This is an example of why we have to fight Sadr, he want to make Iraq into another Iran. This is why we have to fight Islamism, its adherents will hate us so long as we believe that killing an underage girl for engaging in sex is reprehensible. It is especially bad (if it can get any worse) because there are hints that she was killed for being raped: “She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.” or because she pissed off the judge with her suggestion, “The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her ‘sharp tongue’.”
This took place in the normal legal channels of Islamic fundamentalist Iran. This is what Islamist groups want us to look like. This is how Osama bin Laden wants us to treat our women if we are to avoid his condemnation for tempting Muslims away from their faith. We aren’t fighting against people who are angry at us because of captialist excesses. We are fighting against people who detest the things at the very core of Western society. What we are fighting is unfortunately much bigger than Al Qaeda. We are fighting a group of societies that spawn groups like Al Qaeda with their revolutionary Islamist ideology. To defeat the enemy we must not shy away from identifying it.
In that vein, I find this Amnesty International statement almost depressing:
Amnesty International today expressed its outrage at the reported execution of a girl who is believed to be 16 years old, Ateqeh Rajabi, in Neka in the northern Iranian province of Mazandaran, on 15 August, for “acts incompatible with chastity” (amal-e manafe-ye ‘ofat). Ateqeh Rajabi was reportedly publicly hanged on a street in the city centre of Neka.
Amnesty International is alarmed that this execution was carried out despite reports that Ateqeh Rajabi was not believed to be mentally competent, and that she reportedly did not have access to a lawyer at any stage.
The execution of Ateqeh Rajabi is the tenth execution of a child offender in Iran recorded by Amnesty International since 1990. Amnesty International has urged Iran’s judicial authorities to halt further executions of child offenders – people who were under 18 years old at the time of the offence. This is to bring Iran’s law and practice in line with requirements of international human rights law.
A bill to raise the minimum age for execution to 18 was reportedly under consideration by parliament in December 2003. However, the bill is not believed to have been ratified by the Guardian Council, Iran’s highest legislative body.
Amnesty International believes that the execution of Ateqeh Rajabi underlines the urgent necessity that Iran pass legislation removing provision for the execution of child offenders, thereby preventing further execution of child offenders, and bringing Iran into line with its obligations under international law.
Further, the organization is urging the authorities to clarify whether Ateqel Rajabi had legal representation and whether a legally approved doctor deemed her psychologically fit to stand trial.
Background
According to report on Peyk-e Iran, Ateqeh Rajabi was sentenced to death approximately three months ago, by a lower court in Neka in the northern Iranian province of Mazandaran, for “acts incompatible with chastity”.During her trial, at which she was reportedly not represented by a lawyer, the judge allegedly severely criticised her dress, harshly reprimanding her. It is alleged that Ateqeh Rajabi was mentally ill both at the time of her crime and during her trial proceedings.
It is reported that although Ateqeh Rajabi’s national ID card stated that she was 16 years old, the Mazandaran Judiciary announced at her execution that her age was 22.
The case reportedly attracted the attention of the Head of the Judiciary for the Mazandaran province, who ensured that the case be heard promptly by the Supreme Court. In Iran, all death sentences have to be upheld by the Supreme Court before they can be implemented.
The death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court, and Ateqeh Rajabi was publicly hanged in the city centre of Neka on 15 August. According to Peyk-e Iran, the lower court judge that issued the original sentence was the person that put the noose around her head as she went to the gallows.
On the same night that she was buried, Ateqeh Rajabi’s corpse was reportedly removed from the grave by unknown individuals. The Rajabi family have lodged a complaint and have called for an investigation.
The co-defendant of Ateqeh Rajabi, an unnamed man, was reportedly sentenced to 100 lashes. He was released after this sentence was carried out.
As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Iran is bound not to execute child offenders. Both treaties provide that capital punishment shall not be imposed for offences committed by persons under 18 year of age at the time of committing the offence.
The focus of this AI bulletin is almost completely wrong. The shocking thing is not that Iran is executing someone for offences committed when they were under 18. The shocking thing is that they are executing a girl who may very well have been raped for the crime of being raped. At the very least they are executing a girl for the crime of having sex. Either of those scenarios ought to be the focus of the outrage. The age of the woman is almost entirely beside the point. If the woman was 30, the execution would still be outrageous. If the prevailing standard were that people in the world could execute 14-year olds this execution would still be outrageous. The age issue isn’t the problem. By focusing exclusively on the narrow question of age, AI dodges the problem of identifying a society which is troubled on a much deeper level
“AI dodges the problem of identifying a society which is troubled on a much deeper level”
AI’s mission is not to go on ideological crusades against ideologies they don’t like, it is to highlight human rights violations.
so long as we believe that killing an underage girl for engaging in sex is reprehensible.
Reprehensible? It’s a monstrosity. As much a monstrosity as the Christian activities of bombing abortion clinics or shooting doctors.
Atrocities are not confined to one religion, Sebastian, much though you may wish they were.
AI’s mission is not to go on ideological crusades against ideologies they don’t like, it is to highlight human rights violations.
Which they do thoroughly and independent of any national government or ideology, whether they’re in the US or in Azerbaijan. Which ideologists like Sebastian hate.
“Which ideologists like Sebastian hate.”
You know, the Posting Rules are simple and straightforward, and their purpose is, I think, clear: to keep things relatively civil around here. That means NO FREAKING NAME CALLING. EVER. THAT ESPECIALLY AND SPECIFICALLY APPLIES TO YOU, JESURGISLAC.
Moe
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
“Atrocities are not confined to one religion, Sebastian, much though you may wish they were.”
But at least in the West they don’t have the sanction of government, do they?
“Which they do thoroughly and independent of any national government or ideology, whether they’re in the US or in Azerbaijan. Which ideologists like Sebastian hate.”
I fail to see what is “independent” of ideology in insinuating as the AI report does that there’d have been nothing objectionable in hanging a woman for either being raped or engaging in consensual sex, had she but been above the age of 18; and what exactly is so terrible about being an “ideologist” if it means finding the sanctification of such barbarism by a nation’s judiciary abominable?
I have a feeling you’d be singing a different tune if it were, say, an ostentatiously Christian judge in Alabama who had sentenced a gay man to death for “acts against nature”, and then personally put the noose around the condemned man’s neck out of sheer hate.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt
iD8DBQFBKxyuOgWD1ZKzuwkRAoPqAJ9xbOM2HCHuzhvAcU30FgDghQagzgCcCz0z
7/mob1YUSUcEuabbVMCJNv0=
=gMX3
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
“Atrocities are not confined to one religion, Sebastian, much though you may wish they were.”
I guess I must have missed the paragraph where he condoned abortionist-slaughtering…
What Factory said right at the top.
Let’s not get distracted here. This is a war between the secular west and religious fundamentalism. Right now the Islamists are on the front lines attacking and getting all the attention. They’re not the only ones out there.
Sebastian’s post is right on: this is an ideology that needs to be defeated. Call it the Communism of the 21st century if it helps. (Or the new fascism. Doesn’t matter.)
