Peter Hitchens files a fascinating report from North Korea, where the regime’s pursuit of security at all costs keeps the public in constant darkness, literally and figuratively:
The main feeling the visitor has in Pyongyang is one of pity at the pathos of the place—its hopeless, helpless overestimate of its own power and importance, the deluded ignorance of millions of people carefully protected from any inrush of truth about themselves, their country, and their rulers. Every radio and TV set has been carefully neutered, its tuning dial soldered so that it can receive only the transmissions of the North Korean state. There is no access to the Internet except for a tiny, select few. Cell phones are confiscated from visitors upon arrival, though the very senior elite are believed to possess and use them. The newspapers are comically constipated accounts of speeches by the Dear Leader, long-ago angling contests, and uninteresting visits by junior dignitaries from countries ruled by dubious governments, which you would struggle to find on a map.
The arrogance and insolence of Peter Hitchens towards a people and government beleaguered on all sides and determined to maintain an independent course is mind boggling. His Anglican air of effete snobbism and superiority towards the respect and awe afforded to the founding leader of that nation is very misplaced considering that his own religion was the brainchild of a murderous tyrant who wanted to bed as many of his subject women as possible and then cut their heads off ! His writing is a flagrantly colonialist vomit reminiscent of the White Man’s burden or Manifest Destiny of old.
The North Korean people were subjected to one the most vicious and murderous bombing campaign the world had ever witnessed. There is now ample declassified evidence that the civilized USA employed chemical and bacteriological weapons on top of massive use of cluster munitions, napalm and all other available means to burn their flesh, rip them apart and poison their land.(see Operation Artichoke). They know of Western civilized behavior first hand. It is no wonder that they reject it.
What are you going on about? We obviously think the U.S. should not have gone to war in Korea, but how does that excuse the Kims’ half-century of megalomaniacal cruelty?
Also, I know reading is boring, but sometimes it pays to drag your eyes all the way to the end. Here’s Peter Hitchens’ last graf:
North Korea is a small, isolated, stagnant pond left over from the flood of Marxism-Leninism, which long ago receded. But it has nowhere to drain away. Far too many people, not all of them in Pyongyang, have an interest in keeping it as it is. It still has the capacity to do terrible things but mainly to its own citizens. A serious policy would aim to find a way to help it escape from the political and economic trap in which it finds itself. Threats, name-calling, and the pretence that this shambles of a country is a serious world power are unlikely to achieve this. It is more to be pitied than to be feared.
Dear Matt Barganier,
What am I going on about? If it is not apparent to you, then let me point out some of the more grotesque parts of this dispatch:
” Nothing in the modern world compares with North Korea, though it gives us some clue about how life must have been under the pharaohs, in Imperial Japan before Hiroshima…” Thank God then that we nuked Hiroshima and emancipated the Japs.
“This was the home of the Great Leader when he was ordinarily alive, kept going in his later years by a special diet of extra-long dog penises.” Is that some kind of Freudian hang-up on the part of Mr. Hitchens or does he find the fact that dogs are an integral part of Korean (north and south) cuisine an abomination?
“This is no mere Lenin’s Tomb but a temple of awe, where devotees must have the dust blasted from their clothes and shoes before approaching the sacred body and bowing deeply.” Ah the effrontery of these barbarians. Don’t they know that they should only bow ‘deeply'(whatever that means) at St. Paul’s cathedral or in front of her majesty the queen? How gauche!
“One of the many advantages of an Anglican upbringing is that one has gestures for all occasions, including obeisance to the bronze images of unhinged tyrants—though I found myself strangely disturbed by and ashamed of this particular breach of the Commandments for some time afterward.” This is the apogee of hypocrisy. Though Mr. Hitchens would find it difficult to document Kim Il Sung’s victims, I can easily do so for the millions of victims of British or American imperial intrusions in other people’s lands. As far as I know, Kim Il Sung is not responsible for millions(and I say millions) of deaths in Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Chile,Grenada, Lybia, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia… during the period of his rule. Does Mr. Hitchens ever feel “strangely disturbed and ashamed” when he visits national monuments in London or Washington??
“Brooding over this morbid, idolatrous cityscape is a great pyramid…” Idolatrous city? My, he even gets biblical. And we know what the righteous end of idolatrous cities are in the bible. “It is, by coincidence, almost exactly the height and shape of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984”. Can anything be more evil than that?
“As for the chain of concentration camps, to which three generations of offending families are dispatched, it is more or less impossible to remain comfortable in our homes while we know that these zones of deliberate inhumanity and intentional despair exist as we live our happy lives.” And what documentation does he offer for the existence of these camps? A train with poor people on board that someone saw. This the same type of solid evidence that linked Saddam Husein to Osama Bin Laden. Or perhaps those are the camps where Saddam’s WMDs are now hidden. But we do know of the suicidal despair of thousands in Bagram, Guantanamo, Diego Garcia and other nameless CIA concentration camps, dont we?
Indeed though he tries to redeem himself somewhat in the last paragraph by expressing a modicum of humanity, it does not make up for his vicious demonizing of the body politic and culture of that little nation. And that as we have seen only too clearly lately, is the usual prelude to aggression. Fortunately for the North Koreans, they can sting back if attacked.
You obviously don’t know anything about Peter Hitchens, which is why you’re reading far too much into most of the passages above. This Hitchens is antiwar and anti-empire. See this, for instance.
And get over your crush on the Kims. The enemy of my enemy isn’t always, or even usually, my friend.
Thank you for referring me to that superb study of Iran. It is erudite, comprehensive and elucidating. Great work by Hitchens. My compliments for that one.
Laham’s view reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s observation that when the Adversary wishes to fool us, he doesn’t plant vast, ornate lies before us. He merely slightly distorts the real picture so that at a glance it still appears normal, but isn’t.
We can grant all or most of what Laham’s saying about the West and still be appalled at life in North Korea. To borrow from Orwell, Tyranny is Freedom, and Starvation is Plenty.
Wow. I never heard about the absolute barbarious horrors we inflicted on the North Koreans, and Lahan’s conclusions are giving me a lot of food for thought. Thank you.
Care to become a citizen of the glorious state of North Korea?
Sounds like North Korea is much like the US under Bush/Cheney and Israel/AIPAC.
