Iran is both.
Underneath its risible surface Iran is a lethal menace. The Iranian mullahocracy and the government which fronts for it is a weapon pointed at its own citizens. The same deadly duo is a life threatening condition for the Mideast.
And, potentially, for the world as a whole.
Given the recent remarks by Ayatollah Ahmed Elmalhoda that feminists are "whores and foreign spies," the Geek expects the count of female corpses to grow in the Islamic Republic as Stalwart Defenders of the Faith execute these vile suborners of the Revolution and the Will of Allah. For details see, http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.2200287203.
The Ayatollahs'take on feminism would simply be bitterly amusing were it not for the past record of the regime in blocking Internet sites seen somehow as facilitating the Tehran described "destabilizing" agendas of foreign governments sponsoring feminism as subversion. The potential for humor is drained by the simple reality that the mullahocracy's hatred and fear of women allows the continuation of a policy of death by stoning despite official avowals that the barbaric practice had been made illegal. (As if hanging, decapitation or shooting somehow made the killing of women for adultery any less primitive, barbaric and savage.)
Iran's threat to the peace and stability of the Mideast has been made abundantly clear in recent days by the success of its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the meeting over the weekend between the Defense Ministers of Iran and Syria.
The Iranian threat to the region is also behind the recent interest in developing nuclear energy by the majority of the Mideast countries led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All of these eager seekers after the nuclear grail have taken the same line as the Iranians--they only want splittable atoms for the peaceful production of electricity.
Yeah. Right. And, "The check is in the mail," or "I'll call you tomorrow, babe."
Iranian nuclear ambitions also threaten the peace of the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) the report cannot be made public (see the IAEA website http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/iranreport0508.html.) The New York Times along with about half the world's mainstream media have copies.
The NYT gave the report above the fold billing and quoted its tough language. Take a look--http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?th&emc=th.
It comes as no shock that the Mouthpiece of the Revolution, PRESS-TV, saw the report as another IAEA award for Transparency in the Pursuit of Peace Loving Atoms. That view is at http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=57458§ionid=351020104.
The Iranian Republic News Agency was more restrained--by Iranian standards downright understated in its well below the fold coverage. http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0805279642004910.htm.
Regardless of framing, the underlying reality remains unchanged. Iran is seeking independent enrichment of uranium. It is installing new design, domestically fabricated high efficiency centrifuges. Foreign intelligence sources including but not limited to the US point at basic work conducted to provide effective weaponization of a uranium based bomb.
The mullahocracy has countered only by vitrupitation, denials and diversions such as the proposal for a conference that would include not only nuclear matters but regional concerns generally and Iranian worries about Venezuela and Bosnia.
What really makes Iran dangerous is not the nuclear stalemate per se.
No. What makes the mullahocracy and its facade government dangerous is the rapidity with which Iran is imploding economically, socially and politically.
For two years and more, capital has been fleeing Iran at an ever accelerating rate. This flight has been complemented by economic policies that can, at best, be characterized as suicidal. As a result, Iran is on the verge of uncontrollable hyperinflation.
For the moment Iran (along with Venezuela, its cohort in flirting with hyperinflation as well as partner in a recently announced joint bank) has been protected from its own economic throat slitting by the rise in oil prices. But, that rise is not unending. Indeed, it may have already ended without an extra barrel being pumped from the lands of OPEC.
Few governments have long survived hyperinflation.
Iran is also facing other internal problems. Unemployment is high and growing higher. At the least the national rate is twenty-five percent with higher percentages among the urban population generally and youth. The escalation in global food prices, in part caused by the rise in oil, is hitting a very large segment of the Iranian population very, very hard.
Another round of UN sanctions or even a more rigid enforcement of the sanctions regime currently in place will push the Iranian economy over the edge. The underlying discontent with the aging mullahocracy will be strongly exacerbated by the increase in the economic misery index.
When faced with a strong possibility of internal unrest, including violent opposition to the regime, governments have often sought to displace anger and frustration onto an external target. The Geek is certain that you can all think of examples.
The mullahocracy and its governmental talking dummies have already been taking that route. The "Zionist enemy" gets its unfair share of abuse daily. So also do the "Imperial powers" with the Great Satan at their head. Now, the feminists have been added to the list.
Rhetorical violence has its limits. At some point mere words do not counter the anger at the regime. Action is needed. Action that will both unify people behind government and vent the power of fear and hate.
The violence can be internally directed. Stone some women. Hang some "spies." Shoot some "traitors to the revolution."
However, unless the conditions that produced the original fear and anger are not addressed, even the most robust internal displacement measures will lose effect.
Considering the record to date of the Iranian mullahs, it is not too likely that things will improve in Shia Land.
External displacement measures will be necessary. In the words of an old Marx Brothers movie, "You realise, gentlemen, this means war!"
Of course the mullahs realise that.
Not that they care.
One way or another the theocracy is going to plunge down the tubes. At least in a war there is some chance to go down with glory.
And, come to think of it, since war is never predictable as to outcome, there is even some chance, Allah Willing, that the regime would come through intact.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Help Wanted! No Experience Necessary
Major international organization with affiliates and franchises across Mideast, Africa, Europe and the United States is now recruiting!
Successful applicants may be of any age and either sex. No specific education level is required although some positions may require technical skills.
Cognitively impaired? Emotionally troubled? No Problem!
We want you regardless of so called developmental difficulties or mental problems. We are truly equal opportunity!
Two of our most successful associates had Down's Syndrome. Others have had similar "problems."
Suicidal?
Don't wait!
Call us now!
We're al-Qaeda.
You've heard of us--now join us!
Just call us in Wazirastan. We're ready and waiting--
Are you?
Sure, al-Qaeda isn't running ads like this--yet. Still, the daring young men from the caves in the K-2 mountains might just as well be.
Either because the security forces in some locations have gotten good at stopping the usual suicide bomber or because the martyrdom brigade is running short of enlistees with big cajones and small cerebral cortexes, the Kill -Civilians-For-Allah mob has been increasingly relying on women and mentally or physically challenged.
The employment of female suicide bombers increased in Iraq--attributed by some mental health workers to the proliferation of widowhood in a war-torn society without support systems for women without "natural protectors." The Geek agrees with that argument but considers it to be only part of the story. The larger part is the nature of the hyper-patriarchal society made possible by Islamic doctrine.
The lives of women are cheap.
It is better women become martyrs than merely corpses with slit throats or blankets of rocks.
The Heroic Warriors of Islam pioneered another type of equal opportunity martyrdom in Iraq when they employed two women with Down's Syndrome to be (probably) unwitting carriers of remotely detonated bombs in the catastrophic market attacks earlier this year.
If the reports of the women's condition as given by Iraqi witnesses and authorities are true--and the Geek finds them credible after further investigation--the use of these individuals by the anti-government, anti-US terrorists marked a new and despicably low point in their tactics.