Unfortunate name-calling aside, Jes is right, too: freedom-hating religious extremists are not confined to the Islamic world: we have our own home-grown variants right here.
This is a war between the secular west and religious fundamentalism.
I wonder, JKC. I think to let this blossom into a Cold War type battle (“Communism of the 21st century”), you’d first have to raise the awareness and self-identifying Judaeo-Christian mentality to a fever pitch.
In the Cold War, it wasn’t enough to point to the atrocities of the Soviet Union/China/Cuba, we had to also assert the superiority of Capitalism.
I don’t think we can afford to go that direction.
On that first link Sebastian, I have to admit to being a bit confused….there’s a banner ad claiming “True security begins with regime change in Iran.”
I thought True Security began with regime change in Iraq.
How many beginnings are we going to have?
As much a monstrosity as the Christian activities of bombing abortion clinics or shooting doctors.
Which we all know is perfectly legal in the United States. And every time it happens, Conservatives across the country praise the Lord for a job well done.
Close sarcasm tag. And I can’t think of a single further thing to say that’s not specifically prohibited in the posting rules.
How many beginnings are we going to have?
Every day is a new beginning, Edward.
Every day is a new beginning, Edward.
Oh goodie! I can’t wait to get my new War-a-Day calendar. If it’s Tuesday, this must be Syria.
However, if we claim to kill and murder many in the name of the latest popular American political theory, we are the angels of freedom. And win what, Sebastian? We are toxic in Iraq. We are seen as part of the problem.
IRAQI CIVILIAN WAR CASUALTIES
Iraq, Civilian Fatalities, and American Power
Ahmed Janabi’s report first surfaced on english.aljazeera.net that an “Iraqi political group,” indeed, an expatriate Iraqi political group based in Britain, contends reports that approximately “37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003”
Iraqi group: Civilian toll now 37,000
An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003.
Not to gloss over the point of civilian casualties, but I’ll take any body count a great deal more seriously when the counters don’t deliberately mix in those who were killed by the so-called insurgents, and ascribe those deaths to the Occupation Forces. It’s dishonest, and purposefully deceptive.
They kill in the name of Islamic morality and you advocate killing in the name of anti-Islamic killings.
What line of logic and reasoning do you think the average Iraqi is following here?
Starti,
Who do you think the average Iraqi is believing? If you cannot even convince the people you claim to be helping, that you are indeed there to help, you have already LOST! Claiming to kill thousands because you love freedom and liberty and you, indeed love those you kill will not be advancing your theory much.
“Reprehensible? It’s a monstrosity. As much a monstrosity as the Christian activities of bombing abortion clinics or shooting doctors.
Atrocities are not confined to one religion, Sebastian, much though you may wish they were.”
Maybe I missed the reporting where the abortion clinic bombings and doctor shootings were carried out by the US government and verified as OK by the US Supremem Court. There might be some slight distinction there that I was hoping both you and Amnesty International might be able to tease out.
“I wonder, JKC. I think to let this blossom into a Cold War type battle (“Communism of the 21st century”), you’d first have to raise the awareness and self-identifying Judaeo-Christian mentality to a fever pitch.”
I don’t understand what this war, or my post, have to do with Judeo-Christian mentality. This war has to do Western civilization. Western civilzation is at this point strongly influenced by many strains of thought, but could not be fairly called Judeo-Christian. I’m also a bit disturbed by ‘let it blossom’. We don’t necessarily have a choice about how far this war blossoms. It has already come to New York, which is a bit further than The Cold War, World War I, or World War II. And that was before most of us noticed we were in the war.
Factory, does AI believe that executing a woman for having sex is a human rights violation? Unless your answer is ‘no’, your reply to me doesn’t make sense.
Instead of advocating killing people when you read human rights violations, figure out another way to deal with your disgust. What do you do when you find out about horrible human rights violations in Egypt? Israel? India? Chile? Malaysia? Sudan?
Do you insist on waging war and occupying each of these states when a story disgust you?
Edward-
I don’t think that this is “Judeo-Christian West” vs. “Islamic East.” Au contraire, this is a culture war (IMHO) between modern, Western secular society and the illiberal, decidedly non-secular ideology of religious fundamentalism.
This chapter of the story is Islamists vs the West. I have no crystal ball, and stink at predictions, but I don’t see any reason why the next chapter couldn’t involve an internal strife between secularists and fundamentalists in the West, or a battle between fundamentalist sects (e.g. Hindu vs Muslim violence in Kashmir, or even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)
Who do you think the average Iraqi is believing?
If you knew me at all, you’d know the answer to that: I decline to lay claim to any mind-reading ability.
Sebastian-
the answer to your question “does AI believe that executing a woman for having sex is a human rights violation?” is almost undoubtedly yes.
So why all the talk about the victim being underage? It struck me a lawyerly attempt to find grounds for hanging Iran out to dry for violating a treaty that they were signatories to. I don’t believe for a second that AI’s position was that this lynching would have been OK had Ateqeh Rajabi been 18 years old.
I don’t understand what this war, or my post, have to do with Judeo-Christian mentality. This war has to do Western civilization. Western civilzation is at this point strongly influenced by many strains of thought, but could not be fairly called Judeo-Christian. I’m also a bit disturbed by ‘let it blossom’. We don’t necessarily have a choice about how far this war blossoms.
About your first point (what this war, or my post, have to do with Judeo-Christian mentality)…just look at this thread. Folks are already comparing this atrocity with crimes commited by Christians. Like it or not, wars become binary rather easily, and break down in the most basic differences (communism vs. capitalism; facism vs. democracy, etc.). If you’re going to challenge a law that Iran says is backed up by the Koran, you’re gonna have to dispute it on those terms…and, well, most folks are not willing to work that hard, so they take short cuts.
Look at what happens on some right-wing blogs already…they boil it down to where Islam itself is called inherently violent or warlike. You can’t stay out ahead of that sort of mentality very easily. You either don’t make it binary (i.e., avoid pithy slogans like the “Communism of the 21st Century”) or you risk losing to those willing to make it a religious war, and they’re there.
The “let it blossom” phrase was meant to describe the rhetoric, not the actions, of the war. There are already calls to label Islamism the “Communism of the 21st Century.” (You’d think some folks have stock in bumper sticker companies the way they cling to this idea.) We’ve actually gone rounds on that exact topic on this blog before (as well as others). If we let it blossom (the rhetoric), the religious war will follow.
I agree with with JKC, however the best line of defense-civilized nations have is the rule of law and not lynch-mob mentality whenever big problems arise.
Just to remind folks, most lynching was not done in the name of “evilness.” They were usually justified because the folks were protecting their communities from what they perceived as uncivilized/inhuman threats that the rule of law could never rightly deal with. Folks committed some horrendous crime from the uncivilized/inhuman group (Blacks, Jews, immigrants, homosexual accused of rape and/or murder, sometimes flirting), so since they felt that the rule of law did not apply to the uncivilized/inhuman group; it was ok to treat them brutally. Since, it seems that brutality and force was the only real language these people respected.