No, though there are certainly some lessons about secrecy, executive power, and militarism in there.
Stanley Laham, sure, many of us loathe the US government; it is despicable through and through. It has done many truly horribile things. That government is also an enemy of the North Korean government. Neither side likes the other. But simply because the two are enemies, and the US government is a rotten one, in no way, shape or form means that the North Korean government is some shining egalitarian utopia. Ingsoc being evil does not make Eastasia any better. Also, to imply, as you do, that the North Korean people have somehow made a free choice toward their current predicament of totalitarianism is too fantastic to even merit a developed response.
Scott thomason, I do not imply that the North Koreans have a choice in their future. Having been raised in the Haiti of Papa Doc, I know full well what an absolute dictatorship means. We knew that we were not in charge of our destiny, but at least, unlike the denizens of the Pax Americana, we never had the illusion that we did!
Perhaps you should check out my little narrative on Amazon. It might elucidate you.
Show me on the doll where the Anglican touched you.
Certainly, life in North Korea is terrible, and its government has earned continuing condemnation. But these are not new facts, never before revealed.
Instead of reading another essay attacking North Korea, I want to know the answer to this question: if the US and others cease their endless meddling on the Korean Pennisula, wouldn’t reunification soon take place, along with greatly improved living conditions in the North?
The ongoing kerfuffle was designed and remains maintained by the US. It is all about keeping tensions high as a means to stop any Japanese access to Russian oil and gas via pipeline.
Hmmm, interesting idea, but when I look at a map of Russia and Japan, I don’t see how the US presence in Korea can stop an underwater pipeline between Russia and Japan.
I’ve always assumed the US is in Korea in order to encircle China with US bases.
North Korea is a dangerous and despotic regime. However, last time I checked Koreans did not fly planes into the World Trade Center, that would be the Muslims. We need to focus on the threat of Islamo-Fascism. No doubt, North Korea is a repressive and repugnant governement, but they have not attacked us nor have they tried to cross the 38th parralel since 1953. Iran on the other hand, along with the rest of the Islamo Fascists present a clear and present danger to our nation and that is where our focus should be.
Ha, watching Tim R go on about Islamo-Fascism is like watching a college student calling any “conservative” deviation from Green party rule “fascism”. Apparently the impulse to throw around the F word with impunity and ignorance is not restricted to hysterical left-wingers.
Here is UC Berkeley scholar of fascism James Gregor:
“Today’s Islamists are religious eccentrics, antinationalists of conviction, political reactionaries, indifferent to economic growth and industrial development, and committed to terrorism as their principal method of restoring the dignity and glory of the ummah. They simply do not satisfy the criteria that would make them credible neofascists.”
mr Hitchens tells the tale of the despicable conditions that humanity is subjected to under communism…north koreas tale will one day be told and the world will shutter at the revelations of the hopelessness conditions of the north korean population…the nazis in germany were boyscouts in comparison with the north koreans, subjecting your citizens to 50 plus years of mindless thought control and having to live under the terrifying state police who themselves are watched by a bigger police state.
the fear of living in control police states is that you never know who is watching and who is sent to set you up.
it makes my heart melt with sadness to think of the conditions under which the north koreans live day in and day out.
communism is the most despicable of the isms ever thought of by the elite of the world, and to think that many nations fall prey to the unatural idea of man living communally.
I think you white men must agree that your race has done very many despicable things.While some of it is in the open much of it is unreported. For instance the Bengal Famine was engineered by the British in 1941 (as recent as that)in order to punish Bengal for its affronts to the British Empire but no one hears about it.The British glow with pride when they talk of their Empire on which the sun never set.The Zionists in Israel, supported by the Christian conglomerate, continue a cruel apartheid in Israel and practice merciless cruelty to the Palestinians in Gaza. We don't need to talk of South Africa's past.
So please do not treat Kim as if he is the worst offender in the world. I do not hear people talk in the same shocked way about Arabia and its Wahabi practices for the simple reason that you are in business cahoots with their fake and totally corrupt Royal family. On the contrary all of you had much to say about the cruelty of Saddam Hussain and his family. China is another example. When it was properly communist and weak you had a lot of things to say about it. Now when it has become an economic power and still has a dictatorial regime, the West has suddenly become silent. All this is part of the propaganda against politically inconvenient nations. You cannot change the world by arrogant moral positioning.
For Peter Hitchens with his Anglicanism, let me quote Jesus."You hypocrite, take the beam out of your own eye before you take the mote out of your neighbour's eye".
I’m not seeing the problem with this article. It’s a very good journalistic account of what life is like in North Korea by a man who admits there’s a lot he also doesn’t know.
There’s nothing particularly anti-communist about it (King Sung Il clearly has more in common with David Koresh than with August Bebel or even Lenin) and it also makes clear that North Korea has a pathetic economy and an apparently pathetic military and poses almost no threat to the United States, that diplomacy and economic aid would probably be better than saber rattling.
Matt Barganier,
Peter Hitchens is the brother of Chirstopher Hitchens, and his views do not differ from that of his brother by much. What gives them their character though, for which you mistake this one as being antiwar, is the nasty strain of feeling like a superior moral being that runs through them both. Peter Hitchens may not have taken the leap of faith that his brother has, but he is not antiwar, just as his brother is not.
a poll taken in SOUTH KOREA last year places BUSH ABOVE KIM IN HATRED…WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
a poll taken in SOUTH KOREA last year places BUSH ABOVE KIM IN HATRED…WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
I’d say it tells you:
1.) The USA is far and away the most powerful country in the world so its leaders faults are magnified. If Bush were the president of Australia or Canada, he’d be an object of ridicule but not necessarily feared and hated.
2.) The South Koreans don’t believe North Korea is currently much of a threat.
3.) Kim il Sung is more of a threat to his own people than to anybody else.
I think you white men must agree that your race has done very many despicable things
Like putting Colin Powell in front of the UN to lie about Iraq.
And the Black man, General Colin Powell, should not have lied to the United Nations, but instead told the truth, suggestions about how are illucitly enumerated by Paul Craig Roberts, and can be found in February, Counterpunch.org.
The coolest thing about the Dear Leader is that he can and does pork attractive females in uniform at will. He also gets to have invectives about imperialist furreigners broadcast by the KCNA (http://www.nk-news.net/index.php).
