christian says exactly nothing about the Christian religion and their support for serial killing. I agree, and using that same logic it is ridiculous to indicate that the fact that a large number of terrorists are Muslim is evidence of support for terrorism by all Muslims and the religion of Islam.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 2:11PM|#

after 9/11, there were literally STREET PARTIES of people dancing in the street's to celebrate this terrorist act. did u miss that?

Did you see this personally and first hand, or did you see this on television and in the newspapers?

For my own part I will say that I don't know how prevalent the dancing in the street reaction was. It is possible that that was grossly exaggerated by choices made by the media companies of the western world. Or maybe not. Giving a balanced presentation of the mood on the Muslim street is something I don't really trust the media about, especially in the time period right after 9/11.

grylliade|6.26.06 @ 2:13PM|#

And Tim, I don't know if you're talking exclusively about converts to a religion from something else, or including conversions from one form to another in your statement, but if the latter, then I'm a counter-example. I was raised as an evangelical Christian, and am now a pretty liberal Episcopalian.

|6.26.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Proactively read my mind and show me that you hate the Black Panthers in the way that I do, lest my prejudicial attitudes get applied to you too!

I think you're missing the point. The fact is that a lot of blacks before and during the civil rights struggled through today and have worked very hard to reverse bigotry and racist attitudes.

Should they have had to? Hell no. But that's what it took. It took working to change minds and perceptions, even among people who were less racist than they were afraid of change. It took decades of work and legislation to overcome people and mindets that were overtly racist. And some would argue that it still takes work.

Is it fair? No. As for the discussion at hand, right now, the people controlling the discussion of Islam are either militants or Muslim societies that are anything but peace loving and tolerant. If the peace loving and tolerant muslims are happy with that, who am I to argue?

|6.26.06 @ 2:20PM|#

I have a couple of questions about the Kosovo War. It seems to be the received wisdom now and then (except among some libertarians, if I remember some articles in Liberty about it), that the Serbs were in engaged in a genocidal war against the Muslims in their country. But from what I recall, deaths from the civil war, were around 2 to 4 thousand in two years of fighting. And that includes deaths on both sides, not just the Muslim side. The KLA, who were considered the heroes of that war, were entangled with some of the terrorist forces we are fighting today. The massive killings of muslims only occurred when the foreign forces invaded in force, but provided no air cover for fleeing muslims, who were picked apart then by the Serbian forces. The mainstream media, in reports about the war, largely ignored this part of the story, as well as any stories related to brutal killings or kidnappings on the part of the KLA. This does not make Milosovic the good guy in the war, just that perhaps the story was more complicated than the mainstream media image - that this was simply genocide against muslims.

I wonder, if say, another religion, such as Islam were to gain more strength in the U.S. What if there were activist and violent forces from this religious/ethnic group, engaging in terrorist acts, for the purpose of forcing the U.S. to allow a large separate state within the Union that would be an Islamic nation. I wonder how the U.S. would react to this kind of terrorism within its own borders and how this battle would be perceived in other parts of the world. Comments?

|6.26.06 @ 2:24PM|#

Your original post on the subject seemed to hold moderate Muslims morally culpable (to some degree) for the bigotry against them.

I suppose, to an extent, it was - mainly out of what I confessed at the time is a lack of awareness of activities of moderate Muslims. Thoreau's post gave me pause to consider that position a little.

But I have not come off my larger point that Islam has not shown a good face to the world either in terms of it's leadership of countries or it's deplorable record of human rights in the countries where Islam is the predominant religion.

|6.26.06 @ 2:28PM|#

"As you admit, the fact that most serial killers are Christian says exactly nothing about the Christian religion and their support for serial killing. I agree, and using that same logic it is ridiculous to indicate that the fact that a large number of terrorists are Muslim is evidence of support for terrorism by all Muslims and the religion of Islam."

the issue is one of proportionality.

do the frigging math.

nobody claims "all muslims" support terrorism

drop the frigging strawmen

|6.26.06 @ 2:32PM|#

david w, your post is a classic exercise in disgingenuousness

fine. all the videos of people dancing in the streets after 9/11 were fabricated by an anti-muslim US media (lol)

and all the speeches by muslim leaders praising the attacks were also fabrications

can't trust anybody. it's all lies. there is no truth

thanks. drive through

|6.26.06 @ 2:46PM|#

From Wikipedia: There are approximately 1.2-1.3 billion Muslims worldwide.

