But I fully endorse this post by Gary Farber and this one by Bjørn Stærk (picked up by Volokh, and InstaPundit, and Giblets, and others too numerous to mention).
I’ve touched on this subject before, but Stærk does a better job than I in puncturing this particular balloon. Go read him. And, if you agree, link him. It’s well-past midnight on this one. Time to figure out who’s still up.
[UPDATE, Moe Lane] This is Moe, shamelessly using my superuser status to annotate one of von’s posts. Hopefully, he’ll forgive me, as I’m doing this to back him up. Hate solves nothing; never has, never will – and a blanket, murderous hatred of Islam on the part of the West is precisely the reaction that those evil men expected (wrongly, might I add) to result from 9/11. I shan’t give them the satisfaction, and neither should anybody else.
Much commenting continues here. Feel free to add your two cents, please. The good guys aren’t clearly winning the debate. It turns out that people who don’t want to ban Islam just don’t know enough about it, and are out of touch with objective reality. Hate is the only objective response. Read all about it!
And, you know, don’t feel shy about linking to my post (which has various further links to others who have linked). (The only reason Glenn posted, incidentally, was because of my e-mail to him.)
Thanks for the link & support, von and Moe.
Gary, sadly, I think WoC is going off the rails. Between M. Simon, Trent Telenko, and a lot of other people living in an alternate reality …
As for this:
Hate solves nothing; never has, never will – and a blanket, murderous hatred of Islam on the part of the West is precisely the reaction that those evil men expected (wrongly, might I add) to result from 9/11. I shan’t give them the satisfaction, and neither should anybody else.
Giblets will be sorely disappointed.
Yup, no need to fight all of Islam. The Islamists are going to be enough of a pain.
One of the weirdest things about bigotry is the way bigots can look at their own behavior described and nod, satisfied, saying “I don’t do that. It’s only those bad ——s* I persecute.”
I doubt if Gary Farber or Bjørn Stærk will have any good effect: but it’s worth saying, even if no one who shares the opinions castigated will pay attention: whether they ignore it completely or decide that Farber and Stærk must be talking about someone else.
*substitute word of your choice.
Yeah.
The fact that LGF can do things like “Arafish” or the running series “Islam: Religion of Peace” and then cry foul whenever someone accuses them of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigotry suggests that dialogue is largely impossible with that crew.
The fact that LGF can do things like “Arafish” or the running series “Islam: Religion of Peace” and then cry foul whenever someone accuses them of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigotry suggests that dialogue is largely impossible with that crew.
One of the reasons* that I don’t describe myself as a liberal is that I’ve come to understand that one cannot have have a dialog with some folks.** Some folks — Nazis, Communists, Klan members, Islamist terrorists, folks who advocate “bombing Mecca” with eyes wide — have chosen evil. In making that choice, they cast themselves into the outer darkness. Dialog will accomplish nothing unless and until they reconsider their choice. In the interim, they must be opposed.
(And, of course, each will cloak themselves in righteousness as they proclaim their creed. None quote Scripture better than the Devil, I’m told.)
I realize that some liberals approach the world with such a perspective, but their numbers are few.*** Most simply want to talk things through, or weigh each side as if it is a merely different perspective. But not all differences are mere differences of perspective. Some are fundamental. There are absolutes in the world; the trick is discerning them. (And what a difficult trick that is!)
von
*The others would be my love of the market, my adversion to abortion, and my generally strict contstruction of the Constitution.
**That doesn’t prevent me from trying, on occasion.
***I’m not suggesting that you’re a liberal, Praktike, or, indeed, anything about your personal beliefs. I’m merely using your comment as a launching-off point.
Good comment, von.
I thought the problem with liberals was that we were so blinded by our hatred of Bush that we were incapable of rational discussion? Which is it?
I am liberal. I’m friends with a whole lot of liberals. I don’t know a single person who thinks we should have a discussion with Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or the next Mohammed Atta. I do want to understand Al Qaeda better, but only for the purpose of destroying it.
Please find me a counterexample–actually, a lot of counterexamples, since you are claiming that the majority of liberals see the world this way–or stop making these gross generalizations. I don’t talk this way about conservatives.
Marguerite —
I thought the problem with liberals was that we were so blinded by our hatred of Bush that we were incapable of rational discussion? Which is it?