Apart from that, I guess it will be China’s move to make their frumpy southern vassal amend its ways. But when? And how?
And how is the story about that Plutonium sale to Syria coming that I keep hearing about?
Ali –
Peter Hitchens is quite far removed philosophically from his brother Christopher, and he has consistently opposed W’s wars while his brother has consistently supported them.
George Kurian –
Empires and nation-states do tend to engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other such things, whether they are run by people with red hair and freckles, or people with darker complexions. But before we engage in any history lessons, let’s talk about current events: Sudan, Darfur, Congo, Burma, and the list goes on and on.
Mike Morris: I am worried when White people are worried about what is happening in “Third World” countries, because without a doubt those White guys are up to no good! And what is going on in Sudan etc. has the DNA of the USA all over it.
No Mr. Morris, we can not just worry about the present and forget the past. The actions of the past shaped the present. How convenient it is for the present moralizers of the West to adopt selective amnesia. This one of the main reasons I found Mr. Hitchens’ so unnerving.
So just for fun, lest we forget on this Thanksgiving Day, a little inconvenient history for all:
“….Another common practice among European explorers was to give “smallpoxblankets” to the Indians. Since smallpox was unknown on this continent prior to
the arrival of the Europeans, Native Americans did not have any naturalimmunity to the disease so smallpox would effectively wipe out entire villageswith very little effort required by the Europeans. William Fenton describes howEuropeans decimated Native American villages in his 1957 work “American Indianand White relations to 1830.” From 1615 to 1619 smallpox ran rampant among theWampanoags and their neighbors to the north. The Wampanoag lost 70 percent oftheir population to the epidemic and the Massachusetts lost 90 percent. Most ofthe Wampanoag had died from the smallpox epidemic so when the Pilgrims arrivedthey found well-cleared fields which they claimed for their own. A Puritancolonist, quoted by Harvard University’s Perry Miller, praised the plague thathad wiped out the Indians for it was “the wonderful preparation of the LordJesus Christ, by his providence for his people’s abode in the Western world.”Historians have since speculated endlessly on why the woods in the regionresembled a park to the disembarking Pilgrims in 1620. The reason should havebeen obvious: hundreds, if not thousands, of people had lived there just fiveyears before. In less than three generations the settlers would turn all of NewEngland into a charnel house for Native Americans, and fire the economic engines of slavery throughout English-speaking America. Plymouth Rock is theplace where the nightmare truly began. (The Black Commentator, The History of
Thanksgiving)
Yes, Mr. Laham, America and the white race did truly awful and horrendous things to the native american indians. No one with a clear understanding of history can dispute that.
However, now what? Should we live in perpetual guilt and shame? Or should we move forward and stop living in the past? I am a Jew, so if I travel to Germany should I walk up to every German and tell them how awful they are for what they did to the Jewish people? Of course not! They regret what they did and have tried to make amends, it is time to move on and look to the future. I hold no animus toward them. Most Germans were not even born at the time anyway! Same thing can be said about the native american indians, the Africans or any other group that suffered in history. Move on! Stop living in the past and trying to embarrass and shame people for things they did not do and had no control over!
Happy Thanksgiving to all and yes I do celebrate it!
Tim R,
You have the wonderful ability to see the world as you want it to be. To you (as with most Israeli-Firsters), the Arabs are all Islamofascists because they must be evil in order to justify the Zionists’ theft of Palestinian and Syrian land, the dropping of cluster bombs upon the Lebanese, the delight in the destruction of Iraq, and the foaming-at-the-mouth lust for the same destruction of Iran. The Arabs must be evil or else Israel couldn’t scheme against them with clear conscience. To acknowledge Arab humanity would be just so inconvenient for Zionism. You may hold no animus against the Germans, but then what do they have that you want?
Anyone here read “The Aquariums of Pyongyang”?
I am a Jew, so if I travel to Germany should I walk up to every German and tell them how awful they are for what they did to the Jewish people?
It’s clear that for most western Jews the blame has been shifted from the Germans to the Palestinians. After all, Germany is rich, white, and part of the G7. How can you hate Germans for what they actually DID DO when you can hate an impoverished refugee people for what they DIDN’T DO?
I guarantee you that if the Germans had the annual GNP of the Palestinians, if Morganthau had been allowed to turn the country into Iraq, you’d hate the Germans from the very bottom of your soul.
Faust, if you knew the history of the Palestinians you would know that yes, indeed, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem traveled to Germany and was very supportive of Hitler’s plans to wipe out the Jews. He also invited high level Nazi officials to Palestine in order to cozy up to them. Indeed, he hoped to organize a brigage of Palestinians soldiers to fight alongside the Germans. Nevertheless, I don’t hate the Palestinians or anyone else, espeically for things that happened in the past. However, I do wish that the Muslim radicals, be they Palestinians or whomever, would just stop inciting hatred and promoting Islamic terrorism.
Timmy,
you do know why the Zionist regime was so keen to capture and silence Eichmann, don’t you?
There was collaberation going on by all sides, the British Royals and the Bank of England spring to mind (not to mention IBM, Standard Oil etc) but the most distasteful of all, given the context today, was the arrangements between the zionists and the nazis.
Had the US collapsed in 1991 like the USSR did the story would be a lot different. South Korea was Militaristic Dictatorship into the late 1980’s when growing trade with the US and poor PR forced them to shelve the Dictatorship for a Corporate Oligarchy. The rabid and completely pointless hate of everything to do with North Korea continues in the South Korean Military. I have seen a non-US Documentary about Army life in North Korea, and I can say it was hardly anything resembling what is written about here. Because almost every Won goes into the North Korean Military fed by paranoia that the US is going to commit “limited” genocide again like it did in the 1950’s. But had the US collapsed as an Economic power and the USSR had transformed more like China it would likely be Chinese journalists gloating about poverty stricken South Koreans in a Chinese Newspaper.
Sanctions also NEVER helped North Korea. Forced isolation would also breed poverty in the US. Without any fuel the streets in Manhattan would also be mostly deserted as many streets in Pyongyang are.
And as far as the great Pyramid structure in Pyongyang. That is simply an unfinished Hotel, not some “dreaded” Secret Police prison like in 1984. The Ryongyong Hotel simply ran out of funds during the 1990’s economic collapse and was abandoned by the builders.