The images of people dancing in the streets were predominately in regions where the populations believe that they have been directly harmed by the U.S.

To blame the entire Muslim community for the behavior of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total population is the height of ignorance and bigotry.

|6.26.06 @ 2:48PM|#

To change directions, I've seen video footage of spring break in Florida. So it must be true that every Coed in the US just wants to get drunk and pose naked for the cameras. Let me get my Canon . . . .

|6.26.06 @ 2:50PM|#

So it must be true that every Coed in the US just wants to get drunk and pose naked for the cameras.

Are you saying they don't? Damn!

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 2:58PM|#

can't trust anybody. it's all lies. there is no truth

I didn't say that. You present a false dichotomy. I am merely suggesting that a relative handful of street parties might have been exaggerated and might have manipulated you into a somewhat worse impression of the Muslim than you should have. Or maybe not. I don't know, but the relevant thing for you is you don't know.

Well, since last time I checked the launch codes for American nukes aren't accessible via referendum, I don't see what the issue is.

The issue is your naivete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anthraxnote1.jpg

grylliade|6.26.06 @ 2:59PM|#

I fully agree. But, although I know I'm repeating myself here, my point was simply that "Islam bad Christianity good" is not true, and will not help anyone get to the bottom of whatever the hell is wrong with Islamic-majority countries these days.

I know. I wasn't trying to contradict you. I was just trying to be funny by pointing out that the Christians were really assholish, an attempt at which I obviously failed miserably. :-)

Your Comrade|6.26.06 @ 3:03PM|#

For their own protection, those Muslims who sincerely stand for peace and tolerance need to realize that they'd better start standing for it a little more obviously or the world will continue to cultivate its own prejudices against them... I don't like the notion of bigotry at all.

For their own protection, non-party members who sincerely stand for the permanent revolution of the workers need to realize that they'd better start standing for it a little more obviously or the Politburo will need to educate them in the spirit of the revolution.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 3:04PM|#

wrong quote. Should have read:

I never thought I would ever say this, but if it ever comes to that, Ann Coulter's idea about bombing their cities, killing their leaders and converting them all to Chrstianity start looking pretty good.


The issue is your naivete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anthraxnote1.jpg

hasty and profuse apologies to SR!!!

|6.26.06 @ 3:14PM|#

All the stateside Muslim protests against the infamous Danish Muhammad cartoons have been nonviolent

Which begs the question: why on earth are American Muslims protesting against the right of the free press to publish cartoons?

Yes, in America it's their right to do so, but does that not point to Muslims as complicit in misunderstandings regarding where they stand on the War on Terrorism?

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 3:19PM|#

Which begs the question: why on earth are American Muslims protesting against the right of the free press to publish cartoons?

Yes, in America it's their right to do so, but does that not point to Muslims as complicit in misunderstandings regarding where they stand on the War on Terrorism?

If they were actually protesting the publisher's decisions to publish the cartoons, then that would make it all right again, wouldn't it?

How do you know they were publishing the Constitution, rather than the choices made by the publishers who chose to publish?

|6.26.06 @ 3:19PM|#

If the radicals ever do get ahold of a nuclear weapon or chemical weapons the hatred for Muslims in general would be unimaginable. There would be no stopping the mob and people would put an end to the "Muslim problem" once and for all.

I am reminded of the sarcastic fictional headline: "Muslim Advocacy Groups Complain of Backlash Against Tomorrow's Suicide Bombing"

|6.26.06 @ 3:20PM|#

Lets be honest, I am smarter, more sophisticated and basically, just a lot lot sexier than you bozos, so a little bit of respect please people.

Psssst...

Your tiny little weiner is poking out.

|6.26.06 @ 3:21PM|#

Dave W.

My naivete isn't an issue. That was a JOKE! The day I sincerely agree with A.C. on anything is the day I ...well, let's just say it's not likely to happen and leave it at that, shall we?

|6.26.06 @ 3:30PM|#

even if no terrorism were committed in the name of Islam that Islam as a religion would remain a problematic faith due to its various screwed up traditions, practices, etc. re: women, human rights, etc. To be frank, it is this fact that gets lost in all this terrorism talk

That's because islam is a lie. Mohammad (the false prophet) was nothing more than a cunning liar. Even better than Bill Clinton.