I’ve never argued that such an “analysis” (if it be that) as applicable to all liberals. Nor would I. As for being capable of rational discussion, I find that most folks are — depending on time, subject, and mood. (E.g.: Get me on the subject of Bobby Knight (a controversial former basketball coach), and you’ll get three hours of irrational ranting from me.)
Your point regarding the danger of generalities is well-taken. Let me refine my criticism: Mordern liberalism frequently finds it difficult to condemn evil because, for the last few decades, modern liberalism’s primary focus has been on tolerance and understanding. Worthy goals, yes, but not an endgame.
Whether this holds true for individuals who self-describe as liberals will, of course, vary.
“The fact that LGF can do things like “Arafish” or the running series “Islam: Religion of Peace” and then cry foul whenever someone accuses them of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigotry suggests that dialogue is largely impossible with that crew.”
I’ll agree with your point that dialogue is largely impossible with many commenters on LGF. I agree with your characterization of Arafish and the like. I don’t agree with your characterization of Islam:Religion of Peace, at least not back when I bothered reading it a year or so ago. Pointing out the large number of very popular clerics who advocate suicide bombing and bloody jihad is not racist–it can be used for racist purposes but it is still a necessary part of dealing with Islamist terrorists. The “Islam is a Religion of Peace” rhetoric obscures useful distinctions in precisely the same way as rhetoric which suggests that adherents of Islam are bloody-thirsty monsters. One of Bjørn Stærk’s main points was that religions have to be interpreted by how their adherents practice them. There are large portions of the Islamic faith which are peaceful. There is a disturbing portion which is in fact blood-thirsty. There is a really disturbing portion that seems to support the bloodthirsty ones. Obscuring any of those three groups by applying generalizations is likely to lead to bad outcomes in the war on terrorism–a war where we need to reassure peaceful Muslims that we aren’t against them, kill or disable the Islamists who have declared war against us, and hopefully convince those who support the Islamists to cease doing so.
Okay. That might be true. I think it was developed as an effort to get the world back from the brink of total nuclear war–there was a real need to negotiate with Khruschev and Brezhnev at times, however bad they were. But you’re right, negotiations and attempts at understanding will be worse than useless against Al Qaeda.
The thing is, I think liberals get this or are getting it. They increasingly support U.S intervention, unilateral if need be, to stop genocide. And as far as Al Qaeda, there’s nothing like a mass murder in your hometown or a city you know well to make you understand that evil exists in the world.
And I would also reply: modern conservatism seems to use opposing evil as a substitute for doing good. They’re not the same thing. You could go to war against evil people and be evil yourself. See Hitler and Stalin, see the war in the Congo, see the wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia and maybe now Cote d’Ivoire. You could also go to war against evil people and commit lesser (and quite unneccessary) evils of your own. See Abu Ghraib, see the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2, see the coup that put Pinochet in power. You could also go to war against evil men and do much more harm than good. See the Iraq war in general, see Vietnam.
Maybe a different perspective works in addressing Von’s issue. First, that we (Americans) carry some responsibility in the 9-11 attack. Second and related, the often asked question, why do they (OBL and AQ) hate us. Now, if the two POVS are not a generally held liberal perspective, you will have to explain Patty Murray and the Congressman from Seattle (name slips my mind).
I think Patty Murray’s poorly phrased comments were in the vein of “let’s understand them to defeat them”–the fact that Islamists provide better social services than corrupt governments in Muslim countries is a real, huge problem, just as it’s a huge problem that they are the only real political opposition against dictatorial governments. That said, I don’t remember exactly what she said, and it might have been something a lot less defensible than that.
I think the Congressman you’re talking about may be Jim McDermott, who seems genuinely stupid to me but I don’t know the specific incident.
The idea that we had 9/11 coming seems restricted to the fringes of the left and the fringes of the right, and about equally likely to occur on each side in this country. The most recent offender seems to be Alan Keyes–he and Falwell are both actually more prominent than any idiot on the U.S. left I remember saying we had it coming. There was a bit more of this in Europe–I remember a nasty Guardian op-ed, but it was still a fringe, widely and harshly denounced, idea.
