Islam vs. Islam

Fareed Zakaria on the recent attacks against Shiites:

Most important, by waging war on fellow Muslims, Islamic radicals are proving that the war against terror is not a clash between civilizations, but a clash within a civilization. And the bad guys are losing.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[anon]

From the article:
"That Islamic extremist groups are now targeting Shiites is surely a sign of desperation"

Has it actually been shown that these attacks were actually committed by Sunnis or is Fareed going with the theory that suits his argument without the theory being proved. Inter sectarian infighting is as common, or may be even more common, between different sects.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Well, Ashcroft's clearly got you all under his evil spell. You seem to think there's a real threat. As John Kerry could tell you, going after countries, and groups doesn't get it - you need to go after the perpetrators and bring them to justice. As for 9/11, there were 19 attackers, all of whom died in the attack. Justice served. See - no more threat!

As for Zakaria's argument, well, odd to post it in a laudatory fashion at a place called Reason. The logic doesn't quite work. It's along the lines of:

Joe fought with people in bars last week.

He was caught beating his wife this week.

Therefore, his barfighting doesn't have anything to do with barfighting. It's really just a domestic violence problem. He was involved in that barfight to impress the people who would otherwise side with his wife...

I think Zakaria is trying a bit too hard here to kill of the clash of civilizations thesis. I'm not sure I buy Huntington's argument, but I sure can't refute it using Zakaria's tools.

[Shannon Love]

Andrew Lynch,

"A clash within a civilization. Holy mother of God, who's ever heard of such a thing?!?"

Well there was that little contretemps between Catholics and Protestants in Europe for 300 years. A minor affair to be sure. just a footnote really, but it should serve to establish the principle.

[joe]

Shannon, when people include lengthy Christian oaths on a libertoid website, they're being ironic.

As for the article: I think Zadaria is a little too sanguine about the ability of international terrorists to strike the United States again. If you think of the operations they pulled off - nearly sinking a naval ship, the first WTC bombing, 9/11 - they're pretty elaborate, exacting operations, not "guy throws grenade in mall." For that reason, I don't think the domestic security of the past two years is such a guarantee of our safety.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right.

[Ruthless]

Zakaria said:
"In fact, their poorly produced tapes, threatening spectacular attacks, are becoming a joke, much like Saddam Hussein's promises to fight 'the mother of all battles.'"

If it's a joke, it's not exactly a knee-slapper.
I second joe's caution.

Terrorists will alway be desperate, against even their own plus any other thing bad about them you can think up. Not only that, they will become progressively more dangerous.

[Andrew Lynch]

Tom McClintock and Arnold Schwarzenegger are ideological foes, whose attacks take the form of mutually antagonistic non-cooperation (policy duelling without blood). I guess that means Republicans are like Muslims (minus the blood part)?

A clash within a civilization. Holy mother of God, who's ever heard of such a thing?!?

Zakaria: back off, drop the word processor, and take a deep breath.

[joe]

Stephen, to extend the metaphor...

Joe has been beating up his wife for years. He has been loudly proclaiming how much he hates his wife, and her friends. He goes around town telling people he's going to beat up his wife, and her friends. The guy he hit in the bar was one of her friends.