The Down's Syndrome kamikazes were a follow-on to the successful killing of an Iraqi general in Samarra in February by a man in a wheelchair. The Geek hasn't been able to resolve to his satisfaction from either US or Iraqi sources the question of the man's apparent disability or his volunteer status. Still, the event showed the willingness of the terrorists to employ either the appearance or reality of physical disability to circumvent security precautions.
(There is a US historical precedent for this approach. The assassin of President McKinley wrapped the pistol in his right hand as well as the hand that held it in a bandage and pulled the trigger as McKinley reached to shake the killer's left hand.)
The most recent attempt by the Gangsters For Global Jihad to exploit the cognitively impaired for terrorism comes from England. The other day Nicky Reilly, a 22 year old who has spent time in a mental hospital, suffered injuries when one of the three primitive bombs he was carrying detonated prematurely in the lavatory of a restaurant.
Reilly, a recent convert to Islam, has been described as having the mental age of ten and possibly laboring with the challenge of Asperger's Syndrome and schizophrenia. Those who knew him referred to him as a "shambling introvert." See the Times On-line for these characterizations. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3999058.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084)
A mental age of ten implies that Mr Reilly (or Mohammad Rasheed as he has been calling himself since converting) is severely mentally impaired. He would be easy pickings for a suitably intelligent al-Qaeda recruiter who had fewer ethics than a Mafia debt collector.
That Reilly was "controlled" by others is strongly implied by a text message received on his cell phone moments before his bomb exploded.
A person does not have to be possessed of a low IQ to fall prey to the homicidal beliefs of al-Qaeda thugs and their ilk. Certainly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the infamous KSM of 9/11) is not cognitively challenged although his Navy defense attorney at Gitmo who has a psych as well as a law degree thinks KSM suffers from a disorder listed in the DSM-IV.
In the UK the Security Service (MI-5) worries that Nicky Reilly, "the friendly giant" to his neighbors, is the first in a new line of the homegrown, foreign operated terror brigade. The Geek concurs.
So far there has been no official word from our protectors, the Department of Homeland Security, whose globe trotting Secretary has been most recently in Afghanistan conferring citizenship on foreign born US service personnel and making hortatory speeches. So the Geek doesn't know if we will be treated soon to an Orange Alert warning us to keep a wary eye on all of our fellow citizens who mumble to themselves on urban street corners or lack the IQ necessary to be rocket scientists.
The Geek certainly hopes that DHS plays it cool. True, the Glorious Fighters of Islamic Conquest might try to exploit those of us who are emotionally, cognitively or physically challenged. They might even succeed in a few cases.
But, if We the People respond by increased fear and loathing directed against the mumblers and shambling introverts, "the friendly giants" of our society, we will only succeed in becoming more rigid in our conformity and far less able to accept the differences that make humans more interesting than machines.
Successful applicants may be of any age and either sex. No specific education level is required although some positions may require technical skills.
Cognitively impaired? Emotionally troubled? No Problem!
We want you regardless of so called developmental difficulties or mental problems. We are truly equal opportunity!
Two of our most successful associates had Down's Syndrome. Others have had similar "problems."
Suicidal?
Don't wait!
Call us now!
We're al-Qaeda.
You've heard of us--now join us!
Just call us in Wazirastan. We're ready and waiting--
Are you?
Sure, al-Qaeda isn't running ads like this--yet. Still, the daring young men from the caves in the K-2 mountains might just as well be.
Either because the security forces in some locations have gotten good at stopping the usual suicide bomber or because the martyrdom brigade is running short of enlistees with big cajones and small cerebral cortexes, the Kill -Civilians-For-Allah mob has been increasingly relying on women and mentally or physically challenged.
The employment of female suicide bombers increased in Iraq--attributed by some mental health workers to the proliferation of widowhood in a war-torn society without support systems for women without "natural protectors." The Geek agrees with that argument but considers it to be only part of the story. The larger part is the nature of the hyper-patriarchal society made possible by Islamic doctrine.
The lives of women are cheap.
It is better women become martyrs than merely corpses with slit throats or blankets of rocks.
The Heroic Warriors of Islam pioneered another type of equal opportunity martyrdom in Iraq when they employed two women with Down's Syndrome to be (probably) unwitting carriers of remotely detonated bombs in the catastrophic market attacks earlier this year.
If the reports of the women's condition as given by Iraqi witnesses and authorities are true--and the Geek finds them credible after further investigation--the use of these individuals by the anti-government, anti-US terrorists marked a new and despicably low point in their tactics.
The Down's Syndrome kamikazes were a follow-on to the successful killing of an Iraqi general in Samarra in February by a man in a wheelchair. The Geek hasn't been able to resolve to his satisfaction from either US or Iraqi sources the question of the man's apparent disability or his volunteer status. Still, the event showed the willingness of the terrorists to employ either the appearance or reality of physical disability to circumvent security precautions.
(There is a US historical precedent for this approach. The assassin of President McKinley wrapped the pistol in his right hand as well as the hand that held it in a bandage and pulled the trigger as McKinley reached to shake the killer's left hand.)
The most recent attempt by the Gangsters For Global Jihad to exploit the cognitively impaired for terrorism comes from England. The other day Nicky Reilly, a 22 year old who has spent time in a mental hospital, suffered injuries when one of the three primitive bombs he was carrying detonated prematurely in the lavatory of a restaurant.
Reilly, a recent convert to Islam, has been described as having the mental age of ten and possibly laboring with the challenge of Asperger's Syndrome and schizophrenia. Those who knew him referred to him as a "shambling introvert." See the Times On-line for these characterizations. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3999058.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084)
A mental age of ten implies that Mr Reilly (or Mohammad Rasheed as he has been calling himself since converting) is severely mentally impaired. He would be easy pickings for a suitably intelligent al-Qaeda recruiter who had fewer ethics than a Mafia debt collector.
That Reilly was "controlled" by others is strongly implied by a text message received on his cell phone moments before his bomb exploded.
A person does not have to be possessed of a low IQ to fall prey to the homicidal beliefs of al-Qaeda thugs and their ilk. Certainly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the infamous KSM of 9/11) is not cognitively challenged although his Navy defense attorney at Gitmo who has a psych as well as a law degree thinks KSM suffers from a disorder listed in the DSM-IV.
In the UK the Security Service (MI-5) worries that Nicky Reilly, "the friendly giant" to his neighbors, is the first in a new line of the homegrown, foreign operated terror brigade. The Geek concurs.
So far there has been no official word from our protectors, the Department of Homeland Security, whose globe trotting Secretary has been most recently in Afghanistan conferring citizenship on foreign born US service personnel and making hortatory speeches. So the Geek doesn't know if we will be treated soon to an Orange Alert warning us to keep a wary eye on all of our fellow citizens who mumble to themselves on urban street corners or lack the IQ necessary to be rocket scientists.
The Geek certainly hopes that DHS plays it cool. True, the Glorious Fighters of Islamic Conquest might try to exploit those of us who are emotionally, cognitively or physically challenged. They might even succeed in a few cases.
But, if We the People respond by increased fear and loathing directed against the mumblers and shambling introverts, "the friendly giants" of our society, we will only succeed in becoming more rigid in our conformity and far less able to accept the differences that make humans more interesting than machines.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
What About Muslim Anti-Semitism?