Just because justice is slow and uncomfortable it doesn’t make it wrong, and just because you claim to be killing in the name of life it doesn’t make it right.
Why we have to fight Sadr? What is the basis for the belief that waging a military war will eliminate a repulsive ideology?
One of the predictions of the anti-war crowd was that bringing “democracy” to Iraq would enable the Islamists to gain power by popular consensus. The Bush administration response was a feeble “it can’t happen.” Sadr is probably the most popular leader in Iraq right now (the largest of a number of minority figures), and his faction would garner a significant percentage of the vote if held now. This is true even though a great number of more secular Iraqis are probably very wary of Sadr.
At the moment, the Iraqis do not want to fight Sadr — if they did, he would have been booted from Najaf long ago by Iraqis. The Bush Administration keeps yammering that the final assault will be by Iraqis, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Is there an Iraqi force that could take on Sadr? Of course — any one of the other private militias, but they have no incentive to do it. The situation in Iraq has gone quasi-tribal, plus there is an outsider (Alawi)running a nominal central government propped up by Americans. The central government has no credible military force, unlike the private militias. And since no one has much regard for it, it has little or no chance of creating a force that will fight and kill Sadrists in order to help Alawi. No one in Iraq would see fighting for the central government as anything other than helping that one faction against others. The current police and military of the central government are there for the pay, and little else.
This is a classic no-win situation — a popular movement fighting an unpopular government (Alawi), that relies on a hated outsider (USA) to retain power. Strategically, we are losing by being the sole belligerent against Sadr. And if the Iraqis don’t want to fight him, how can we win this fight?
As for the butchering of the Iranian girl, get real. The act and the cultural belief that supports it are despicable, but we do not fight countries because they are brutal — there are countless other examples of such sexual brutality against women in numerous cultures, and I am sure Sebastian is not advocating war against them. For example, genital mutilation throughout the Sahal, murdering of Indian married women in order to achieve new doweries, rampant sex slave trade in former Communist block countries.
We should not make policy for waging war based on wagging the bloody rag of outrages. If so, we should be at war with more than half of the world. And there are countless other devices other than war which probably work better for challenging this cultural behavior.
And using the outrage to defend the nonsense of the policy concerning Iraq does not work.
Folks are already comparing this atrocity with crimes commited by Christians. . . . If you’re going to challenge a law that Iran says is backed up by the Koran, you’re gonna have to dispute it on those terms…and, well, most folks are not willing to work that hard, so they take short cuts.
Why can’t people just challenge it on the basis of secularism? When politicians here propose laws with Biblical justification, we don’t run to some other holy book to challenge them.
Oh, just a side article that some might find interesting:
Via Marc Cooper
The interview is with Bahram Soroush, an Iranian leftist civil rights activist living in the U.K. He was interviewed for satellite TV on a program produced by the Iranian Communist Workers Party (For those of you conservatives who hiccup over this, remember that in the fight against Islamic Fundamentalism the Marxists are your allies. They sat on the Iraqi Governing Council created by the U.S. after overthrowing Saddam). Here’s some thoughtful excerpts:
On supposed “Islamophobia:”
“…That is the trouble with this term, because I think it is being used for scaremongering, for political scaremongering, for what I would call ‘intellectual blackmail’, and trying to stifle any criticism of Islam, which is very legitimate. Given the atrocities of the Islamic movements and organisations in countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, and the carnage of September 11, the honour killings, which are claiming hundreds of lives everyday, and so on it is very understandable that people should have a dislike of Islam and that this negative perception of Islam should have grown. So, of course, any attacks or any ghettoisation of people because they follow a particular religion should be condemned wherever we find them, but that should not be confused with racial attacks, something where I think there is a great deal of confusion…
…Well, a lot of Islamic lobbyists and their supporters, even from within the Left, like the Socialist Workers’ Party here in the UK, are very fond of portraying any criticism of Islam as racism. So it has become almost politically incorrect to criticise Islam. And this is apart from the fact that even physically you should be really careful! Because in countries like Iran if you criticise Islam you should await a Fatwa against you and the punishment can be torture and execution. In the West, where at least political Islam is not in power, what you are witnessing is that you are being blackmailed into silence by this scaremongering. Racial attacks do happen and they should be confronted head on. But at the same time we should make it clear that this attempt is being made to portray anything that is directed against immigrants and blacks and members of so-called ethnic minorities as an attack against Islam…
…Take the case of the Islamic Republic in Iran. It is not just a group of pious believers in Islam who out of their purity are trying to practise their ideas. That’s not the case. It’s really a political movement, which has a political agenda and is using a religion that has an infinite capacity for violence and for being against freedom, against the basic rights of the people, to defend their own position, their own privileged status. This is used by Islamic organisations as well throughout the world…
From:
The term “Islamophobia” is being used for scaremongering
but i thought communism was an evil ideology reagan crushed?
Why we have to fight Sadr?
There’s a few provisions in the Geneva Convention, I believe, that require the occupying forces to provide security for the duration of the occupation. As I recall, our occupation forces were criticised quite vigorously for failing to provide adequate security.
At the moment, the Iraqis do not want to fight Sadr
Cite? The Iraqi military forces have been increasingly involved in putting down insurgency; for all you’ve been able to show they HAVE been fighting Sadr. It’s possible, though, that we’re taking him on and letting the rest of the Iraqi military keep the more scattered insurgents unconnected with Sadr under control.
but i thought communism was an evil ideology reagan crushed?
Please don’t blame us for what goes on inside your head. I promise we won’t take credit for it when you get it right, if that makes you feel better.
For Starti,
Iraqi national guard members reluctant to fight Mahdi Army
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Just three weeks after rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s forces blew off his legs with a homemade bomb, Capt. Saeed Majeed returned to duty to set an example for the men he commands at an Iraqi national guard station in one of the deadliest districts in Baghdad.
After American allies accidentally killed two popular Iraqi platoon leaders in a fight with al-Sadr’s militia, it was Majeed who persuaded his troops to end their strike over the incident. And it was Majeed who consoled his outgunned and outsmarted men after a 20-year-old guardsman died recently in yet another vicious street battle with al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
Last week, however, Majeed found his leadership tested when neither his pleas nor his commands could stop a stream of deserters finally giving in to Mahdi Army threats or their personal misgivings about the standoff between al-Sadr and U.S.-led forces in the southern holy city of Najaf. An elite group from the fledgling Iraqi national guard is in Najaf, preparing to storm the sacred Imam Ali shrine if al-Sadr continues to occupy it.
The deployment to Najaf prompted the most desertions since April, when dozens quit over a similar standoff with insurgents in the western town of Fallujah, according to Iraqi defense ministry officials and military officers. Once again, they said, they are faced with the problem of persuading Iraqis to fight Iraqis.
Why can’t people just challenge it on the basis of secularism?
I’m happy to! Really, I am. But there are those in Iran and in the US (think General Boykin and like minded Americans), who are not. And I think slogans like “the Communism of the 21st Century” will work against any such efforts.
