Islamophobia or Islamoaccuracy?

The Geek admits that he finds it emotionally satisfying to have a Two Minutes Hate against more than a few Muslims, particularly those who fall under the label, Islamist. It is terribly easy to be alternately amused, nauseated and angered by people who get their rocks off holding demonstrations which demand, "Death to (Fill in the blank), hold graduation ceremonies for suicide bomber teams and throw acid in the faces of unveiled young women.

There are already a large number of sites that cover the revolting face of Islam such as jihadwatch.org or the_gathering_storm.blogspot.com/ or mavericknewsnetword.typepad.com. There are also sites that offer apologies for Islamist behavior.

The Geek's goal today is neither to condemn nor to condone. The Geek's purpose is a little broader gauged, to see whether or not parsing the Islamist love affair with death gives any hint about what historical analogy should be used regarding Iran, its mullahocracy and potential membership in the Nuke Club.

To start, get a grip on this reality: There is no one, monolithic entity called Islam. Despite the Quran's call for unity among all believers, Islam is riddled with fissures, fault lines and fractures. While less perhaps than the divisions within Christianity, Islam has more groups, creedal distinctions and cultures than Judaism.

Not only is there the major schism between Sunni and Shia, there are other deep differences. It is impossible even to say that there is one brand of Islamicism. Remember that term is only fifteen or so years old, the winner in the media sweepstakes among several contenders including Islamic fundamentalist, Islamic revivalist, Islamic purist, Islamic traditionalist, and Islamic neo-traditionalist. Apparently the media like one word terms so the darkhorse of two decades ago, Islamist came from behind to win.

Some Islamic fundamentalist groups are resolutely not only apolitical but frankly anti-political. Others are rabidly political but focus upon the regimes in their native country. Still others are rabidly political and revolutionary. Some of these are focused on one country, their own. Others such as Al Qaida are megalomaniac enough to seek world revolution and the global victory of Islam. Their form of Islam.

There have even been at least one Islamic purist movement, that one led by a Sudanese Quranic scholar named Tahe which argued that the Quran was not monolithic. Tahe contended before he was bulldozed to the gallows for reasons of Sudanese politics, that the Quran was comprised of two sets of revelations, those of the Medina period and those composed after Mohammad won, the Meccan revelations. Tahe argued (and paid for his argument at the rope's end) that the first set, the Medina revelations which emphasized peace and harmony and all the other gentle virtues pointed to by individuals seeking to prove that Islam is the religion of peace, is the true Islam.

The Meccan revelations to the contrary are loaded with the blood, gore and love of war that can only occur after victory in a hard fought, bitter internal war. It was prophecy at the dripping edge of the winning sword. This is the part of the Quran so loved by practitioners of jihad and suicide bombing.

So, then, Geek, who or what is an Islamist?

As the Geek sees it, an Islamist is an individual or a group dedicated to the use of violent terror tactics to achieve a religiopolitical goal. A suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with explosives into a crowded marketplace, the laddybucks who took hundreds with them on their death rides of 9/11, the Taliban fighter, most of the insurgents in Iraq, as well as those who recruit, train, plan, direct or support the lethal operations are Islamists. The others, those who do not use terror and violence, are covered by other terms.

The Geek has been asked (in the real, not the virtual world) what if any difference exists between the suicide bombers of recent years and the Kamikaze pilots of World War II in the Pacific. He has always been surprised at the naivete of the question. The answer is so obvious.

The Kamikaze pilot like the Japanese soldier who engaged in a suicidal final attack or pulled the pin of a hand grenade while holding it to his chest so as not to be captured played a fair and rational game. Kamikazes attacked warships. Soldiers went forward with bare hands and swords against American machine guns. No attacks were made on civilians.

The suicide bomber seeks out the softest of civilian targets. He attacks women, children and the elderly preferentially. That is the difference between Islamist and Kamikaze.

All too often the response has been, "Geek, so what? I mean, the Americans drop bombs on civilians."

True enough, the Geek acknowledges. However, even back in World War II, with one exception, none of the Western Allies waged intentional war on civilians.

Except for the British "Worker De-Housing Program," executed by the Royal Air Force's firebombing heavy bombers, civilian casualties were not the goal of the operation. They were unfortunate, regrettable collateral effects of efforts which were both proportionate to the military advantage accrued and conducted according to the customs, usages and laws of warfare. That was true even as regards the American firebomb and atomic bomb attacks on Japan.

That may not be a pleasant reality to consider. But it is the one that is true. Get a grip.

In later wars, even those currently underway, the US has taken great pains to avoid civilian casualties. Some military commentators have argued that we have been too fastidious. Whether that is true or not is beside the point. However, international custom, usage and law is clear: The responsibility to avert civilian casualties is the responsibility of the defender.

Taliban and the insurgents in Iraq have intentionally embedded military facilities and combatants in civilian locations and then taken propaganda advantage of the inevitable civilian casualties. (It is for this pragmatic reason that the Geek has argued in previous posts that the US has to stop using air delivered munitions.)

Now that the Geek has blown away false justifications and specious analogies, back to the main matter. The Islamist has a love affair with death. He wants to kill people, in wholesale lots if at all possible, but at retail if he must. He might like to live long enough to kill more, but if die he must, it's no big deal. The Meccan revelations have some well-known and well-specified rewards in store for him.

"OK," you agree, "the individual is a killer and a person ready to die as long as he kills in the process. But what about governments, like the Iranian? They're different. Governments don't want to see their own population killed."

"Oh. Really? Is that so?'" Replies the Geek. "We'll see about that."