In an add-on to yesterday's post on the PRESS-TV article (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=56834§ionid=3510303) and a closely related interview confusing "hate" speech and free speech (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=6244§ionid=3510302), the Geek has a question for the alleged signers of the open letter to the West, "Thousands of academics, intellectuals, poets, writers, artists, journalists and scientists of the Islamic countries."
The question?
Here it is. Where are your righteous protests regarding the decades of anti-Semitic diatribes, cartoons, films, songs and writings?
Or don't Jews count as religious people deserving the same respect as that which you demand for Muslims?
It can't be that Jews are not a religious people, can it? After all your whining missive specifically mentions Moses and Abraham. Aren't they major figures in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament? Doesn't the Prophet Mohammad make some favorable reference to them?
If it is--as your own writing implies--true that Judaism is a religion deserving respect then why don't you condemn the defamation of Jews and Judaism conducted for years, decades, centuries by Muslims?
Or perhaps your "intellectual" sensibilities are non-existent with respect to the vile billingsgate spewed by Muslim governments, Muslim non-governmental entities, Muslim clerics, Muslim individuals. Perhaps you don't believe that true believers in the Religion of Peace and Tolerance would--could--act in such a disgusting, inhuman way.
Well, Deep Thinking and Profoundly Offended Intellectuals, take a look at the web. You might try http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FI=D=253&PID=0&IID=644&TTL=Major_Anti-Semitic_Motifs_in_Arab_Cartoons. That particular post dates back a few years, so you might take a virtual walk through http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?isSearch=yes&isT8=yes&searchText=T99&pid=119&sid=15&preview. This site is current through the past month.
Both sites are Israeli but don't worry, neither has cartoons of Mohammad. They only show Muslim cartoons, children's books and scribblings for grown-ups(?) of a virulently anti-Semitic nature. The Geek is sure that no Muslim "academic, intellectual, etc" could possibly be offended.
Before the Geek leaves this subject and returns to matters of the real world, there are a couple of final points regarding the open letter.
The Geek would really appreciate it if the folks at PRESS-TV or whoever wrote the open letter could use the English language with precision. It would. for example, be both nice and accurate if the term "intellectuals" had not been employed to describe the "signers."
Why?
Simple. Intellectuals have been long noted for their constitutional inability to subscribe unquestioningly to dogma. An intellectual has too darn much fun playing with ideas to believe for a nanosecond that censorship is somehow justified. This, after all, was why the Communist Party not only in the US but the USSR had so much trouble co-opting authentic intellectuals and why intellectuals made up such a distinguished portion of the population in the frozen Gulag.
Then there is the word, "scientists." Islamic science is an oxymoron. For centuries the best that could--or can--be said of Islamic countries is that they produce technologists. Derivative technologists at that.
Science cannot flourish in rigid, authoritarian environments such as those which typify Islam dominated countries. While the Geek acknowledges the accomplishments of Muslim astronomers, physicians and mathematicians a thousand and more years ago as Europe lay intellectually prostrate under the heel of a repressive Church, in recent times, science--the methodical seeking after incremental truths about the universe and all that is in it--has been conspicuous by its absence in Muslim societies.
The Geek can believe that the letter was written by journalists. It has all the superficiality and notes of special pleading that characterize the product of journalists. The Geek can even believe that poets were involved in crafting the letter. It has the lack of firm connection with the cold world of reality which gives poetry its piquancy.
Most of all, the Geek can believe that the letter, like the interview and all the other outpourings of outraged Muslim sensibilities, was the product of insecure men.
Men driven by fear.
Men who accept the principles of doublethink.
Men who would mob together and chant, "Death to -----!" Men who accept, even applaud the killing and maiming of women as the will of the deity.
Men who approve of suicide bombers attacking non-combatants.
In short, men lacking in courage. Men without manliness.
The question?
Here it is. Where are your righteous protests regarding the decades of anti-Semitic diatribes, cartoons, films, songs and writings?
Or don't Jews count as religious people deserving the same respect as that which you demand for Muslims?
It can't be that Jews are not a religious people, can it? After all your whining missive specifically mentions Moses and Abraham. Aren't they major figures in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament? Doesn't the Prophet Mohammad make some favorable reference to them?
If it is--as your own writing implies--true that Judaism is a religion deserving respect then why don't you condemn the defamation of Jews and Judaism conducted for years, decades, centuries by Muslims?
Or perhaps your "intellectual" sensibilities are non-existent with respect to the vile billingsgate spewed by Muslim governments, Muslim non-governmental entities, Muslim clerics, Muslim individuals. Perhaps you don't believe that true believers in the Religion of Peace and Tolerance would--could--act in such a disgusting, inhuman way.
Well, Deep Thinking and Profoundly Offended Intellectuals, take a look at the web. You might try http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FI=D=253&PID=0&IID=644&TTL=Major_Anti-Semitic_Motifs_in_Arab_Cartoons. That particular post dates back a few years, so you might take a virtual walk through http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?isSearch=yes&isT8=yes&searchText=T99&pid=119&sid=15&preview. This site is current through the past month.
Both sites are Israeli but don't worry, neither has cartoons of Mohammad. They only show Muslim cartoons, children's books and scribblings for grown-ups(?) of a virulently anti-Semitic nature. The Geek is sure that no Muslim "academic, intellectual, etc" could possibly be offended.
Before the Geek leaves this subject and returns to matters of the real world, there are a couple of final points regarding the open letter.
The Geek would really appreciate it if the folks at PRESS-TV or whoever wrote the open letter could use the English language with precision. It would. for example, be both nice and accurate if the term "intellectuals" had not been employed to describe the "signers."
Why?
Simple. Intellectuals have been long noted for their constitutional inability to subscribe unquestioningly to dogma. An intellectual has too darn much fun playing with ideas to believe for a nanosecond that censorship is somehow justified. This, after all, was why the Communist Party not only in the US but the USSR had so much trouble co-opting authentic intellectuals and why intellectuals made up such a distinguished portion of the population in the frozen Gulag.
Then there is the word, "scientists." Islamic science is an oxymoron. For centuries the best that could--or can--be said of Islamic countries is that they produce technologists. Derivative technologists at that.
Science cannot flourish in rigid, authoritarian environments such as those which typify Islam dominated countries. While the Geek acknowledges the accomplishments of Muslim astronomers, physicians and mathematicians a thousand and more years ago as Europe lay intellectually prostrate under the heel of a repressive Church, in recent times, science--the methodical seeking after incremental truths about the universe and all that is in it--has been conspicuous by its absence in Muslim societies.
The Geek can believe that the letter was written by journalists. It has all the superficiality and notes of special pleading that characterize the product of journalists. The Geek can even believe that poets were involved in crafting the letter. It has the lack of firm connection with the cold world of reality which gives poetry its piquancy.
Most of all, the Geek can believe that the letter, like the interview and all the other outpourings of outraged Muslim sensibilities, was the product of insecure men.