He’s my arguement in a nutshell. If you simplify the task to something like the fight against “Communism of the 21th century” then, eventually, if only temporarily, EVERYTHING about these “enemy” nations will be seen by many as “evil.” You won’t easily be able to separate out successfully the good in Islam from the parts incompatible with Western secular society in the short term and that could cause excesses in attitudes and rhetoric that lead to violence against Muslims and/or non-violent Muslims to become violent, as they see their way of life disparaged and see the effort/rhetoric as a threat to their families as well.
Really, how can those calling Islam inherently warlike expect devout Muslims not to feel threatened?
We’ve been here before: I remember offering my sister a Matryoshka I had picked up in the Soviet Union, and her (right-wing) husband refused to allow it in his home. Forget that Matryoshkas existed long before the USSR did…this represented something evil to him. Everything about Russia was evil to him. It was idiotic, I know, but he wasn’t some extremist militant. He was a proud American (using past tense, as thankfully, they’re divorced now) who bought the rhetoric and took it to heart.
Only now the world is much smaller…and unlike Communists, there are Muslims living openly in the US. It’s the only part of the war on terror I give Bush an A+ for…his careful parsing of the rhetoric on this. “Islamism” and “Islam” are not distinct enough terms to wage a PR war with clarity and avoid those on both sides from manipulating the rhetoric to fuel more hatred and violence.
As soon as Bush (or any western leader) calls it the “Communism of the 21st Century” though, I think we’re gonna see a much more complicated and violent war than we’re seeing now.
Leave it at terrorism…or find a more distinctive term for Islamism, but don’t try to fit it on a freakin’ bumper sticker.
I ask for a cite to support your claim that the Iraqis don’t want to fight Sadr. In response, you cite an article that says about 40 of 140 Iraqi NG troops are not going to fight.
Which begs two questions:
Are there only 140 Iraqi National Guardsmen?
Does less than on-third of them declining to fight substantiate the claim that Iraqis, in general, don’t want to fight Sadr?
A little Googling might yield better fodder for your argument, but I’m not going to do it for you.
Posted by: Moe Lane | August 24, 2004 06:32 AM: “That means NO FREAKING NAME CALLING. EVER.”
Um, Moe? I’ve never been cited for name-calling, and I like to think I’m usually pretty good about that sort of thing on my own. But I’m fairly unsure it would have ever occurred to me that “ideologist” is an offensive label, and that you are so upset by it leaves me wondering if you might supply a list of forbidden words. If “ideologist” is so offensive, is “theorist” also? “Ideologue”? “Philosopher”? “Thinker”? “Dogmatist”? “Partisan”? “Politician”? “Democrat”? “Republican”? “Practitioner”? “Advocate”? “Exponent”?
I’m not trying to be a rules lawyer here. I’m simply baffled by what line “ideologist” crossed to become a Bad Word worthy of all caps and all that, and thus I’m suddenly entirely unclear what lines you are drawing, so, respectfully, I ask as a frequent commenter if you could provide some sort of clear definition of what a Bad Word is, please.
What makes “ideologist” offensive?
Starti,
So you do not sense that the article is a snapshot of what is happening in the rest of Iraq?
There are more members of militias than there are members in the American Iraqi Army. Have you been reading what has been happening in the rest of Iraq?
Or are we “turning a corner” I have not percieved yet?
Again, Starti…if you were to change your historical frame of referance from WW2 and the Cold War to the Spanish-American War and its aftermath…Iraq will begin to make more sense.
Edward-
I used “communism of the 21st century” as a simile: I certainly don’t want to see it used as a slogan. I hate slogans for the same reasons you do.
As for General Boykin and his peers… I hope people understood from my posts that I consider them almost as big a problem as the Islamists.
Thanks for the clarifications JKC. 😉
e
“He’s my arguement in a nutshell. If you simplify the task to something like the fight against “Communism of the 21th century” then, eventually, if only temporarily, EVERYTHING about these “enemy” nations will be seen by many as “evil.” You won’t easily be able to separate out successfully the good in Islam from the parts incompatible with Western secular society in the short term and that could cause excesses in attitudes and rhetoric that lead to violence against Muslims and/or non-violent Muslims to become violent, as they see their way of life disparaged and see the effort/rhetoric as a threat to their families as well.”
There is clearly a balance to be had. But you seem to worry that we can’t separate out the good from the bad if we label Islamism evil. The flip side is that you seem to resist labelling the obviously evil parts as evil. That doesn’t help us us sort the good from the bad either. If you want to help me factually sort out the elements which we have to fight, I’m happy to engage on that level.
But since you raised the issue when I pointed out that Iran, as a country and BECAUSE OF its fundamentalist Islamic nature, killed a woman for having sex (and possibly being raped), I worry that you are unwilling to identify the evil parts that we actually do have to fight.
JKC, you write: “As for General Boykin and his peers… I hope people understood from my posts that I consider them almost as big a problem as the Islamists.”
I think it was clear, and it is worrying. General Boykin and his peers do not believe that homosexuals (to pick a group which they do not approve) ought to be hanged. They are not anywhere near as a big a problem as Islamists.
I’m very troubled by some of the comments I’m reading in this thread. There seems to be an insistence on finding moral equivalence between Iran and the West. This is getting down to basics.
Is the West worth defending? If you don’t think so, give your reasons and what you believe the outcome of failing to defend ourselves might be. If you do think so but you feel it’s necessary to find moral equivalencies why is that?
My own feeling is pretty simple. My mother is my mother. It doesn’t make much difference whether she is beautiful, or smart, or perfect. She’s still my mother. And I have to defend her.
I’m sorry if this is attempted thread-jacking but this looks very much like the implicit subtext of the thread to me.
dmbeaster: well said.
Edward: also, well said. This notion that Islam is evil, or war-like, or any number of equally false propositions is something that needs to get nipped in the bud. There are warlike muslims, to be sure, just as there are warlike christians or hindi. In no case is the generalization warranted. The commie rhetoric seems to be on the rise too, perhaps Godwin’s law needs to be amended?
On the larger scale, I’m not certain that Al-Sadr needs to be killed. I’m not wholly against it, but I haven’t read anything that truly convinces me that this is the only option remaining. It seems to me, that with some careful handling, he could slip back into a sort of near-fringe obscurity. Killing him, regardless of how good our reasons may be, seems likely to further alienate Sunni muslims, which seems, on the whole, like a bad idea.
Especially if, in their anger, they saw fit to set aside enough of their differences with the Shi’a to form some sort of alliance with Iran, the source of the atrocity Von is referring to. The enemy of my enemy and all that.
Just my $.02.
crutan
General Boykin and his peers do not believe that homosexuals (to pick a group which they do not approve) ought to be hanged.
No, they only believe they’ll burn in hell for all eternity. Small comfort, that distinction.
But you seem to worry that we can’t separate out the good from the bad if we label Islamism evil. The flip side is that you seem to resist labelling the obviously evil parts as evil.
Not at all. I’ve called for increased and highly vocal support of the grassroots efforts to reform Islam. We don’t do nearly enough here (in the US) to celebrate the Irshad Manji’s or support the Kyrgyzstans of the world. Instead we placate the Saudi Arabias (who are only one small step behind Iran in human rights abuses).