There is nothing about “why do they hate us?” that implies the answer is that it’s in any way our fault or their reasons are even legitimate complaints, let alone justifications for genocide (which is bin Laden’s goal.) I can see how it would be misinterpreted that way, but I don’t think that’s the intent. With bin Laden himself, I think it’s sort of an academic exercise, like biographies of Hitler–it would be interesting to know what twists a human being into this, but it doesn’t have much bearing on how we go forward. I mean, we’re not going to withdraw from the Middle East and become an Islamic theocracy–and I’m not sure he’d stop trying to kill us even if we did that.
It is VERY important to understand, though, what would motivate a potential Al Qaeda recruit who is not yet lost to us, and why bin Laden’s poll numbers are so disgustingly high in many Islamic countries. How are we going to fix the problem if we don’t know what it is? That’s my problem with statements like “they’re just evil” and “they hate us for our freedom”–on one level they’re accurate enough, but they’re not very useful in making an effective policy.
von
Good comment, as usual. I’d say I’m liberal, but not particularly ideological. I have a few key principles that could fairly be described as liberal, but I’m quite open to conservative ideas if they seem correct to me. I’ve moved to the right over the past year or so.
As to your substantive point, there was a good discussion some time ago between Abu Aardvark, Lee Smith, and Martin Kramer as to whether it was productive to engage the so-called “new Islamists” such as Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The Aardvark said yes, whereas Smith and Kramer said no.
I’m generally sympathetic to Aardvark’s point of view, but in any case I think it’s where the principal faultline lies between liberals and conservatives.
Nobody sane is advocating dialogue with Osama bin Laden.
Thank you marguerite for Jim McDermott, and if you hold the general opinion that Jim and Patty are “nut jobs” (not saying that you are), then maybe you aren’t so liberal after all. A nice segue to Keyes et al, the right certainly has their fair share of idiots; I would point out to Keyes the old saying, God helps those, who help themselves, that is I’m an active proponent of killing AQ before they kill us in the WARI (war against radical Islam).
my tentative answer is Jim probably, Patty probably not. And I am too a true Scotswoman.
Well, I’m Irish (but my mother is also a Candadian, who paraphrased this saying, we don’t keep any kitties, who don’t catch any mousies) don’t want to fly under false colors. Eh, my wife is Scot (well half) and a big Celtics (football) fan as well.
“if you hold the general opinion that Jim and Patty are “nut jobs” (not saying that you are), then maybe you aren’t so liberal after all”
What a perverse notion of liberalism.
What good and future Senator Patty Murray said was that Osama and his ilk are beloved in their countries because they build roads and hospitals, and maybe we could learn something from that fact. Now maybe she was incorrect, but the opinion is perfectly reasonable and the idiots who went on about her loving sweet Osama were the nut jobs. And it’s telling that a few months later we were ostentatiously painting Iraqi schools, so at least someone in the Bush administrationa greed with Patty. Also a nut job?
Timmy, I’m honestly curious as to whether you a) actually know this deep down, but your eagerness to pile on in slandering a Democrat is overwhelming, or b) you don’t actually realize this deep down, and. . well. . whatever that implies. Not a rhetorical question.
McDermott is a nut job. One of the brutal side-effects of incumbency protection is that he wins by 80 point margins every election because the Democrats won’t contest him and Republicans are ritually slaughtered in Seattle. I’ll be loudly and conspicuously voting against him every chance I get, even if it’s in favor of a slice of toast.
My response Sidereal is (c) neither. As for Patty Murrany going into a high school and raising back to back falsehoods (as illustrated below she wasn’t expressing an opinion), she was either laying out facts, and misinformed, or she was lying to a group of high schools. Thus, she was either an idiot or something worse, I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers.
[NOTE: This article has been updated since it was originally published in the newspaper.]
“We haven’t done that,” Murray said. “How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?”
Thus, OBL is popular because he killed Americans pure and simple. I suspect he is popular with the same people who both hates us as well as wish they could migrate to this country. Simply put, they blame us for their current situation and it certainly was a problem that started well before 9-11.
Sidereal, if Patty is your Senator, please keep her out of the schools, as she does more damage than good.
Now don’t you wish, you asked a rhetorical question?
If one of my children had been in the classroom they would have confronted ol Patty with a simple question, Senator where do you get your information? Thus Patty’s lesson would have unraveled very quickly.
He definitely has financed roads–that was part of the deal he cut for sanctuary in the Sudan, and I think he built some in Afghanistan too. I’ve also read that he built schools and hospitals in Afghanistan. The day care centers thing rings false–day care centers in Taliban Afghanistan where women can’t work and can barely leave the house?