Men driven by fear.
Men who accept the principles of doublethink.
Men who would mob together and chant, "Death to -----!" Men who accept, even applaud the killing and maiming of women as the will of the deity.
Men who approve of suicide bombers attacking non-combatants.
In short, men lacking in courage. Men without manliness.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Some Muslims Are Awesomely Insecure
The Geek was all cranked up to post on the current violence in South Africa, but a post from PRESS TV ( ohttp://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56834§ionid=3510303) out of Iran caught his attention. And rankled him.
Once again (some) Muslims are making a mighty moan about the West. The West apparently is a monolithic monster breathing satanic fumes of Islamophobia and similar foul odors of blasphemy. Worse, the loathsome Moloch of the West justifies its conduct by invoking a patently secular totem--Free Speech.
The nerve of the Secular Savages of the West astonished the writers of this open letter, identified on as "Thousands of academics, intellectuals, poets, writers, artists, journalists and scientists of the Islamic countries."
It strikes the Geek that this panoply of deep thinking desperately offended academics, intellectuals, et cetera, possess an extremely shallow understanding of the post-Enlightenment trajectory of Western Europe and the United States.
Perhaps they have to appreciate that the Enlightenment and its aftermath are not universally well-regarded in either Europe or the United States.
Perhaps the size of the Christian Fundamentalist movement which contains a significant number of Enlightenment deniers (at least in the US) has eluded them.
Perhaps they have missed the explosive rise of multi-culturalism in the post-Modernist period not only in the US but Europe as well.
More importantly these anonymous "academics, intellectuals" et cetera have overlooked that the West has undergone a number of fierce, violent conflicts over the past centuries all of which have been predicated to a significant extent upon the right of the individual as opposed to the authority of the community.
Ultimately the conflicts have ended in favor of the individual. The individual has been acknowledged to possess certain basic rights. Chief among them has been the right to free expression construed broadly and its essential twin, freedom of inquiry.
The rights of free inquiry and expression are particularly protected in the United States. As a result expression is notably raucous, boisterous and occasionally quite tasteless in the US.
(Intellectual honesty requires the Geek to admit he is periodically offended by some of what he sees, reads or hears.)
Religion is not off-limits for discussion--even attack. Nor should it be. Religion, like politics and economics is part of the human experience and as such is fair game for investigation, debate and disagreement.
That's the way it should be. As soon as one area of human discourse is ruled sacrosanct, no other area is safe. The reasons for insulating one specific arena of discourse out-of-bounds are immaterial. The harm is done by the prohibition.
Most Western governments and societies recognise this. They are secure enough in their values and identities not to seek the imposition of cordons sanitaires.
Apparently most Islamic governments and societies lack the same measure of security in values and identities. They not only need off-limit signs--they demand them.
If these insecure Muslims demanded thought police and mental shackles be applied only to themselves, this might be lamentable, unfortunate and ultimately counterproductive, but it would be their right.
The problem comes when the Legion of the Insecure demand that all humans be confined in the prison of Islamic sensibilities. This is neither ethically justifiable on any grounds nor allowable.
If Islam is the final, most highly perfected form of monotheism as the open letter from the Terminally Offended indicates, then why are they so insecure about it?
It seems to the Geek that certainty of correctness should lead to serenity when under putative attack. If cartoons, or grade school kids naming a rabbit Mohammad or even a US Army sergeant shooting up a copy of the Quran shakes the base of a religion adhered to by 1.5 giga-people, one can only wonder about the strength of that base.
Muslims howling about slander under the rubric of free speech are not the first to seek limits on the ability of individuals to write, speak, read or hear all forms of opinion or the manifold contradictory facts abounding in the world. Limits have been attempted--and failed--even in the US.
Remember all the well-intentioned efforts by assorted state legislatures back during the Fifties to purge our university campuses of "communists?" Recall all the state imposed bans on "communist" speakers or the possession by libraries of "communist" literature?"
The Geek thought at the time as did many of his contemporaries--the supposed beneficiaries of these "protect our precious children" enactments--that if free enterprise economics and democratic processes were so inherently good, what was the need to stifle opposing perspectives?
Censorship whether for political or religious reasons, no matter how presented, is not simply wrong. The imposition of limits on speech whether to protect the minds of children or to guard the sensitivities of (some) Muslims is simply a sign of underlying insecurity.
Censorship screams, "Maybe what I/we believe isn't right after all."
Censorship screams with fear, deep and primordial, "Maybe I'm wrong."
Censorship is the coward's way out of real debate.
Once again (some) Muslims are making a mighty moan about the West. The West apparently is a monolithic monster breathing satanic fumes of Islamophobia and similar foul odors of blasphemy. Worse, the loathsome Moloch of the West justifies its conduct by invoking a patently secular totem--Free Speech.
The nerve of the Secular Savages of the West astonished the writers of this open letter, identified on as "Thousands of academics, intellectuals, poets, writers, artists, journalists and scientists of the Islamic countries."
It strikes the Geek that this panoply of deep thinking desperately offended academics, intellectuals, et cetera, possess an extremely shallow understanding of the post-Enlightenment trajectory of Western Europe and the United States.
Perhaps they have to appreciate that the Enlightenment and its aftermath are not universally well-regarded in either Europe or the United States.
Perhaps the size of the Christian Fundamentalist movement which contains a significant number of Enlightenment deniers (at least in the US) has eluded them.
Perhaps they have missed the explosive rise of multi-culturalism in the post-Modernist period not only in the US but Europe as well.
More importantly these anonymous "academics, intellectuals" et cetera have overlooked that the West has undergone a number of fierce, violent conflicts over the past centuries all of which have been predicated to a significant extent upon the right of the individual as opposed to the authority of the community.
Ultimately the conflicts have ended in favor of the individual. The individual has been acknowledged to possess certain basic rights. Chief among them has been the right to free expression construed broadly and its essential twin, freedom of inquiry.
The rights of free inquiry and expression are particularly protected in the United States. As a result expression is notably raucous, boisterous and occasionally quite tasteless in the US.
(Intellectual honesty requires the Geek to admit he is periodically offended by some of what he sees, reads or hears.)
Religion is not off-limits for discussion--even attack. Nor should it be. Religion, like politics and economics is part of the human experience and as such is fair game for investigation, debate and disagreement.
That's the way it should be. As soon as one area of human discourse is ruled sacrosanct, no other area is safe. The reasons for insulating one specific arena of discourse out-of-bounds are immaterial. The harm is done by the prohibition.
Most Western governments and societies recognise this. They are secure enough in their values and identities not to seek the imposition of cordons sanitaires.
Apparently most Islamic governments and societies lack the same measure of security in values and identities. They not only need off-limit signs--they demand them.
If these insecure Muslims demanded thought police and mental shackles be applied only to themselves, this might be lamentable, unfortunate and ultimately counterproductive, but it would be their right.
The problem comes when the Legion of the Insecure demand that all humans be confined in the prison of Islamic sensibilities. This is neither ethically justifiable on any grounds nor allowable.