You want us to condemn Iran, but (what?) turn a blind eye to SA?
If we were serious, we’d shower the moderate Muslim democracies with high-profile support…nothing would speak louder than that. Selectively condemning the fundamentalist regimes is cheaper, surely, but what do you expect it to achieve in the end, but more bloodshed?
Dave,
I am beginning to fear, that fellow Westerners believe they can wage war every time they read human rights violations. Just to keep you up, this is not really a Western value, waging war at whim.
My morality is not relative to my mother or nation, however because I do love them I obey the law and apply it at home and do not advocate lawlessness and chaos and killing in other nations so that they might become moral.
If war is your only solution to spreading law and order, you really need to reevaluate your morality.
Is the West worth defending?
Absolutely.
What’s inconsistent about that and asking for a reality check on the rhetoric?
I think fundamentalist like General Boykin would advocate killing homosexuals, since many of them are Reconstructionist.
General Boykin and his peers do not believe that homosexuals (to pick a group which they do not approve) ought to be hanged.
No, they only believe they’ll burn in hell for all eternity. Small comfort, that distinction.
Well, in fairness, there’s no such thing as hell and there is such a thing as hanging, so the distinction’s quite important…
Biblical Law
Christian Reconstructionism
From the second link:
What is Reconstructionism?
Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.
Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life–such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely “social” or “moral” issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a “Biblical world view” and “Biblical principles” by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: “The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.”
More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God’s covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are “in submission” to him. In turn, the husband “submits” to Jesus and to God’s laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God’s laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called “theonomy.”
Well, in fairness, there’s no such thing as hell and there is such a thing as hanging, so the distinction’s quite important…
Important, but not comforting, if you happen to disagree about the existence of hell or care what those who believe in it feel about you. But these are the details of another thread. I’m in no mood to defend Boykin on the degree of his idiocy.
Some of the activist working within the Republican Party
CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY, AND THEONOMY
Haven:
I am beginning to fear, that fellow Westerners believe they can wage war every time they read human rights violations. Just to keep you up, this is not really a Western value, waging war at whim.
I’m puzzled about your use of the word whim. Are you saying that we’re only interested in human rights on a whim?
If your intent is to defend Iran and her human rights record and practices against Sebastian’s attacks, why don’t you do that rather than changing the subject to Iraq, or the United States?
Edward:
What’s inconsistent about that and asking for a reality check on the rhetoric?
It’s not the rhetoric that bothers me. It’s the meaning behind the rhetoric. When commenters feel the need to attack our human rights record rather than either agreeing that Iran’s regime is horribly immoral or defending Iran’s human rights record (either of which would be reasonable responses to the post), it makes me wonder if they believe that we shouldn’t defend ourselves against radical Islamist terrorism because we deserve to die.
If we were serious, we’d shower the moderate Muslim democracies with high-profile support…nothing would speak louder than that.
If there were any moderate Muslim democracies that would probably be a pretty good idea. As it is the closest is probably Turkey. Is Kyrgzystan? After the transfer of powers from the legislature to the president a few years ago I’d say it remains to be seen. Let’s see if Akayev leaves office in 2005 before supporting another dictator.
So you do not sense that the article is a snapshot of what is happening in the rest of Iraq?
My spider-senses have utterly failed to tingle one way or another on this topic. When that happens, I like to rely on fact.
Again, Starti…if you were to change your historical frame of referance from WW2 and the Cold War to the Spanish-American War and its aftermath…Iraq will begin to make more sense.
With mind-reading skills like that, you don’t need mine. Really, how on earth is it that you think you know my “historical frame of reference”? If that even means anything.
“What’s inconsistent about that and asking for a reality check on the rhetoric?”
Which part of my rhetoric did you dislike?
“Not at all. I’ve called for increased and highly vocal support of the grassroots efforts to reform Islam.”
Which is a nice part of the war, but insufficient. Iran’s fundamentalists are unlikely to lose power peacefully. Followers of bin Laden’s tactics are absolutely not going to lose power peacefully. And in areas where they have the upper hand they will kill their opposition which tends to hurt grassroots efforts. Also there is a time factor. Relying primarily on grassroots efforts is likely to take decades if not centuries. It is unlikely that we can wait that long unless you are willing to write off a couple of US cities in the process.
Ateqeh’s own very personal grassroots campaign to obtain even a shred of mercy…how’d that do?
If there were any moderate Muslim democracies that would probably be a pretty good idea.
Er…that sort of dismissiveness is part of the problem. Clearly both Turkey and Kyrgyzstan are both “moderate Muslim” democracies. Just because they’re not the United States doesn’t mean they deserve such comments.
Yes, Akayev is showing signs of corruption, but Powell could work a bit harder to “encourage” him to do the right thing. I’ve posted on this…
Pre-emptively labeling him a dictator is exactly the sort of mistake we need to avoid.
Which part of my rhetoric did you dislike?
It wasn’t your rhetoric, Sebastian, it was JKC’s. He(?) and I have clarified the ideas there.
Having noted that, this is borderline confusing:
What we are fighting is unfortunately much bigger than Al Qaeda. We are fighting a group of societies that spawn groups like Al Qaeda with their revolutionary Islamist ideology. To defeat the enemy we must not shy away from identifying it.
So, please identify it. Who, exactly (bonus points for individual names, including those of particular regimes), is the enemy? This will help assure any nonviolent Muslims reading that you’re not confusing them with the enemy.
Er…that sort of dismissiveness is part of the problem.
I’m sorry if that sounded harsher than I intended it (and I mean that sincerely). IMO the liberal democracy deficit in the Muslim world is part of the problem. Will more aid make them more democratic? Will a higher profile relationship with the United States? Difficult to say. And WRT to Akayev I’m still smarting from the criticism being heaped on the U. S. for historic support of less-than-democratic regimes who were sympathetic to us (which is undeniable). Is “they were the best we could find under the circumstances” a sufficient excuse or not? Or do we need higher standards for whom we support?
Dave,
There have been many reasons given to justify the chaos in Iraq. I am begining to believe the human rights issue has nothing to do for the dignity of the people in the Middle East and everything to do with justifying bombing and mayhem, in the name of human rights.
We did not invade and occupy Iraq to prevent Sadr from political influence within his nation. Nor did we wage war to help the people of Iran realize there is hope beyond there oppression, …yet here we are pretending this is all about morality and ethics and democracy and liberty.
Iran’s governement is horrible, but to think that you could make the logical conclusion that we are bombing Iraq to help the war against the Iranian mullahs is just as horrible. Who let are government decide it could kill people for what ever reason seems romantic enough? That is a whim. After everything we have learned about our government why are we still killing Iraqis? WMD? Al-Queda? Human Rights? Iran? Your willingness to bomb and kill Iraqis because you think the human rights violations in Iran are gross is just as gross.
Haven:
Where did you get the idea that I’m a supporter of bombing Iraq? And by the way please stop ad hominem attacks against me immediately. You have attacked my morality twice with absolutely no basis. Where are the posting rules police?