Finally lets get real here. The almost Monarch like regime of North Korea can’t even be considered Communist. It is a Nationalist regime on the same level as Mussolini and Tojo.
test
Faust, if you knew the history of the Palestinians you would know that yes, indeed, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem traveled to Germany and was very supportive of Hitler’s plans to wipe out the Jews.
Usual Zionist flash cards. Usual bogus logic too.
The Arabs sided with the Germans during the Second World War in exactly the same way Roosvelt sided with Joseph Stalin. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Unfortunately all of the pro-Soviet propaganda that came out in the USA during the war has been cleansed from the American psyche but it’s even more damning than the usual stuff zionists bring up about the Grand Mufti.
But you get the message. You hate the Palestinians and not the Germans because the Germans (in spite of the fact that they were the ones who actually organized the Holocaust) because the Germans are an important part of the world order and the Palestinians are an annoying indigenous people who just don’t want to be ethnically cleansed without a fight.
What does this have to do with North Korea, you ask?
In 2003, the United States took out Saddam not because Iraq was an worse than North Korea and not because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, it was because, unlike North Korea, he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.
That sent a message to every tin pot third world tyrant that if you didn’t want to end up on the wrong end of a rope surrounded by Shia militia cheering as your neck snapped, you’d better get nukes and get them fast.
Iran, which is sitting on a huge puddle of oil and which the USA has targetted, got the message. Get WMDs or at least try. Your neck depends on it.
I am struck by Tim R.’s penchant for bringing up Islamic fundamentalists in a conversation to which they have patently no relevance, as if to establish his credentials as a foreign policy “tough guy”, a phenomenon the good folk at LewRockwell.com rightly labeled “crackpot realism”. Notice also that he has judiciously abstained from replying to any comments rebutting this kind of crudely theological account of global affairs. What gives? Methinks he isn’t a bona fide commentator, and certainly not an informed observer of any persuasion. The only law school I can see him getting into, after witnessing his repeated massacres of history, logic, and data, is Pat Robertson’s Liberty University.
Thank you for the insults. I am, quite frankly, delighted by all the ad hominom attacks I receive on this blog. Why? First of all, it shows that perhaps I am at least making you folks think a bit. Second, it really shows that you have a hard time rebutting my points. Ad hominom attacks are for people who can't fight back with logic or facts, so they turn to insults. Well done!
Boy, you left wing liberals never admit to anything do you? So now you even admit that the Palestinians supported Hitler and the Nazis but you don’t even blame them or assign fault, instead you make lame excuses for it. It is only Israel and the United States that can do bad things, the Palestinians and the Islamic Fascists in general, can do no wrong in your distorted eyes.
Tim R,
I am a liberal who is willing to listen to reasonable explanations. I am all ears – please explain to me why the Zionist “settlers” are entitled to seize Palestinian lands. Also please explain why the residents of Gaza are not allowed to export out produce and flowers grown there to make a living (the IDF insisted that the stuff rot in Gaza). Explain why Israel seizes Palestinian tax revenues. Explain why Israel is right to cut off food, water and electricity to 1.5 million desperate people in Gaza. Also explain all of this rock throwing at Palestinian school children by the “settlers” and the destruction of Palestinian olive groves and orchards. Please explain to me why Israel is not a sh-tty, little, rascist, cruel country.
Richard Vajs, let me try to be as clear as I can:
The settlers are not stealing land. Why? Listen carefully:
On 14 May 1948 Israel was formally declared an independant state. This was under the aegis of United Nations resolutions of the previous November. The following day, 15 May, all of the arab nations in the area attacked. There was a war. Israel won. The Arabs lost.
Fast forward to June 1967. Egypt’s President Nasser promises to wipe out Israel completly. He mobilizes his army for war, kicks out UN observers from the Sinai, and in violation of international law, closes the Straits of Tiran, a naval blockade tantamount to a declaration of war. Israel stikes Egypt pre-emptivly and wipes out her air force. Jordan is told by Israel to stay out of the conflict but instead, under pressure from Nasser, attacks Israel as well. In the North, Syria attacks. Other Arab nations from the region send money and forces to help out. In fact, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia on TV admits that the goal is to wipe Israel off the map. Well, guess what? Again, we had a war and Israel won. The Arabs lost! So get over it already! In my view, at that point Israel had the right to annex and forever control all the land she siezed while in the course of defending herself.
1973: On Yom Kippur the Arabs strike again. Again, they are defeated.
If you think Israel has to give back the land seized in 1967, you had better also go to the United Nations and insist the United States give back Texas and California, Arizona and New Mexico, all siezed from Mexico between 1846 and 1848. But we don’t hear anything like that do we? No, only tiny little Israel, 5 million Jews totally surrounded to the north, south, and east, by 240 million Arab Muslims, is held to this higher standard. She was attacked time and time again. She somehow wins the war and then is told to give back the land she siezed while in the course of DEFENDING herself.
Last point: I admit that Isael has not treated the Palestinians well and should do a lot better by them. They are people and should be treated with dignity and respect no matter what. Even though I believe Israel is in the right and is not “stealing” anything, she should still do a much better job of seeing to it that the Palestinians are treated fairly and with kindness. After all, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Between 1948 and 1967, the Palestinian Arabs desecrated the Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetary, the Wailing Wall, and just about every Jewish Synogogue in east Jerusalem. And what did the Jews do in return? Did they desecrate the Al Aqsa mosque? Did they defile the Dome of the Rock Mosque? No, they gave control of it to the Arabs and let them practice their religion as they see fit.
Boy, you left wing liberals never admit to anything do you? So now you even admit that the Palestinians supported Hitler and the Nazis
1.) I thought there were “no such thing as Palestinians”, that they were just Arabs who moved there after 1948.
2.) Had I been a Palestinian in 1940, I would have supported the Nazis too. My enemy was England, not Germany.
It is only Israel and the United States that can do bad things, the Palestinians and the Islamic Fascists in general, can do no wrong in your distorted eyes.
Lots of nations (Germans, Russians, Turks, Japanese, and, yes, Israelis) do bad things like, once again, the Germans, who, oddly enough, once again, you hate a good deal less than the Arabs.