If Islam is the final, most highly perfected form of monotheism as the open letter from the Terminally Offended indicates, then why are they so insecure about it?
It seems to the Geek that certainty of correctness should lead to serenity when under putative attack. If cartoons, or grade school kids naming a rabbit Mohammad or even a US Army sergeant shooting up a copy of the Quran shakes the base of a religion adhered to by 1.5 giga-people, one can only wonder about the strength of that base.
Muslims howling about slander under the rubric of free speech are not the first to seek limits on the ability of individuals to write, speak, read or hear all forms of opinion or the manifold contradictory facts abounding in the world. Limits have been attempted--and failed--even in the US.
Remember all the well-intentioned efforts by assorted state legislatures back during the Fifties to purge our university campuses of "communists?" Recall all the state imposed bans on "communist" speakers or the possession by libraries of "communist" literature?"
The Geek thought at the time as did many of his contemporaries--the supposed beneficiaries of these "protect our precious children" enactments--that if free enterprise economics and democratic processes were so inherently good, what was the need to stifle opposing perspectives?
Censorship whether for political or religious reasons, no matter how presented, is not simply wrong. The imposition of limits on speech whether to protect the minds of children or to guard the sensitivities of (some) Muslims is simply a sign of underlying insecurity.
Censorship screams, "Maybe what I/we believe isn't right after all."
Censorship screams with fear, deep and primordial, "Maybe I'm wrong."
Censorship is the coward's way out of real debate.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Looks Like Turkey Is Starting the Reformation--Or Not
Months ago the Geek posted his view that under all the hoopla over "Islamists" coming to power in Turkey, the reality might be different. To the Geek it appeared possible, if not overwhelmingly likely, that the emergence of the admittedly Islamist rooted AKP as the majority party in Turkey would help bring about the start of an Islamic Reformation.
Recent developments in the country appear to support the Geek's assessment. He would like to start crowing about his prescience, but can't. Not and be honest.
The most intriguing development comes from the quaintly named Presidency of Religious Affairs and Religious Charitable Foundation (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/default.asp.) As announced earlier this year, The Presidency has initiated a three year program entitled the Hadith Project.
This might be important. And, then, it might not.
The Hadith comprises some 162,000 sayings and actions attributed to the Prophet Mohammad. Complementing the Quran, the Hadith serves as a foundation for Islamic law, Shari'a. The Hadith is central to the understanding and practice of Islam today.
The goal of the Hadith Project is to winnow the Hadith, to prune out those sayings which contradict the Quran or violate the fundamental principles of Islam. One member of the eighty-five member panel, Ankara University theology professor Ismail Hakki Unni, is reported to have said, "The Koran is our basic guide. Anything that conflicts with that we are trying to eliminate."
The Presidency in a carefully worded press release describes the nature and extent of the project. (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/englh.asp?id=114.) The concluding line of the release is, "It will constitute an important step for carrying the universal message of the Prophet of Islam to the 21st century."
This simple wording encloses a major set of changes in the orientation of the Hadith. The goal of the Project according to Mehmet Gormez, senior lecturer in Hadith at the University of Ankara, is to bring out the portions of the Prophet's message which support human rights, women's rights, justice and respect for the other. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211288138020&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Of course all must not be seen as peace, love and modernization on the Islamic Front no matter how engaging Gormez's words might be.
The relationship of the Presidency with the rest of the Turkish government must be looked at closely and critically. How independent are the assorted scholars and theologians associated with the Project? What agenda(s) are at work below the surface?
One possible hint regarding the currents running deep below the still waters of Gormez's characterization is given by the headscarf issue.
The headscarf issue?
You bet. The wearing of headscarves by Turkish women has become a barometer of Islamist tendencies. The AKP has moved to drop the Ataturk-era ban on women wearing headscarves in government offices and on university campuses.
The Hadith Project will apparently be evading the headscarf issue. Does that mean it will evade other touchy, but utterly central matters such as jihad, the ability of a Muslim to convert to another religion without fear of the death penalty or the rights of non-Muslims?
The Geek likes Turks very much. He hopes to see Turkey play the key role geography and history has made possible for the country as the broker between Muslims and the West. He would be delighted if the Hadith Project is the opening of an Islamic Reformation.
But, the Geek has doubts. Major doubts. He sees a possibility far larger in likelihood than Reformation.
Here it is, bucko.
The end result of the Hadith Project will be limited in impact to social issues of high visibility and easy condemnation such as honor killings, female genital mutilation and (perhaps) suicide bombings directed at non-combatants.
This would make Islam and Islamism more defensible as religio-political ideologies (and Turkey more attractive for EU membership.)
It would not, repeat, not either reform or modernise Islam. It would not, repeat, not defang the global ambitions of Islamists. It would not even limit the utility of jihadism and most of its tactics.
The Geek hopes he is wrong about the downside of the Hadith Project. But, he won't bet the ranch on it.
Recent developments in the country appear to support the Geek's assessment. He would like to start crowing about his prescience, but can't. Not and be honest.
The most intriguing development comes from the quaintly named Presidency of Religious Affairs and Religious Charitable Foundation (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/default.asp.) As announced earlier this year, The Presidency has initiated a three year program entitled the Hadith Project.
This might be important. And, then, it might not.
The Hadith comprises some 162,000 sayings and actions attributed to the Prophet Mohammad. Complementing the Quran, the Hadith serves as a foundation for Islamic law, Shari'a. The Hadith is central to the understanding and practice of Islam today.
The goal of the Hadith Project is to winnow the Hadith, to prune out those sayings which contradict the Quran or violate the fundamental principles of Islam. One member of the eighty-five member panel, Ankara University theology professor Ismail Hakki Unni, is reported to have said, "The Koran is our basic guide. Anything that conflicts with that we are trying to eliminate."
The Presidency in a carefully worded press release describes the nature and extent of the project. (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/englh.asp?id=114.) The concluding line of the release is, "It will constitute an important step for carrying the universal message of the Prophet of Islam to the 21st century."
This simple wording encloses a major set of changes in the orientation of the Hadith. The goal of the Project according to Mehmet Gormez, senior lecturer in Hadith at the University of Ankara, is to bring out the portions of the Prophet's message which support human rights, women's rights, justice and respect for the other. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211288138020&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Of course all must not be seen as peace, love and modernization on the Islamic Front no matter how engaging Gormez's words might be.
The relationship of the Presidency with the rest of the Turkish government must be looked at closely and critically. How independent are the assorted scholars and theologians associated with the Project? What agenda(s) are at work below the surface?
One possible hint regarding the currents running deep below the still waters of Gormez's characterization is given by the headscarf issue.
The headscarf issue?
You bet. The wearing of headscarves by Turkish women has become a barometer of Islamist tendencies. The AKP has moved to drop the Ataturk-era ban on women wearing headscarves in government offices and on university campuses.
The Hadith Project will apparently be evading the headscarf issue. Does that mean it will evade other touchy, but utterly central matters such as jihad, the ability of a Muslim to convert to another religion without fear of the death penalty or the rights of non-Muslims?