I do support the War on Terror. Do you oppose it? Before the war in Iraq I opposed it. Now I’d characterize myself as a skeptic.
Why do you keep changing the subject from Iran to Iraq?
This will help assure any nonviolent Muslims reading that you’re not confusing them with the enemy.
Yes, Sebastian, that’s the first order of business when discussing Islam! Keep that in mind, young man.
Yes, Sebastian, that’s the first order of business when discussing Islam! Keep that in mind, young man.
I’ll keep waiting for that list. I won’t hold my breath, but I’ll keep waiting.
Sorry, didn’t mean to attack your morality, just trying to figure out how we went from 9-11 to defeating Sadr?
And Sebastian’s “This is an example of why we have to fight Sadr, he want to make Iraq into another Iran” does seem to imply that that ALL Islamisms are to be attacked if liberty is to win.
I remember the War on Communism believed Moaist in China, the Soviets, Socialist in Chile, Castro, the African National Congress, Socialist in Angola, Communist in Peru, Marxist in France, Socialist in Greece were all cut from the same cloth…then they were not.
I’ll keep waiting for that list.
List of what?
This list?
Tacitus: Yes, Sebastian, that’s the first order of business when discussing Islam! Keep that in mind, young man.
Assurance against persecution on the basis of religion is the first order of business of any discussion of religion and policy, even if it is only addressed implicitly. Notably, it is also the first order of business of the Bill of Rights, which some folks take as a reflection of the core values of our republic.
“So, please identify it. Who, exactly (bonus points for individual names, including those of particular regimes), is the enemy?” The regime in Iran. Definitely an enemy. Sadr, definitely an enemy. Al Qaeda, defintely an enemy. Those who support Al Qaeda with money, including Saudi Arabian princes–enemies. Many of the Saudi madrassahs (hmm is that the proper plural?) function as indoctrination centers for our enemies. They probably have to be dealt with an a case by case basis. Those factions of the Egyptian group Al-Jama’ah Al-Islamiyah who do not agree the group’s renunciation of terrorism are enemies.
Not all enemies have to be killed. But they have to at minimum be convinced to permanently stop waging war against us.
Re: “This will help assure any nonviolent Muslims reading that you’re not confusing them with the enemy.”
Part of the problem with the tactics of our enemies is that they intentionally attempt to confuse groups who support them with groups that do not. It is not 100% my responsibility to sort them out. Those Muslims who don’t want to be confused with the enemy could take steps to make distinctions between themselves and those who wear their heritage as a license to wage jihad. By-in-large the do not. (I don’t say never, I say by-in-large). Some of them don’t do so because they really would support Al Qaeda and the like openly if they dared. Some of them don’t do so because they are too afraid of Islamists but would denounce them if they dared. Some of them hate the US, some don’t.
I don’t claim to be perfect at identifying our enemies.
But, Edward, perhaps it would be easier if you would help. Perhaps it would be easier instead of treating every one of my attempts to point them out as attacks on all Muslims you helped draw distinctions to make it easier to tell the enemies from the non-enemies. Do you believe that the mullahs who killed the girl in the story above do not fund terrorist organizations? Are they at least our enemies? My problem is that you spend so much time protecting the innocent that you act as if going after the non-innocent is impossible. Do you believe that there are problems beyond Al Qaeda? Do you believe that Al Qaeda sprung fully formed from bin Laden’s head or do you believe that it came from a culture with some problems that might need to be rectified? Isn’t pointing out the bad parts that need to be dealt with a neccessary part of the solution?
Make it possible.
Because it is certainly true that if you help make fighting the actual enemies too difficult NOW, Americans won’t be too worried about distinction drawing after the next big attack in a US city. And then all of your efforts will have been wasted. Why court that disaster?
List of what?
This list?
You mean the same list of people who called for “democracy throughout the Muslim world through free and fair elections, with respect the dignity of citizens.”
The list of people who called for the occupation to end in conjunction with “US helicopter gunships pound[ing] Shi’ite militias in the holy Iraqi city of Najaf and tanks rumbl[ing] to within 800 yards of a holy shrine at the centre of a near three-week insurgency.”
Why, one might assume they were Muslim or something, reacting so strongly to US forces so close to their holiest shrine.
If that’s the enemy, then we’re not so bad off.
Sebastian, I appreciate what you’re saying. Hell, I even appreciate Tacitus’s point.
You ask me to help. I’ve offered my best advice. Support more clearly those Muslims who are trying. Criticize more clearly (and honestly) those regimes perpetuating human rights abuses. All of them! If this means the US has to stop purchasing Saudi oil, then that’s what it means. It will not be any easier than that just because we want it to be. (Sorry to be blunt, for for me this boils down to hoping by forcing reform on its neighbors at gun point, we’ll eventually get the Saudis to reform…nevermind how many innocent civilians have to die via this painstaking method, so long as the oil keeps flowing).
We’re trying to have it both ways. Killing around the edges. Leaving our interests intact.
That’s honorable?
Ironically, folks who want to compare this with the Cold War are refusing to acknowledge that winning that war took Reagan directly, openly challenging Gorbachev. When Bush is ready to directly, openly challenge the House of Saud, then we’ll have begun this war in earnest. Until then, I’ll protect my own against the half-assed efforts of juvenile cowboys.
Assurance against persecution on the basis of religion is the first order of business of any discussion of religion and policy….
Well. Simply untrue, unless you subscribe to the notion that all ideologies and belief systems are moral equals and/or benign.
In which case, enjoy the white supremacists down the block.
Notably, it is also the first order of business of the Bill of Rights….
Not quite accurate. The First Amendment extends that assurance with respect to the actions of Congress, on the basis that Congress is not the proper forum for such judgments. It does not imply that those judgments are ipso facto wrong.
If that’s the enemy, then we’re not so bad off.
Cripes, Edward. They would have you stoned dead in a heartbeat. Surely some small part of you understands this.
Until then, I’ll protect my own against the half-assed efforts of juvenile cowboys.
To clarify, no one on this thread is meant by that…it’s an encompassing description for those who are waiting in the wings to take up the call to support a rhetorical war on Islamism/Islam…idiots like my former brother-in-law who will believe the lowest common denominator of the PR so long as it assures them they’re American enough.
It may also, with some apology for carelessnes, be applied to Bush.
No offense taken, Edward.
Slartibartfast
Evil HVRWC Minion
“This is what Islamist groups want us to look like. This is how Osama bin Laden wants us to treat our women if we are to avoid his condemnation for tempting Muslims away from their faith.”
Well, I really don’t think that’s their aim.
Moreover, if it is, then we have relatively little to worry about. Because it’s a totally nutbar fantasy if Islamist radicals think they can impose such a regime on the United States.
I’m much more concerned as to whether they’re going to detonate a nuclear device on U.S. soil.
“Because it’s a totally nutbar fantasy if Islamist radicals think they can impose such a regime on the United States.
I’m much more concerned as to whether they’re going to detonate a nuclear device on U.S. soil.”