Faust, that is correct, in reality there is no such thing as the “Palestinian” people as a distinct nation. I just use the term because it has made its way into the common parlance and to do otherwise just tends to confuse people. The fact of the matter is, the “Palestinians” are simply Arab-Muslims who live in the area known as the west bank. Granted, I admit that some of them have lived there for thousands of years. However, they are not a distinct people. If they were, explain this to me: How come they were not fighting for an independent state long before 1967? How come when Jordan controlled the west bank, between 1948 and 1967 they were not attacking Jordan, carrying out an “intifada” and suicide bombings against the Jordanian occupation? The reason is because the Jordanians are fellow Muslims and fellow Arabs. The Palestinians did not mind being under Jordan’s rule. Same deal with Eygpt. Eygpt controlled the Gaza Strip before 1967, where was the outcry of condemnation about the Eygption occupation?
Face it, the whole “Arab/Israeli” conflict has very little to do with land and a very lot to do with religion. The Arab Muslims can’t stand the idea that Jews can hold on to this tiny little piece of land, about the size of the State of New Jersey. It angers and irritates them to no end. The mere existence of a Jewish State, of any size shape or form is galling to them and that is why they seek to destroy it. Their sacred book, the Quran teaches them that the Muslim religion is superior to all religions and anyone who is not a Muslim must submit to Muslim rule, they must accept the status of a “dhimi” a second class citizen who pays tribute to the Muslims.
Tim R.- Notice that a cornerstone of my post was that you were unable to refute the arguments made on previous entries. Seeing as others have already torn you to shreds in this thread, I thought it would be superfluous to append any further contentions and decided to indulge in the kind of gratuitous calumny of which you are so fond. It would clearly be an exercise in futility to dissuade you from holding the self-affirming ideology of perpetual warfare and religious genocide which imparts you with so much sanctimony. We can only point out the immense gulf between your churlish posturing and reality at large. I’ll give it a shot:
“Boy, you left wing liberals never admit to anything do you? So now you even admit that the Palestinians supported Hitler and the Nazis but you don’t even blame them or assign fault, instead you make lame excuses for it. It is only Israel and the United States that can do bad things, the Palestinians and the Islamic Fascists in general, can do no wrong in your distorted eyes.”
First off, at least try to describe your audience accurately: antiwar.com’s includes a patchwork of ideological groups ranging from traditional conservative to anarchist. A good number of us (myself included) are Ron Paul supporters, not something one generally expects from “left-wing liberals” or a site catering to the sensibilities thereof. I myself hold no particular political affiliation, except the most general kind of anti-statism and opposition to mass murder of any sort. Secondly, the reasons for this pact were pure realpolitik and do not, as you imply, indicate any kind of ideological isomorphism between the Palestinians and the Nazis, unless you wish to argue that Roosevelt was a close ideological cousin of Joseph Stalin or what have you (not an altogether baseless accusation, given his track record). Thirdly, it is obscene to make generalizations about the Palestinians solely on the basis of atavistic guilt, especially when the “alliance” involved an unelected government and when you refrain from doing the same with the British or the Germans, a fact which demonstrates that you are, indeed, a poisonous racist with a geopolitical axe to grind. You’re not making anyone think about anything except how damned arrogant and hypocritical the neocons are, which, I suspect may be your intent, since I somewhat doubt you’re as stupid as you appear. It could be that you’re a brilliant satirist; I’m always open to giving people the benefit of a doubt.
Kenneth, specifically what arguements, from previous posts, do you feel that I did not refute?
A good number of us (myself included) are Ron Paul supporters,
Yep. Right now Ron Paul is enemy number 1 among liberals. They genuinely consider him the anti-christ.
You are greatly exagerating about how liberals feel about Ron Paul. You probably would call me one, and I so very much admire and promote him. If you are referring to Tim R., I think that commentator has referred to himself as a Jewish conservative Democrat. Those who identify themselves as members of the Jewish tribe are very much prospering in America, although very small in numbers, whereas not so much Black Americans and those known as American Indians.
Here I was thinking potential Warmongers like McCain or Hillary are the “anti-Christs” in waiting after Cheney is done being the anti-Christ. I guess I am not the “liberal” I thought I was. Personally I am hoping the 2008 elections will be Gravel vs. Paul, that would make it a really hard choice, as opposed to Giuliani vs. Hillary which is not even a choice, not voting is the best choice in that situation. Because then you are choosing the lesser of 2 evils, and that means more war, more suffering, less government spending on people and more spending on shiny new weapons to attack and kill people with. Like that new heat ray weapon that burns the skin to terrorize whole populations. That sort of thing you would find in a Fascist society.
unless you wish to argue that Roosevelt was a close ideological cousin of Joseph Stalin
American WWII poster
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/Russian.jpg
You’re kidding, right? That “poster”(in fact a book cover for a manual to communicate with Russians) was created because from 1917 until 1941 Russians were “Commie bastards” and Red Scares were plaguing America when American liberals were being jailed or killed because they were suspected “Communists” or Soviet spies. It was designed to reduce the anti-communist feeling in the country engineered through the anti-Communist propaganda of previous years.
Or is your point of view that Russians “really were” a subhuman Asiatic horde that “threatened” Germany’s “Aryan purity” and Germany needed to wipe them all out? Is that correct Herr Schickelgruber? The Russian’s (rightful) resistance to the Axis invasion was something to support. Because Hitler had only one goal in Russia, to wipe out all Slavs.
I believe Russians and Americans should work together. We can build a worldwide Space Agency, the goal of which would be to travel beyond our planet, to unify Humanity and to reduce conflict around the globe.
Faust You- If anything demonstrates the utter uselessness- indeed, insidiousness- of the mainstream left, it’s the bile being directed at Ron Paul. You’d think a man who refuses to participate in lucrative Congressional pension schemes, consistently votes against the unwarranted (pardon the pun) expansion of executive power, and attacks state-corporate collaboration would be at least given credit by the ostensibly “anti-Bush” left but alas, the same Democratic hacks who praised the bombing of Serbia have come out of the woodwork when threatened with a man that breaks their monopoly on the antiwar position. Reminds me of Cavour back in the mid-nineteenth century when he noted that, if the fundamentals of the regnant order were ever threatened, the “liberals” and assorted aristocrats would close ranks against the radicals to form a united “party of order”. This observation is no less relevant today, and the congruent attacks on Ron Paul coming from right and centre-left make this maxim timeless. As his popularity continues to wax we’ll see escalating attacks on his character from both sides of the political peanut gallery, and I suspect when character assassination fails them they’ll try their hand at real assassination.