The Geek likes Turks very much. He hopes to see Turkey play the key role geography and history has made possible for the country as the broker between Muslims and the West. He would be delighted if the Hadith Project is the opening of an Islamic Reformation.
But, the Geek has doubts. Major doubts. He sees a possibility far larger in likelihood than Reformation.
Here it is, bucko.
The end result of the Hadith Project will be limited in impact to social issues of high visibility and easy condemnation such as honor killings, female genital mutilation and (perhaps) suicide bombings directed at non-combatants.
This would make Islam and Islamism more defensible as religio-political ideologies (and Turkey more attractive for EU membership.)
It would not, repeat, not either reform or modernise Islam. It would not, repeat, not defang the global ambitions of Islamists. It would not even limit the utility of jihadism and most of its tactics.
The Geek hopes he is wrong about the downside of the Hadith Project. But, he won't bet the ranch on it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Some Muslims Live In the Land of Newspeak
The most chilling feature of George Orwell's classic 1984 (at least to the Geek) was the intentional impoverishment and distortion of language embodied in the new form of English called "Newspeak." The purpose of the new language was to enable people to engage in "doublethink," the holding of two mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously--and believe each was true.
A second goal of Newspeak was to make holding certain ideas literally impossible as there would be no words, no symbols to represent them.
Some Muslims at least accept both goals. They not only practice doublethink but want all of us to join them in the process. Beyond that they desire the eradication of some words in order that people not be able to formulate certain ideas which these Muslims find odious.
The statement, "Islam is the religion of peace" is on a par with the Orwellian phrases, "War is Peace," or "Freedom is Slavery."
Or, if you don't find "Islam is the religion of peace" sufficiently redolent of Newspeak, how about calling on a "Most Merciful and Compassionate" deity in a fatwa authorizing the death of an author or even an anonymous group of women and children?
Newspeaking Muslims include not just the usual deniers of Islamic rooted terrorism such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or other offshoots of the Islamic Brotherhood, but purportedly responsible leaders of governments formally aligned with the US in the fight against jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Taliban. Neither are Muslim Newspeakers confined to the Wahabist clerics or Iranian ayatollahs.
They include the Speaker of the National Assembly in Pakistan. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press of Pakistan, http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38881&Itemid=2, the Speaker, Dr. Fehmida Mirza, proclaimed to a visiting delegation of Iranians, "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all it forms and manifestations and it was the responsibility of religious scholars to play their role to remove the misperceptions of the West about Islam."
Right.
Unfortunately the Speaker didn't explain how this position squared with a report coming from the very same country she allegedly helps govern. The story (but not the video) ran on CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/20/cbsnews_investigates/main4110408.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4110408)
The star is a young boy, estimated to be about twelve years old. The featured supporting player was a man of unknown age accused of spying on the jihadists who is prone on the ground, trussed and bound.
The action is simple. The kid wields a machete. Cuts off the head of the man on the ground. Holds it up to the camera.
The dialogue is even simpler. The kid crys, "Allah o Akbar." The Geek presumes that the head chopping kid is praising the Most Merciful and Compassionate One.
This video and many like it were and are being made in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, The two Waziristans (North and South, for those of you who like details) are also the center of al-Qaeda and Taliban training, logistics and base camps offering support to those fighting the Americans, NATO and, lest we forget, Afghans across the border.
It is also worth noting that the preferred tactic of the "Holy Warriors of Islam" is the bombing of civilians.
"Religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations..." So said the Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan. And, she must be an honest and honorable woman.
"Doublethink!" The Geek thinks.
No response was quoted for the delegation of the Guardian Council from the Islamic Republic of Iran. But, it's probably fair to think they agreed with the Speaker.
After all, the Iranian mullahocracy has often stated that Iran abhors terrorism and would never, never, never have anything to do with sponsoring or supporting it. And the assorted mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise the Iranian government must all be honest and honorable men.
Another example of Muslim style Newspeak that particularly rankles is the term "honor killing."
How is killing one's own daughters because they dressed and acted like the American teenagers they were a matter of "honor?"
How is killing one's sister (whom one has abused before) for no particular reason a matter of "honor?" The Geek would list more but it makes him sick.
Killing, particularly the killing of unarmed, defenseless women is not and can never be "honorable." It is true that women, children and other people without means of defending themselves are killed. With few exceptions the goal of military operations has not been the killing of civilians--even adult civilian men.
The Muslim "honor" killing is not an act of war. It is not even the act of the suicide bomber hitting the clicker in a crowded marketplace. It is an act of cold, ruthless murder. The act of murdering, not a stranger, but a person's own daughter, sister, wife.
Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could make any effort to justify it as a matter of family "honor." Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could see despicable up close and personal homicide of this sort as fitting with the demands of a Most Merciful and Compassionate deity.
It is not "Islamophobic" to point out the doublethinking nature of some Muslims. It is not "Islamophobic" to reject the Newspeak demands of some Muslims. It is neither insensitive nor phobic to insist that language be used correctly, even bluntly.
Remember in 1984 Newspeak was not only the prime tool of government control of all aspects of life. Newspeak aided mightily in assuring that perpetual war was the fate of the human race.
The war with Islamists and jihadists need not--can not--last forever. If we are going to end it with our victory, the calls to adopt Newspeak and doublethink, Muslim style must be rejected fast and hard.
A second goal of Newspeak was to make holding certain ideas literally impossible as there would be no words, no symbols to represent them.
Some Muslims at least accept both goals. They not only practice doublethink but want all of us to join them in the process. Beyond that they desire the eradication of some words in order that people not be able to formulate certain ideas which these Muslims find odious.
The statement, "Islam is the religion of peace" is on a par with the Orwellian phrases, "War is Peace," or "Freedom is Slavery."
Or, if you don't find "Islam is the religion of peace" sufficiently redolent of Newspeak, how about calling on a "Most Merciful and Compassionate" deity in a fatwa authorizing the death of an author or even an anonymous group of women and children?
Newspeaking Muslims include not just the usual deniers of Islamic rooted terrorism such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or other offshoots of the Islamic Brotherhood, but purportedly responsible leaders of governments formally aligned with the US in the fight against jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Taliban. Neither are Muslim Newspeakers confined to the Wahabist clerics or Iranian ayatollahs.
They include the Speaker of the National Assembly in Pakistan. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press of Pakistan, http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38881&Itemid=2, the Speaker, Dr. Fehmida Mirza, proclaimed to a visiting delegation of Iranians, "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all it forms and manifestations and it was the responsibility of religious scholars to play their role to remove the misperceptions of the West about Islam."
Right.
Unfortunately the Speaker didn't explain how this position squared with a report coming from the very same country she allegedly helps govern. The story (but not the video) ran on CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/20/cbsnews_investigates/main4110408.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4110408)
The star is a young boy, estimated to be about twelve years old. The featured supporting player was a man of unknown age accused of spying on the jihadists who is prone on the ground, trussed and bound.
The action is simple. The kid wields a machete. Cuts off the head of the man on the ground. Holds it up to the camera.