Arghh, it doesn’t matter if it is a nutbar fantasy. It is the nutbar fantasy that Islamists indulge. It is a nutbar fantasy which allows them to think that they should keep fighting us. It is a nutbar fantasy which makes negotiation very difficult. It is a nutbar fantasy that makes it impossible for us to satisfy nutbar demands. It is the nutbar fantasy that indulging is likely to lead to attempts to detonate a nuclear device on U.S. soil.
You don’t have to believe that the Islamists could actually take over the world to realize that in attempting to take over the world (which they foolishly believe is possible for them) they would be willing to engage in bad things like detonating nuclear devices on U.S. soil.
Wrong-o.
The attacks on US soil are designed to kick the US out of the ME region.
This is a rather basic point, and I’m surprised that someone as intelligent as you are is getting it so wrong.
Cripes, Edward. They would have you stoned dead in a heartbeat. Surely some small part of you understands this.
That’s a recurring theme that (subliminally at least) implies “consider yourself lucky, gay boy.” You’ve made your feelings on homophobia clear, so I’m not charging that here, but it implies that somehow I’d wear my gayness on my sleeve were I to be in an oppressive Muslim culture. I don’t wear it on my sleeve when I travel to homophobic parts of the United States, so why would I there? There’s a reality to the situation that does not escape me. I don’t provoke unnecessarily. I won’t run either (unfortunate stubborn streak I can’t seem to shake), but I’m no idiot.
But I’m curious, what prompts that response? What situation do you imagine in which you would not be subject to some same anti-other sentiment from hatemongers among fundamentalists?
Why do you see that as a convincing argument?
Gromit: Assurance against persecution on the basis of religion is the first order of business of any discussion of religion and policy….
Tacitus: Well. Simply untrue, unless you subscribe to the notion that all ideologies and belief systems are moral equals and/or benign.
So you are saying that it is okay to persecute folks for holding beliefs you consider immoral? Please be clear, because I have a really hard time believing that that is really your position. You insist that Edward would not fare well under Islamic law; do not forget that many folks (and not just militant muslims) might find your religion abhorrent for one reason or another, and were they in a position to pass legal judgment on the morality of your beliefs, you might feel compelled to rethink the above statement. The principle that religious persecution is acceptable when the religion in question is deemed immoral is indefensible if you wish to maintain a peaceful, pluralistic society (and if you don’t want that very principle turned around on you). So, if you please, clarify your position for me.
Immoral actions, I should note, are a much more complicated question, though there is nothing complex about deciding to condemn and punish the abhorrent acts carried out by the likes of Al Qaeda.
In which case, enjoy the white supremacists down the block.
I don’t have to enjoy them. I do have to speak up when someone starts telling them they don’t deserve the same protections as the rest of us by virtue of being morally inferior, just as I must speak up when they insist other races are inferior.
I naturally believe our government should work to actively promote my view on the subject of race, because I believe it is the just view. But it isn’t an inherently religious view. Just as children in public schools should be taught sound science, regardless of the protests of those who insist that schools teach “Creation Science”, the principle of racial tolerance can be divorced from matters spiritual, even if some folks believe that this or that ethnic group is the seed of Cain. I don’t turn either of those views, no matter how widely held here in Georgia, into blanket condemnations of Christianity (same goes for abortion clinic bombings, to give you a more violent example), and that is a good model to follow in regards to any faith, if you ask me.
Nothing in the Constitution suggests that we have to be tolerant of groups which are actively trying to kill us.
Re: “The attacks on US soil are designed to kick the US out of the ME region.”
Really? Is that all they want? Why did they bomb Spain? Why was that bombing planned before the Iraq invasion ever began? Why does bin Laden talk constantly about US morality ‘tempting’ pure Muslim hearts? Do you honestly believe, despite his own claims, that bin Laden only wants the US to leave the ME? And, by the way, in your opinion, would it be a good thing to leave the Middle East to its Osama bin Ladens and mullahs?
Surely the fact the AQ is trying to drive us out of the region — both the soft and hard power projections — sufficient reason for us to fight the WoT? Must we jump up and down about AQ’s ambitions for world domination — as if these were actually important to the AQ movement?
Would AQ leave us alone if we abandoned the ME (including Israel)? Maybe. Why not? It’s not like they’re attacking Canada.
Of course, that AQ wants us out of the ME is in no way sufficient reason to get out, and I am by no means an advocate of doing so. We shouldn’t pretend that our various actions in the ME — with respect to SA, Israel, Egypt, and others — is completely irrelevant because our foe is implacably bent on world domination. Even if some nutbar or other is implacably bent on world domination, the fact is that they cannot get to first base without significant public support. Social acceptance, really. And that’s where we have real chances to make progress.
Spain, by the way, is viewed by AQ nuts as a very very different circumstance than the US. I’m not saying we should stand by and let them try to reverse the “Tragedy of Spain” but we shouldn’t pretend that Spain is the same as Belgium, Canada, or Argentina.
Also, when we talk about the AQ war, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that it considers the struggle against the USSR in Afganistan and against Russia in Chechnya as part of the same broad war.
I thought our support of the people who believe as Sebastian’s post indicates in the 80s was questionable — and that they believed this was always apparent — but am practical enough to be accept a certain amount of immorality in a good cause.
I think it’s absolutely unavoidable that we’re going to have to make deals that are as morally troublesome as part of a longer game. That, to my mind, is perhaps the most significant risk to overselling the anti-Islamist rhetoric. Would I make short term common cause with Iran to take down AQ? If it would work. However, if as a society we go too far down the Communism of the 21st century road, we’ll become afraid to make deals. The perfect becomes the enemy of the good.
Gromit: Notably, it [assurance against religious persecution] is also the first order of business of the Bill of Rights….
Tacitus: Not quite accurate. The First Amendment extends that assurance with respect to the actions of Congress, on the basis that Congress is not the proper forum for such judgments. It does not imply that those judgments are ipso facto wrong.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I accept this interpretation at face value, how would it render my statement “not quite accurate?”
Sebastian Holsclaw: Nothing in the Constitution suggests that we have to be tolerant of groups which are actively trying to kill us.
Despite my paucity of expertise on constitutional law, I’m going to go out on a limb here and agree 100%. Glad we have that settled.
My, my, my, Haven. You did do your damndest to get yourself banned today, didn’t you? Let’s see, for the record:
* Sebastian did not advocate the killing of anybody; he wants us to fight Islamists, because they are fighting us. You are not a telepath, so stop pretending to be one. Neither are we, by the way: it was difficult to work out who about half of your diatribes were even directed to.
* That’s Islamists, not Islamics, by the way. The former is the term that we over here on the Right use to distinguish the radical terrorists from the ordinary, decent Muslims. Although I’m not too surprised that you didn’t catch this: it’s only been in use for, oh, several years now.
* We’ve had this conversation before about cutting and pasting. Here’s a special, Haven-specific rule, just for you: you, specifically, are allowed no more than twenty-five words in any quoted text. And, yes, I’ll be counting.
* Religious bigotry is against the principles of this site… even when it’s against fundamentalist Christians. If you had bothered to actually read the Religious Tolerance link that you posted, you might have noted that Christian Reconstructionists are the absolute fringe of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement, as might have been guessed from the minor detail that the flipping Christian Coalition called ’em nuts.