I don’t think any of this is why bin Laden is popular. I’m sure it hasn’t hurt of course. I do think social services go a long way to explaining the popularity of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups in the Muslim world, but I think it’s less of a factor in bin Laden’s case–and even with the other Islamist groups it’s not the whole story.
On the other hand, if there is a workable way to do something like the Marshall plan for the Muslim world I’m all for it. I don’t know if there is and I’m inclined to be skeptical, but it’s a discussion worth having and if Murray was trying to start it it’s a good thing–just too bad she phrased it so badly.
So: dumb comments, but not worthy of ending a career in and of themselves.
Marguerite, OBL is singularlypopular throughout the Arab world because he built roads and schools, I don’t think so.
Second and related, “We haven’t done that”, the American Universities in the Middle East were built and funded by whom, just for starters.
Timmy, I just have to ask, do you actually know what the word “thus” means? ‘Cause you’re sure not using it correctly.
Thus, as in logical conclusion.
Thus, the question having been asked, Patty’s lesson unraveled. The usual path when the underlying premise has no basis.
Methinks that the penultimate “Mom in Tennis Shoes,” Patty Murray, is kinda clueless. A less shrill version of Barbara Boxer.
Maybe she shouldn’t pontificate about the sweet side of Osama’s civil work projects, for starters.
Thus, as in logical conclusion.
Then why do you use it in this sentence: Thus, OBL is popular because he killed Americans pure and simple. ?
because, my thinking contruct is different than my writing construct
Thus, because OBL killed Americans, he is popular pure and simple. That is, OBL’s popularity in the Islamic community, is not tied to his building of schools or roads, but to his killing of Americans. Any US Senator who doesn’t understand that simple construct is an idiot pure and simple.
Thus, because OBL killed Americans, he is popular pure and simple. That is, OBL’s popularity in the Islamic community, is not tied to his building of schools or roads, but to his killing of Americans. Any US Senator who doesn’t understand that simple construct is an idiot pure and simple.
What about those of us who aren’t US Senators? Are we idiots too?
See Abu Ghraib, see the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2,
See eating hot dogs with ketchup. Not that that in itself invalidates our actions in Iraq, but neither does Abu Ghraib.
Never said it did. I specifically listed it as a lesser evil than those committed by Saddam, and alongside abuses in WW2 and the Cold War, and I certainly don’t oppose either of those.
I also think the Iraq war will do more harm than good overall, but it’s a separate question–or rather, Abu Ghraib is one small part of that, not my main reason for believing so.
What about those of us who aren’t US Senators? Are we idiots too?
Not only don’t I know, I really don’t care. Thus, given my answer, this conversation has come to an end.
Thus, given my answer, this conversation has come to an end.
Funny, that’s just what I was gonna say.
Funny, that’s just what I was gonna say.
But Timmy said it first. Can we dispense with the incisively witty repartee now?
OT, I seem to recall there being a high correlation between “idiot” and US Senator. Regardless of their understanding of the real reason for bin Laden’s popularity.
“OT, I seem to recall there being a high correlation between ‘idiot’ and US Senator”
Contemplating the the list, I don’t have strong reason to consider more than possibly 20 as being in the “idiot” category, no matter that I disagree with many more on many things.
Whether that’s a “high” correlation or not depends upon what one is matching it against.
Which 20? Tell, tell.
Inhofe is first on my list, I think, though John “man-on-box-turtle” Cornyn, Wayne “master plan” Allard and Rick “Santortum” Santorum have certainly had their moments, especially during the gay marriage debate.
Some Democrats probably deserve it too, but on the whole I think they’re less embarrassing & most of the exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are in the House.
Nearly all of them are self-righteous narcissistic prigs. Otherwise, why run? But I’d guess the number of idiots is very small, unless you want to expand the definition of ‘idiot’ to encompass most of the citizenry.
Offhand, and non-definitively and incompletely, perhaps George Allen, Barbara Boxer, Jim Bunning, Conrad Burns, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Larry Craig, Dianne Feinstein, Judd Gregg, Ernest Hollings, Kay Hutchison, James Inhofe, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions.
There are at least ten Senators I feel I don’t know enough about to have any opinion.