The dialogue is even simpler. The kid crys, "Allah o Akbar." The Geek presumes that the head chopping kid is praising the Most Merciful and Compassionate One.
This video and many like it were and are being made in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, The two Waziristans (North and South, for those of you who like details) are also the center of al-Qaeda and Taliban training, logistics and base camps offering support to those fighting the Americans, NATO and, lest we forget, Afghans across the border.
It is also worth noting that the preferred tactic of the "Holy Warriors of Islam" is the bombing of civilians.
"Religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations..." So said the Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan. And, she must be an honest and honorable woman.
"Doublethink!" The Geek thinks.
No response was quoted for the delegation of the Guardian Council from the Islamic Republic of Iran. But, it's probably fair to think they agreed with the Speaker.
After all, the Iranian mullahocracy has often stated that Iran abhors terrorism and would never, never, never have anything to do with sponsoring or supporting it. And the assorted mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise the Iranian government must all be honest and honorable men.
Another example of Muslim style Newspeak that particularly rankles is the term "honor killing."
How is killing one's own daughters because they dressed and acted like the American teenagers they were a matter of "honor?"
How is killing one's sister (whom one has abused before) for no particular reason a matter of "honor?" The Geek would list more but it makes him sick.
Killing, particularly the killing of unarmed, defenseless women is not and can never be "honorable." It is true that women, children and other people without means of defending themselves are killed. With few exceptions the goal of military operations has not been the killing of civilians--even adult civilian men.
The Muslim "honor" killing is not an act of war. It is not even the act of the suicide bomber hitting the clicker in a crowded marketplace. It is an act of cold, ruthless murder. The act of murdering, not a stranger, but a person's own daughter, sister, wife.
Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could make any effort to justify it as a matter of family "honor." Only a person well versed in the practice of doublethink could see despicable up close and personal homicide of this sort as fitting with the demands of a Most Merciful and Compassionate deity.
It is not "Islamophobic" to point out the doublethinking nature of some Muslims. It is not "Islamophobic" to reject the Newspeak demands of some Muslims. It is neither insensitive nor phobic to insist that language be used correctly, even bluntly.
Remember in 1984 Newspeak was not only the prime tool of government control of all aspects of life. Newspeak aided mightily in assuring that perpetual war was the fate of the human race.
The war with Islamists and jihadists need not--can not--last forever. If we are going to end it with our victory, the calls to adopt Newspeak and doublethink, Muslim style must be rejected fast and hard.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Words, Words and More Words--About Words
Question 1. A jihadist is not a jihadist if--
A.) he is dead
B.) the fatwa authorizing his jihad is cancelled by clerical authority
C.) the clicker on his vest/vehicle/roadside bomb fails
D.) the National Counterterrorism Center and Department of Homeland Security
pronounce that the word must never be used except in a peaceful way
E.) none of the above.
Question 2. An Islamist is--
A.) an adherent of Islam
B.) a student of the foundations and tenets of Islam
C.) a political radical seeking the imposition of Islamic law on a people
D.) a believer in the necessity, desirability and inevitability of the global caliphate
E.) a figment of the fevered minds of Islamophobes
Question 3. A moderate Muslim is--
A.) a member of the silent Islamic majority who may or may not support terror
B.) a Muslim who rises in indignant opposition to those who pilfer Islam in the
cause of killing women, children and other civilians
C.) the target audience for US public diplomacy
D.) a Muslim the US must not risk offending lest he join the black hats
E,) nonexistent given the radical political nature of Islam from a Western
perspective
Question 4. Which statements are true
A.) Muslim terrorist is an oxymoron
B.) Jihad refers to peaceful internal struggle
C.) Jihad refers to peaceful struggle against human enemies such as poverty and
racism
D.) Calling suicide bombers "jihadists" or "mujahideen" confers legitimacy on
them
E.) According to the US Government, all of the above.
(If you answered 1-E, 2-E, 3-C and 4-E you are a US Government approved Sensitive Person. You have also had your visa to the Republic of Reality cancelled.)
The United States is not engaged in a Great Global War on Terror. We are haphazardly skirmishing with a specific and easily defined transnational group including both non-governmental actors and States which espouse the supremacy of Islam and pursue a political agenda which is hoped will lead to the establishment of a global caliphate and the universal application of Islamic law and principles.
What's hard to understand in that?
Islamism and jihadism have been around a long while. Since the purported receipt of the Word From On High by the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing hard to grasp there.
Nothing inherently wrong with the idea either. Islamists are welcome to have their beliefs. They are welcome to hope, pray and even argue that their desired end goal will come to fruition.
Islamists and their more action oriented kin, the jihadist, must not be permitted to use force, the threat of force or subversion to impose their vision upon individuals and nations that do not wish to live in an Islamic Paradise. (Or go there post-mortem.)
Drawing and defending that line is or should be the focus of the United States and kindred spirit countries. It is no more and certainly no less than what we did with respect to expansionist oriented, Soviet Union powered Communism during the Cold War.
Yes, the Geek readily acknowledges that the US government engaged in infuriating excesses of thought policing during the Cold War. As a historian he can cite chapter, verse and line about those excesses both foreign and domestic.
The Geek is quite well aware that the US often committed the fatal blunder of confusing short-term order under a repressive dictator with long term stability within a foreign nation. He knows the US often, all-too-often tried to put the brakes on change within another society and culture with long-term disastrous results for both them and us.
Recognising all of this it is still necessary to state unequivocally that during the Cold War the US understood the nature and character of the threat--the enemy, if you'll permit the Geek to use a harsh, blunt word.
More, the US understood the nature, character and appeal of its values, beliefs and institutions--warts, scars and all. We knew ourselves as we were and showed it to the world even if many were unwilling or unable to accept us as we presented ourselves.
The knowledge of ourselves and our adversaries served us well. It was a (perhaps the) key to understanding the final outcome of the Cold War.
Now it appears that we have thrown all that aside. Our government is unwilling or unable to define who the enemy is and where the threat originates.
Worse, our government--at least the current administration--seems to be gripless regarding just who or what we are and how best to present that to the world. Particularly that portion of the world covered by the word, Muslim.
The effort by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security joined by the State Department to become the Word Police has been given wide currency over the Internet. There is no need for the Geek to summarize the NCTC-DHS dictat.
Wrong headed attempts to assuage the ever-so-sensitive feelings of some American resident Muslims might be warm and fuzzy, but they are ultimately counterproductive in a world filled with cold sharpies.
The last time the US government tried such an exercise in the softening of terms was in 1948 and 1949 when members of the Truman Administration referred to the Chinese Communists of Mao as being "agrarian reformers."
Islamists and jihadists wear the label with pride. They know what they want. They know who they are. There is no reason for the government not to use the same terms.
If some non-Islamist, non-jihadist Muslims take unwarranted offense, that is their problem and the government need take no responsibility for it. There are more than enough multi-cultural oriented academics to wring their hands and view with dismay. The government and the rest of us don't have to join in the circle of tears.