“Fast forward to June 1967. Egypt’s President Nasser promises to wipe out Israel completly. He mobilizes his army for war, kicks out UN observers from the Sinai, and in violation of international law, closes the Straits of Tiran, a naval blockade tantamount to a declaration of war. Israel stikes Egypt pre-emptivly and wipes out her air force. Jordan is told by Israel to stay out of the conflict but instead, under pressure from Nasser, attacks Israel as well. In the North, Syria attacks. Other Arab nations from the region send money and forces to help out. In fact, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia on TV admits that the goal is to wipe Israel off the map. Well, guess what? Again, we had a war and Israel won. The Arabs lost! So get over it already! In my view, at that point Israel had the right to annex and forever control all the land she siezed while in the course of defending herself.”
The war was initiated by a “pre-emptive” strike by Israel. As it happens, the intelligence about Egyptian mobilization was ambiguous at best, and what data was gathered indicated Nasser had arranged his forces in defensive rather than offensive positions. Clearly, he anticipated the possibility of a war with Israel resulting from the diplomatic standoff, but then, as now, the books were cooked to justify the annihilation of the Egyptian force and the acquisition of the Sinai. Abba Eben, the-then Israeli ambassador to the United States, expressed outrage over the Israeli leadership’s allegations that Egypt was preparing for an offensive strike, speculation that American intelligence did not collaborate. Now, it is true that the Yom Kippur war was Egypt’s doing, mainly because Israel had illegally seized the Sinai Peninsula during the war of 1967. It is also true that Israel faces a great deal of hostility from its neighbours, mainly because of what it does to the Palestinians. All arguments attempting to justify Israel’s actions on these grounds are moot, however, as Israel has no right to exist.
Now, not only did you “not adequately address” some of my arguments- you bypassed them entirely, as you did not post any sort of response to me. I cited (and linked to) the Europol report on terrorism showing Islamic fundamentalism to be a far smaller threat than it is commonly conceived, and certainly no where near large enough to constitute some kind of cosmic struggle between the forces of Good (TM) and Evil (TM) ( (not that American imperialism fits the usual criteria of “good” anyway. Even if the “Islamic threat” which you like to bleat about were real, it would be a contest between two bloodthirsty geopolitical rivals). Specifically, out of the nearly five hundred terrorist attacks in Europe in 2006, only one was done by Islamists. A good deal more violence comes from racists and Islamophobes such as yourself. At the very most, they are an occasional nuisance, to be dealt with as one would deal with any set of vagabonds. You also didn’t look at the link to a general overturning of various myths about Islam- or perhaps you did, seeing as you’re now taking pains to specify that there are “fundamentalists” who do the dastardly deeds they do, no longer insinuating that they are constitutive of the Islamic norm. I fear, however, that pointing this out might prompt you to revert to your usual bigoted style, so for your viewing pleasure, here are the pages I linked to on the prior post:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/TESAT/TESAT2007.pdf
Additionally, you alleged that Bush, in fact, did not lie about the reasons for war with Iraq. This is likewise false:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/
You also might want to google “Downing Street Memo”.
Kenneth, you said “Israel has not right to exist.” Well, there you have it. You might as well be a spokesperson for Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. Why does Israel have no right to exist? The Jewish people first entered the land of Israel over 3,300 years ago. They built Jerusalem. Abraham, Isaac, Jacoub and all of our elders are buried there. Jews have been connected to the land in prayer and in thought throughout their years in the diaspora. At least some Jews have lived there, consistantly and without exception for over 3,300 years, even after the Romans expelled most of them.
Prior to the 1940’s many Zionists actually PURCHASED a great deal of land from the Palestinians. The United Nations voted on a two state plan and approved it in November of 1947 and the Jews accepted it. They fought a war with the arabs when they were attacked in May 1948 and they won. Yet, you say they have no right to exist? Why? Explain that one to me?
Also, America stole land from the Native American Indians, a white race that had no connection to the land. The Native Americans lived here for 20,000 thousand years. Does America have a right to exist? Please explain? Are you going to lobby the United Nations for America to give back all land to the Native Americans as well? Or is it just Israel you like to single out and pick on?
Islam is peaceful. Geez, give me a break! Just read the Quran. Open it and read it for yourself! Or go to the Human Rights Watch website and punch in the Muslim country of your choice, see how peaceful their laws are! You want to cite reports and studies? Go read the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, it was co-chaired by Madeline Albright. See for yourself what large percentages of Muslims are radicals.
Oh and thank you for that link to the USC Muslims Student Association article. A great read it was! Basically, they make up excuses for the vile and rapacious things in the Quran. But yet they say on the site that “The Qur’an is a book containing the literal Word of Allah.” Also, they write, “the Islamic state must derive its law from the Qur’an and Sunnah.” Another good tidbit, “the best alternative to a pure democracy is a democracy that implements and enforces the Shari’ah (Islamic Law).”
So read the Quran Kenneth and then tell me if you think it is peaceful. And tell me if you think Sharia law is what you would like to live under. The USC site also tries to justify slavery and to make lame excuses as to why men should get to marry up to four women and why a woman’s inheritance should be only half that of a man. Again, a great read, thank you for the link!
Only 1 successful Muslim attack in 2006? I’m not sure if that is true, but if it is, thank God and it was because of great police work. How many attacks were foiled? I was in France during the summer of 2006 and I know there was great fear because of an Islamic terrorist plot to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic. In New York, police arrested the “Fort Dix Six,” Muslims who were plotting to blow up Fort Dix, New Jersey. So don’t tell me the Muslims are not a serious threat. I could cite you pages and pages of attacks by radical Muslims. And even more pages of attacks that were foiled.
Do me a favor, why don’t you take a vacation to Saudi Arabia. Tell them you are doing a study on human rights. Ask them and try to find out how they treat gays, women, and people of other religions. Ask to see some Saudi textbooks and see what they teach their kids. Then tell me if you still think it is such a peaceful religion.