Tim Cavanaugh|6.26.06 @ 3:39PM|#

Which begs the question: why on earth are American Muslims protesting against the right of the free press to publish cartoons?

This rhetoric is so far beyond the realm of honest engagement of an issue and so far into the realm of using any stick to hit your opponent that you should be ashamed of yourself. And I say that as the windbag who wrote more in favor of publishing those cartoons than just about any other windbag.

Aso, it wouldn't beg the question; it would raise the question. Although in fact, it doesn't do either.

|6.26.06 @ 3:41PM|#

Islam as a religion would remain a problematic faith due to its various screwed up traditions, practices, etc. re: women, human rights, etc.

By labeling Islam a "problematic faith" are you inferring that other faiths are not problematic?

I'm Christian and even I have to admit it's problematic nature throughout history (and even today) with just the examples you cited.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 3:43PM|#

I stand corrected, madpad.

I guess my real point with that link was that if anyone thinks there aren't people in the world who would try to blame a non-jihadist terrorist attack on jihadis, then they really ought to read up on what happened with the anthrax in 2001.

|6.26.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Dave W. - I got that and you make a good point.

|6.26.06 @ 3:45PM|#

"then they really ought to read up on what happened with the anthrax in 2001"

So what happened?

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 3:51PM|#

So what happened?

Unsolved terrorist attack. Somebody with access to US miltary chemical weapons in the US tried to fake a jihadist chemical attack. Killed some Americans on American soil. Nobody cares and people barely remember.

|6.26.06 @ 3:54PM|#

Dave, So when do you connect Muslims to the corporate conspiracy to poison everyone in the US with HFCS?

|6.26.06 @ 4:01PM|#

Nobody cares and people barely remember.

Except you?

I don't think that's accurate. Reading the larger wikipedia article, it indicates that the case has largely gone cold. It cites a variety of sources and opinions blaming this person or that one.

In any case, thanks for posting the link. I had never seen the note. Interesting.

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 4:16PM|#

case has largely gone cold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_RLY%3F

|6.26.06 @ 4:30PM|#

Dave W.

I'm not confident enough about the source or knowledgable enough about the case to give you a "ya rly" on this one.

I only reported what wikipedia said regardng the case. You seem to be happy with that as a source so I saw no problem in using it. If it hasn't gone cold, and you know something, lay it out, brother.

You have an interested party here.

How About A Nice Game Of Chess|6.26.06 @ 4:43PM|#

lay it out, brother

Cases go cold for a reason. Personally I believe this case went cold because people began to realize that pursuing this case would put the US government in a bad light, since the anthrax did sneak out of their facility and all.

It is the kind of terrorism that makes you realize that a weapons buildup can potentially cause more problems than it solves.

If an Islamophobe can sneak anthrax outta there, why not a nuke? At some point in the weapons buildup it becomes likelier that a marginal weapon will by a crook for crooked purposes, rather than for good, old fashioned, aboveboard enemy killing. The anthrax story, if seriously considered, would lead one to question whether that margin has been reached.

Did u ever see Dr. Strangelove?

|6.26.06 @ 4:56PM|#

aahhh,

Got you, my brother. And yes, I did see Dr. Strangelove (all time favorite line, "Gentlemen. You can't fight in here...this is a War Room!")

Thanks

Dave W.|6.26.06 @ 6:19PM|#

And, if u can bear with me for one more post, let's play this out a bit more.

Imagine that some renegade faction of the US or Israeli military did manage to set off a nuke in San Francisco, hoping to set off a good nuking of Iran and Syria. Let's assume that the US military knew exactly where the nuke came from after it denated, killing a lot of people and levelling a lot of valuable buildings, making the affected landscape useless for generations.

What are the chances that they would tell us, any of us, u, me, John, Kernal Kwace, Nick Gillespie or even Jersey McJones? If people got suspicious, how do you think the US military would respond? If they couldn't bring themselves round to admitting the lapse, would they at least make it clear that the mullahs had been ruled out as persons of interest? I don't think so. They don't want their funding going away. They got mouths to feed and bills to pay, man, just like anybody else.