* Last but not least: none of this is subject to debate or discussion. I’m being inexplicably nice and not banning you – I seriously recommend that you do not try my patience further on this.
Moe
Sebastian & Tacitus:
I think you need to prioritize your goals, and recognize that some are inconsistent. We have:
1. prevent detonation of nuclear weapons on American soil [i’d be more generous and include anyplace on planet earth];
2. prevent Sadr from making Iraq into the next Iran;
3. turn Iran into Turkey; and
4. defeat the forces of “Islamists” around the world (including, presumably, those found within the governments of our allies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia etc.)
Did I miss anything or does that cover it? Oh, we should also balance the budget and move Social Security to a pay-as-you-go system without cutting benefits.
Now, as a good liberal I’m all for using government to effect positive social change but WOW you guys make me look like a piker. I see enough tax dollars in that list to make Hillary Clinton blush.
I remain baffled, however, by the path this country should take to achieve all those goals. Kill Sadr? At this point he’d more likely become a martyr. We’ve already made him a tremendously popular figure by his successful resistance. Can you imagine the political party that will spring up around his memory? Turkey would seem to be the best model going, but that country had a powerful army dedicated to the idea of holding the country together. If the Iraq Army is willing to inflict and take substantial casualties any time soon, I’ll start changing my tune, but the lack of a single news story about the successes of the Iraqi Army does not fill me with confidence.
Invade Iran? Invasion is the easy part; what happens next?
Like you two, I am concerned about nuclear weapons. As a resident of Long Beach California, I’m a likely victim. But I profoundly disagree with the path we have chosen in the ME; I think that the Bush admin policies have increased, not decreased, the likelihood that a terrorist group, with the assistance of disaffected Pakistani engineers and desperate NKorean generals, will detonate a small atomic weapon in the Port of Long Beach, sailed in on one of the thousands of small freighters that traverse the Pacififc.
Since I don’t believe in life after death, if they do it when I’m at home, I think that I’ll never know. Odd, that thought.
cheers
Francis
Edward: When Bush is ready to directly, openly challenge the House of Saud, then we’ll have begun this war in earnest.
Didn’t you, earlier in the thread, tell people that “[we should] shower the moderate Muslim democracies with high-profile support”? Shouldn’t you also take that advice, and avoid lumping the entire House of Saud together? Surely there are moderates in the Saudi Royal Family that deserve our support.
Praktike: The attacks on US soil are designed to kick the US out of the ME region.
First, yes. Though, if they were to achieve that, do you think they would be happy for long?
FDL: I remain baffled, however, by the path this country should take to achieve all those goals. Kill Sadr? At this point he’d more likely become a martyr.
For all of the predictions, I have yet to see a single martyr. They said that Uday, Qusay, and Shaik Yassin were all supposed to be a martyrs. I’m not worried.
“Kill Sadr? At this point he’d more likely become a martyr. We’ve already made him a tremendously popular figure by his successful resistance.”
This is absolutely infuriating. We follow your line by not killing or capturing him immediately, and now his successful resistance (which was successful only because we foolishly didn’t kill or capture him during his initial attempt at revolution) means that we absolutely definitely aren’t allowed to deal with him. Freaking great.
Funny. That is exactly how the Carter/Clinton Agreed Framework gave North Korea time to build nuclear weapons. This negotiating with ruthless autocrats thing doesn’t work very well.
I don’t know who “they” were who said that Uday and/or Qusay would be regarded as martyrs, but “they” weren’t particularly swift. I mean, it’s not like U & Q were leaders of a mass movement, with a significant cult of personality (around their personalities) that had attached to them because of a prior martyrdom.
Martyrdom plays a significant role in Shi’ism generally, and in the Sadrist movement particularly. It’s a possibility (although I actually doubt that young Sadr would really be a martyr for long, especially if his death was at the hands of Shi’ite Iraqis.)
On the broader point, comparing a containment policy for the Sadrist movement to mid-1990s North Korea is inapt. Unless you can identify a Korean Sistani, Korean Kurds, and a Korean Sunni insurgency. Sadr is fated for marginalization — in the Iraqi context, after we are gone — unless he can claim the mantle of liberator of Iraq. This is why he has been so desperate to get attention. We unfortunately obliged him in April but shutting down his newspaper, and now have to neutralize him to preserve any credibility for the national government. There may still be a way for us to get out without risking martyrdom, and without storming the mosque.
Funny. That is exactly how the Carter/Clinton Agreed Framework gave North Korea time to build nuclear weapons. This negotiating with ruthless autocrats thing doesn’t work very well.
Right. Whatever. Look, just because the GOP Congress worked to scuttle the deal and then the GOP Administration flippety flopped all over tha place to get us in the position we are today doesn’t mean it was all Clinton’s fault.
Really? Is that all they want? Why did they bomb Spain? Why was that bombing planned before the Iraq invasion ever began? Why does bin Laden talk constantly about US morality ‘tempting’ pure Muslim hearts? Do you honestly believe, despite his own claims, that bin Laden only wants the US to leave the ME? And, by the way, in your opinion, would it be a good thing to leave the Middle East to its Osama bin Ladens and mullahs?
Ok, first of all I should have been clear and said that they want the West out of Muslim lands rather than simply the US out of the ME. My apologies for the lack of clarity. Hope that clears up the confusion about Spain.
Second, you need to read Osama’s statements.
Third, no we don’t need to “leave the ME to Osama and his mullahs.” I’m not sure where I ever implied such a thing. Enjoy your strawman.
Fourth, priorities matter. Even if Osama wants to invade and conquer the United States, who cares? The number one priority is to secure loose nuclear weapons. Many other priorities follow before you reach “defend the United States from Al Qaeda takeover.”
Moe: You know, the Posting Rules are simple and straightforward, and their purpose is, I think, clear: to keep things relatively civil around here. That means NO FREAKING NAME CALLING. EVER.
Uh. I’m late coming back to this thread, so I only just read this.
I apologise.
To be fair, I wasn’t aware that referring to someone as an “ideologist” constituted name-calling: in my dictionary it means “an advocate of some ideology”, and Sebastian was unquestionably advocating some ideology in his post. I am also an ideologist: I advocate the ideologies of socialism, atheism, democracy, and freedom of choice. However, I realise that this could have been misinterpreted, and I do apologise.
THAT ESPECIALLY AND SPECIFICALLY APPLIES TO YOU, JESURGISLAC.
No need to shout, Moe. I am a regular poster to this blog, I obey the posting rules, when in breach of them I apologize, and I see no reason for you to single me out by yelling at me when – unintentionally and inadvertantly – I contravene your rules.
Actually, I’d like to take back the citing of the dictionary definition of “ideologist” above and just apologize for name-calling. (Having thought about it for a few hours, I concede Moe’s initial point: when used as I used it, an epithet such as “ideologist” counts as name-calling even though it is in no way an offensive term.
But shouting is still rude.
“But shouting is still rude.”
Yes, that was uncalled for; I apologize.