In fact, you must already be in Eygpt because you are sailing down the river of DE NILE!
Dear Tim R
In reading the many comments posted on anti-war, it is difficult not to notice your manic obsession with this most despicable linguistic deformation invented by the so-called neocons: “Islamofascism”. Over and over you argue with posters like Kenneth about the history of modern day Israel. You seem to think that they, perhaps not being Jewish, have a deep-rooted bias against that state when they tell you that it is guilty of unadulterated naked aggression. When Jews like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein point out the same, then they are accused of being self-haters, another linguistic aberration.
So let me refer you to a historian which in your extremely tunneled intellect should be above any reproach! He describes the 1956 unprovoked Israeli attack on Egypt as a well planned Zionist scheme to employ British and French imperialist nostalgia as a means to acquire territory and strategic control of the Red Sea.
Then he goes on to describe the 1967 war as the result of intentional provocations by Israel. He describes how the myth of Syrian shelling of the Kibbutz’s on their border was created. He details his and Levi Eshkol’s greed for the Golan Plateau and how they manipulated to commit naked aggression to seize it.
When he dictated his memoir, it was so incredibly damning of Israel that he instructed that it not be published for fifteen years after his death. Those fifteen years have come and gone and you can read it anytime. The historian in question is Moshe Dayan.
Mr. Laham:
Thank you for your comments and your suggestion that I read Moshe Dayan’s memoir. I must admit that I have not read his memoir, but if your description is indeed true, I shall have to re-evaluate some of my positions regarding the six day war. I look foward to reading it.
Secondly, my use of the term “IslamoFascism:” I use the term most deliberatly. As you know, language is important. I understand that the term is controversial and inflammatory and raises a lot of eyebrows and that is exactly why I use it. The point that I want to remind people of is that terrorism is just a tactic, it is the prefered tactic of radical Muslims. Radical Islamic ideaology is what we are fighting. Terrorism and radical Islam are inextricably intertwined. So use whatever term you want, take your pick” IslamoFascism, Islamic terrorism, Jihadists(Thomas L. Friedman’s prefered term), Muslim Nazi’s, I don’t care what term you use so long as you don’t use the generic “terrorism.” It is not just terrorism, it is ISLAMIC terrorism. We are fighting a radical idealogy.
Lastly, the term “IslamoFascism” for your information was not coined by neo conservatives or any other kind of conservatives.
“Kenneth, you said “Israel has not right to exist.†Well, there you have it. You might as well be a spokesperson for Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. Why does Israel have no right to exist? The Jewish people first entered the land of Israel over 3,300 years ago. They built Jerusalem. Abraham, Isaac, Jacoub and all of our elders are buried there. Jews have been connected to the land in prayer and in thought throughout their years in the diaspora. At least some Jews have lived there, consistantly and without exception for over 3,300 years, even after the Romans expelled most of them.”
“Prior to the 1940’s many Zionists actually PURCHASED a great deal of land from the Palestinians. The United Nations voted on a two state plan and approved it in November of 1947 and the Jews accepted it. They fought a war with the arabs when they were attacked in May 1948 and they won. Yet, you say they have no right to exist? Why? Explain that one to me?”
Right. Israel is an ethno-state expressively founded upon the principle of Jewish supremacy- its very namesake is that of the ancient Hebrew kingdom. On top of that, no one has any ancestral claim to land- thus, while Israel may have existed long ago, the undeniable fact is that, in wake of its conquest at the hands of the Romans, is that other groups settled the land. To come back and expropriate them on the basis of some inherited “right” and thence proceed to oppress and exclude them is larceny, pure and simple. The fact that the U.N. approved of it does not make it any less unjust, and, in fact, as you had mentioned, the Jews were already entering Palestine legitimately. It was neither necessary nor moral to form a state solely for them. Since, however, you insist on bringing the U.N. into this, it should be noted that Israel’s ongoing occupation of, among other things, the Golan Heights and most of its present territory is illegal under Resolution 242. Racism is racism, no matter who does it, and one cannot use past injustices to justify the subordination of others.
“Also, America stole land from the Native American Indians, a white race that had no connection to the land. The Native Americans lived here for 20,000 thousand years. Does America have a right to exist? Please explain? Are you going to lobby the United Nations for America to give back all land to the Native Americans as well? Or is it just Israel you like to single out and pick on?”
This is a complex question, and if this were still the nineteenth century I’d advocate against further forcible expansion of American territory. As it is, I don’t think enough has been done to redress the ills of the aboriginal population, but seeing as virtually none are left to claim the territory that was their ancestors’ and they have already been long, it would be impossible to repatriate it. However, the United States did not have the right to take what it did, and in the absence of dissolution should opt for the next best possible solution, which is to recompense the Amerindians. Israel is a different situation altogether, since the population it expropriated is still very much alive and very much deserving of just restitution. Here another point should be made clear: getting rid of “Israel” as it is currently formed simply means getting rid of the existing regime in Tel Aviv. The formation of a binational state and the revamping of the Right to Return laws is quite possible without expelling the current Jewish population. Since the United States already has that, it is unnecessary to do penance.
“Islam is peaceful. Geez, give me a break! Just read the Quran. Open it and read it for yourself! Or go to the Human Rights Watch website and punch in the Muslim country of your choice, see how peaceful their laws are! You want to cite reports and studies? Go read the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, it was co-chaired by Madeline Albright. See for yourself what large percentages of Muslims are radicals.”
Since such statistics are so readily accessible, why don’t you supply them yourself?
“Oh and thank you for that link to the USC Muslims Student Association article. A great read it was! Basically, they make up excuses for the vile and rapacious things in the Quran. But yet they say on the site that “The Qur’an is a book containing the literal Word of Allah.†Also, they write, “the Islamic state must derive its law from the Qur’an and Sunnah.†Another good tidbit, “the best alternative to a pure democracy is a democracy that implements and enforces the Shari’ah (Islamic Law).â€
So read the Quran Kenneth and then tell me if you think it is peaceful. And tell me if you think Sharia law is what you would like to live under. The USC site also tries to justify slavery and to make lame excuses as to why men should get to marry up to four women and why a woman’s inheritance should be only half that of a man. Again, a great read, thank you for the link!”