Think a little bit deeper about the anthrax. It was mighty nice of them to give us enough info to rule out Saddam. Cause they really didn't have to do even that much.

But, think about it. How many people have keys to that particular anthrax cabinet? Do they at least keep track of their names? Did they spring for video surveillance of the facility? How many no knock warrants have been executed on this d'ya think? This shouldn't be anywhere near as hard as catching the Zodiac or the Unabomber. Yet we have a case that has gone cold for various obscure reasons. Awww. It is not that literally nobody cares, but I think you can see what I am driving at when I say that.

FOX news could be asking these questions on primetime tv, but they prefer to feed our beloved Thinkology Doctor toxic, but engaging crap, like 24. They know what a learner he is. they use that to their advantage. They have him filtering troubling facts right out of his lil T. world. They have made him proud of doing that!

So, luv will get u like a beetle on its back. TV is one disease I don't wanna catch.

To close, this time, like they say, with feeling:

So what should the U.S. response be if a small nuke is detonated in, say, San Francisco, and the perps can't be found? Then it should be presumed that the US government did it, unless and until the US government can prove otherwise. Such an arrangement would provide the US government with better incentives to avoid that kind of behavior.

|6.26.06 @ 8:11PM|#

Dave W....that plan is so crazy...it just might work.

Hey listen...while you may be onto something, keep in mind this is an administration that can't keep a marine massacre, the goings on in a locked down, completely-controlled-by-the-military prison or it's NSA activities secret.

Based on its track record, I think the word would get out. Secrets are hard to keep in this world these days.

Smart people with computers, a working knowledge of basic geometry and how to sort a spreadsheet make that possible.

But that's NOT to say I'm ruling out your hypothesis. It's certainly good for fueling my eternal suspicion of just about any government activity. And if a nuke ever goes off on American soil, I'll certainly think of you and this thread.

Thanks for the thoughts to ponder.

M. Simon|6.26.06 @ 8:30PM|#

In Islam why do you have to wait three years from marriage to consumation? Because having sex with six year olds is considered bad form.

M. Simon|6.26.06 @ 8:40PM|#

Re: the anthrax case.

There are indications from the Saddam tapes and other material recovered from Iraq post war that Saddam may have been behind the anthrax attack.

Kind of makes the case for the war, if true.

|6.26.06 @ 9:30PM|#

As far as the anthrax case:

1) There's a big difference between figuring out who must have done it and being able to prove that he did it. This is something that we need to keep in mind if we want to preserve whatever civil liberties we have left.

2) Narrowing down a list only works if the list is accurate.

3) Inaccurate lists can be explained by incompetence just as easily as they can be explained by malice.

An authorized person in a lax environment (or perhaps an environment that is strict to the unimaginative but quite lax from the perspective of a clever person) can swipe something, sit on it, wait for his moment, and then strike. And maybe investigators can figure out what he did, but proving it is a whole other story.

An unauthorized person in a lax environment (or an environment that seems lax to a clever person) can do something that nobody even realizes, and hence render the process of elimination meaningless.

|6.26.06 @ 10:09PM|#

Mo,

The lack of freedom generally and the oppression of women specifically in the Islamic world is hardly regional. Anyway, if you read Manji's book she goes into significant detail re: the problems that Islam has worldwide. She also details the crap she had to deal with in Canada during her childhood.

|6.27.06 @ 12:12AM|#

"The images of people dancing in the streets were predominately in regions where the populations believe that they have been directly harmed by the U.S.

To blame the entire Muslim community for the behavior of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total population is the height of ignorance and bigotry"

dood.

you only get one strawman per order

SPARE ME.

****NOBODY*** IS BLAMING "the entire muslim community"

the issue is one of proportionality and of the fact that when radical christians (in the exceptionally rare instance) where they commit some kind of horrific crime in the "name of christianity" christians bend over backwards to distance themselves. far fewer muslims and muslim groups do. and then of course they have chomsky and other useful idiots shill for their "oppression" as justification for taking out the trade center, trains in spain , etc etc etc

there is absolutely no moral equivalence except among people who are REALLY REALLY bad at math

you didn't address a single actual point that was made in your strawman erector set exercise

Dave W.|6.27.06 @ 5:35AM|#

1) There's a big difference between figuring out who must have done it and being able to prove that he did it. This is something that we need to keep in mind if we want to preserve whatever civil liberties we have left.