More importantly, the US would be best served not by tender ministration to easily bruised sensitivity but by a robust declaration of what we stand for and why we stand for it.
Unlike the death worshiping Islamists/jihadists, the people of the United States are life oriented, life-affirming. We see both the risks and, more, the opportunities of life. We pursue life and all it has to offer with very few of us casting glances at some presumed pit of hell waiting to swallow our souls.
Unlike fear ridden, eager-to-submit to Higher Authority Islamists and jihadists, We the People are willing, even eager, to stand tall and proud, meeting authority on our terms--not its. We can admit our collective mistakes, the "sins" of our ancestors, rectify the wrongs and seek a better collective future.
Yes, we may take our individualism too far. Yes, we may be a messy people given to too much consumption (at least in the eyes of some). But, in our boisterous and often too exploitative way, we have been living up to that long ago vision of John Winthrop of establishing a "shining city."
Instead of playing the role of the politically correct English Department, the US government should speak of our adversaries bluntly and directly, calling them what they are. More, We the People best demand of the next administration that it get on with the task of letting all those "moderate" Muslims of the Islamic Silent Majority know just what we are and why we are that way.
Perhaps, just maybe, then the Silent Muslim Majority will find its collective voice and drown the demands of the Islamist for more martyrdom in a chorus of "No!"
A.) he is dead
B.) the fatwa authorizing his jihad is cancelled by clerical authority
C.) the clicker on his vest/vehicle/roadside bomb fails
D.) the National Counterterrorism Center and Department of Homeland Security
pronounce that the word must never be used except in a peaceful way
E.) none of the above.
Question 2. An Islamist is--
A.) an adherent of Islam
B.) a student of the foundations and tenets of Islam
C.) a political radical seeking the imposition of Islamic law on a people
D.) a believer in the necessity, desirability and inevitability of the global caliphate
E.) a figment of the fevered minds of Islamophobes
Question 3. A moderate Muslim is--
A.) a member of the silent Islamic majority who may or may not support terror
B.) a Muslim who rises in indignant opposition to those who pilfer Islam in the
cause of killing women, children and other civilians
C.) the target audience for US public diplomacy
D.) a Muslim the US must not risk offending lest he join the black hats
E,) nonexistent given the radical political nature of Islam from a Western
perspective
Question 4. Which statements are true
A.) Muslim terrorist is an oxymoron
B.) Jihad refers to peaceful internal struggle
C.) Jihad refers to peaceful struggle against human enemies such as poverty and
racism
D.) Calling suicide bombers "jihadists" or "mujahideen" confers legitimacy on
them
E.) According to the US Government, all of the above.
(If you answered 1-E, 2-E, 3-C and 4-E you are a US Government approved Sensitive Person. You have also had your visa to the Republic of Reality cancelled.)
The United States is not engaged in a Great Global War on Terror. We are haphazardly skirmishing with a specific and easily defined transnational group including both non-governmental actors and States which espouse the supremacy of Islam and pursue a political agenda which is hoped will lead to the establishment of a global caliphate and the universal application of Islamic law and principles.
What's hard to understand in that?
Islamism and jihadism have been around a long while. Since the purported receipt of the Word From On High by the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing hard to grasp there.
Nothing inherently wrong with the idea either. Islamists are welcome to have their beliefs. They are welcome to hope, pray and even argue that their desired end goal will come to fruition.
Islamists and their more action oriented kin, the jihadist, must not be permitted to use force, the threat of force or subversion to impose their vision upon individuals and nations that do not wish to live in an Islamic Paradise. (Or go there post-mortem.)
Drawing and defending that line is or should be the focus of the United States and kindred spirit countries. It is no more and certainly no less than what we did with respect to expansionist oriented, Soviet Union powered Communism during the Cold War.
Yes, the Geek readily acknowledges that the US government engaged in infuriating excesses of thought policing during the Cold War. As a historian he can cite chapter, verse and line about those excesses both foreign and domestic.
The Geek is quite well aware that the US often committed the fatal blunder of confusing short-term order under a repressive dictator with long term stability within a foreign nation. He knows the US often, all-too-often tried to put the brakes on change within another society and culture with long-term disastrous results for both them and us.
Recognising all of this it is still necessary to state unequivocally that during the Cold War the US understood the nature and character of the threat--the enemy, if you'll permit the Geek to use a harsh, blunt word.
More, the US understood the nature, character and appeal of its values, beliefs and institutions--warts, scars and all. We knew ourselves as we were and showed it to the world even if many were unwilling or unable to accept us as we presented ourselves.
The knowledge of ourselves and our adversaries served us well. It was a (perhaps the) key to understanding the final outcome of the Cold War.
Now it appears that we have thrown all that aside. Our government is unwilling or unable to define who the enemy is and where the threat originates.
Worse, our government--at least the current administration--seems to be gripless regarding just who or what we are and how best to present that to the world. Particularly that portion of the world covered by the word, Muslim.
The effort by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security joined by the State Department to become the Word Police has been given wide currency over the Internet. There is no need for the Geek to summarize the NCTC-DHS dictat.
Wrong headed attempts to assuage the ever-so-sensitive feelings of some American resident Muslims might be warm and fuzzy, but they are ultimately counterproductive in a world filled with cold sharpies.
The last time the US government tried such an exercise in the softening of terms was in 1948 and 1949 when members of the Truman Administration referred to the Chinese Communists of Mao as being "agrarian reformers."
Islamists and jihadists wear the label with pride. They know what they want. They know who they are. There is no reason for the government not to use the same terms.
If some non-Islamist, non-jihadist Muslims take unwarranted offense, that is their problem and the government need take no responsibility for it. There are more than enough multi-cultural oriented academics to wring their hands and view with dismay. The government and the rest of us don't have to join in the circle of tears.
More importantly, the US would be best served not by tender ministration to easily bruised sensitivity but by a robust declaration of what we stand for and why we stand for it.
Unlike the death worshiping Islamists/jihadists, the people of the United States are life oriented, life-affirming. We see both the risks and, more, the opportunities of life. We pursue life and all it has to offer with very few of us casting glances at some presumed pit of hell waiting to swallow our souls.
Unlike fear ridden, eager-to-submit to Higher Authority Islamists and jihadists, We the People are willing, even eager, to stand tall and proud, meeting authority on our terms--not its. We can admit our collective mistakes, the "sins" of our ancestors, rectify the wrongs and seek a better collective future.
Yes, we may take our individualism too far. Yes, we may be a messy people given to too much consumption (at least in the eyes of some). But, in our boisterous and often too exploitative way, we have been living up to that long ago vision of John Winthrop of establishing a "shining city."
Instead of playing the role of the politically correct English Department, the US government should speak of our adversaries bluntly and directly, calling them what they are. More, We the People best demand of the next administration that it get on with the task of letting all those "moderate" Muslims of the Islamic Silent Majority know just what we are and why we are that way.
Perhaps, just maybe, then the Silent Muslim Majority will find its collective voice and drown the demands of the Islamist for more martyrdom in a chorus of "No!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)