Think about your ice cream stand u r going to open someday and have people sign waivers to get their cone. People are giving up a margin of freedom (a right to sue you) in exchange for the good stuf (ICE CREAM!). Whatever the merits of that idea, it certainly has application when handing out keys to the anthrax cabinet. By receiving access to a WMD you should consent (both implicitly and explicitly) to being searched in a way that the average citizen is not susceptible to search. Unless we are going to hand out keys to the anthrax cabinet or to the US nukes on a massive scale, I don't think subjecting special people to especially searching searches is any sort of civil liberties problem. The problem with Wen Lee Ho wasn't that he was searched, but rather that he was put in jail. I just don't see the problem in super aggressively searching ppl with access to super secret and dangerous materials or information.


2) Narrowing down a list only works if the list is accurate.

If the list is a list of your illegal alien employees who mop up at your ice cream stand, then I don't think it is a problem if there are some inaccuracies. The worst that happens is that someone misses a shift and you have to drop by the illegal alien pickup zone and pick up another brown Jose. However, the list of who has and has had keys to the anthrax cabinet should be a lot more formal and rigorous.

3) Inaccurate lists can be explained by incompetence just as easily as they can be explained by malice.

The taxpayers paid for that anthrax cabinet and the anthrax in the anthrax cabinet and the security and accuracy measures surrounding the handling of that WMD. We deserve to know which it was so that we can help send out the correct encouraging signals to make sure that the root cause of the problem has been satisfactorily dealt with. I don't think that has happened in respect of the 2001 anthrax attacks. As a taxpayer I feel cheated.

Maybe, just maybe, the answer is keeping a whole lot less anthrax around so that the security measures around the remaining anthrax (if any) can be made more rigorous and redundant. I mean, duuuuuuh.

|6.27.06 @ 9:27AM|#

Psssst...

Your tiny little weiner is poking out.

I know! And doesn't it look lovely...

Dave W.|6.27.06 @ 10:32AM|#

And let's dump a little more icing on this cake, this time at the expense of Charles Oliver. Oliver writes:

Transportation Security Administration officials grabbed Daniel Brown at Los Angeles International Airport and dragged him off for interrogation, causing him to miss his flight. Brown was part of a group of U.S. Marines -- all in uniform and carrying military ID's and travel orders. But TSA officials say Brown had been placed on the agency's no-fly list earlier after agents detected gunpowder on his boots on a previous flight. That's Brown's combat boots. That previous flight was after his return from combat in Iraq. This time, Brown was eventually cleared to catch a later flight to Minneapolis-St. Paul, where he found his fellow Marines waiting for him.

So we should be screening soldiers less instead or more?

Ummm, Tim McVeigh ummm, guy/gal who stole the military's anthrax . . . C'mon Charles. Don't be a Kernal Kwace!

|6.27.06 @ 11:24AM|#

Tim,

A couple of things, I don't think that you really chose what to believe.

Also, you might hate somebody for what they believe, and not be associating stereotypes as some do to race. But is it any less prejudice if you actually are racist about what is real about the race not false stereotypes.

I mean you can dislike somebody for their belief, because they actively believe something, and you can dislike somebody for their race, because they are actually of a color, or look that you don't like.

You might be right and you might be wrong in your dislike (or predjudism).

I know that I have my own predjudices about different religions. But I generally I am dissapointed by the misperceptions of Islam that a lot of people have.

My personal opinion is that it has the same flaws as any religion that was created such a long time ago. And the same flaws as any religion period.

I'm not putting a lot of thought into this post as it is unlikely to be read, so sorry for the bad writing.

Kara|6.27.06 @ 11:56AM|#

Many negative things have been done in the name of Christianity, but Jesus never condoned such behavior. The same cannot be said of "the prophet".

When an adulturous women came up to the leader of Islam..he did not say go on your way and sin no more. He had her buried to her neck in sand and had people in the community smash her head in with stones until she was dead.

Islam is a religion of peace..yeah, sure it is.