No more, or less, peaceful than Christianity. The following quotes might be useful:
“The Messenger of Allah (saas) said, ‘One who kills a non-Muslim person under protection (Arabic: dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise.'”
“Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person under protection, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection.”
“[2:190-192] And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.”
So, Tim, when are we going to hear about Moses and the Midianites? How about the Biblical command to “go forth and make disciples of all nations”? When are we going to hear any verse justifying religious persecution that isn’t taken completely out of context from the Qu’ran? For that matter, how about the oppressive Buddhist rule in Tibet prior to the 1950s?
“Do me a favor, why don’t you take a vacation to Saudi Arabia. Tell them you are doing a study on human rights. Ask them and try to find out how they treat gays, women, and people of other religions. Ask to see some Saudi textbooks and see what they teach their kids. Then tell me if you still think it is such a peaceful religion.”
One thing is obvious here, Tim: you’re utterly at your wits’ end for counter-arguments. One can’t judge a religion by the governments that carry its name, for the very simple reason than said governments are interested in retaining control over their subjects and legitimizing their rule, and can only be expected to distort the preferred theology of their subjects to this end, otherwise we should find ourselves drawing most unflattering conclusions about Catholicism from examining its long dominion. It’s true that “Islamic” governments are repressive, just as “Jewish”, “Buddhist”, and “Christian” ones are. What this confirms is not any special Islamic propensity for violence but the secularist principle of keeping religion out of government to prevent any such bloodletting.
“Only 1 successful Muslim attack in 2006? I’m not sure if that is true, but if it is, thank God and it was because of great police work. How many attacks were foiled? I was in France during the summer of 2006 and I know there was great fear because of an Islamic terrorist plot to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic. In New York, police arrested the “Fort Dix Six,†Muslims who were plotting to blow up Fort Dix, New Jersey. So don’t tell me the Muslims are not a serious threat. I could cite you pages and pages of attacks by radical Muslims. And even more pages of attacks that were foiled.”
No you couldn’t, otherwise you’d cut the bluster and actually do it. From the Europol Report:
…A total of 340 persons were
reported as having been arrested on Islamist
terrorism related offences. Two hundred and
sixty arrests were carried out in 2006.
Less than ten percent of the arrested individuals
were suspected of preparation, planning or exe-
cution of terrorist attacks. The arrests took place
in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden.
Assuming the police forces didn’t do anything, that still comes to 34 out of 498 terrorist attacks in Europe- far below what various separatist groups have done. You will recall also that the largest supply of explosives ever found in Britain was possessed, not by Islamists, but by the racist BNP, a fact the media have not made much of.
Error: The above value should be 34 out of 532 terrorist attacks that would have taken place, which is a smaller proportion.
Kenneth:
You say I am all bluster? Well the facts speak loud and clear. Here are some links you can use to enlighten yourself on this “peaceful” religion. Here you can see for yourself that the vast and overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks against western civilization are committed by Muslims. You can also see for yourself what percentages of Muslims support radical Islamic ideaology. I hope you will read these figures with an open mind and process them reasonably and in a manner detached from emotional sentiment.
1)http://ballyblog.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/terrorists-are-muslims-list-of-islamic-terrorist-attacks/
2)http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm
3) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
4)http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257
You say I am all bluster? Well the facts speak loud and clear. Here are some links you can use to enlighten yourself on this “peaceful†religion. Here you can see for yourself that the vast and overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks against western civilization are committed by Muslims. You can also see for yourself what percentages of Muslims support radical Islamic ideaology. I hope you will read these figures with an open mind and process them reasonably and in a manner detached from emotional sentiment.
This is a superficial and fallacious conclusion to draw from such an ambiguous pool of evidence. It hardly follows from the data you have presented that Islam is a violent religion, or even that the attacks are aimed at “Western civilization” in general rather than its policies in particular. It is a post hoc fallacy to conclude Islam is violent because some of its followers are involved. What you have given me is a list of decontextualized incidents that doesn’t suffice to prove that Islam is an inherently violent doctrine rather than one distorted by existing social conditions. Indeed, such a notion cannot explain the violence, as the fact remains that the vast majority of Muslims aren’t terrorists, demonstrating that Islam is not a sufficient condition for the creation of terrorists. All religions, Buddhism included, have histories fraught with violence; we can’t really draw conclusions about their theologies from this. Moreover, you promised me a list of foiled terrorist attacks; what you’ve presented is a list of successful ones. The total number of attacks that have been prevented by the heroic actions of the manifold American intelligence agencies currently in existence is, in fact, zero. It turns out that most such attacks are motivated by the policies of the west, including, among other things, the occupation of the Muslim holy lands and the continuing blank check support for Israel. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded as much, as did Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit. At most, what we have is the kind of run-of-the-mill violence that usually accompanies underdevelopment. Nor do I believe, as you imply, that Islam is “peaceful”, anymore than it is violent. Islam is Islam; whether it is used for violent or peaceful purposes depend on the social and political conditions prevailing in its homelands. Since, however, you insist on pushing such a one-dimensional account of Islamist terrorism, I feel obliged to respond with actual quotations from the Qu’ran (which I see you have avoided addressing).
Secondly, my use of the term “IslamoFascism:†I use the term most deliberatly. As you know, language is important. I understand that the term is controversial and inflammatory and raises a lot of eyebrows and that is exactly why I use it. The point that I want to remind people of is that terrorism is just a tactic, it is the prefered tactic of radical Muslims. Radical Islamic ideaology is what we are fighting. Terrorism and radical Islam are inextricably intertwined. So use whatever term you want, take your pick†IslamoFascism, Islamic terrorism, Jihadists(Thomas L. Friedman’s prefered term), Muslim Nazi’s, I don’t care what term you use so long as you don’t use the generic “terrorism.†It is not just terrorism, it is ISLAMIC terrorism. We are fighting a radical idealogy.
Lastly, the term “IslamoFascism†for your information was not coined by neo conservatives or any other kind of conservatives.
The whole point here is that “fascism” has become a nebulous political label bereft of theoretical content. It derogatory, not descriptive. Since Islamism is transnational and regards the state as a means, rather than an end in itself as fascism does, it can hardly be compared to fascism or even to conventional forms of totalitarianism. There is little functional or ideological congruence between Bin Laden and Benito Mussolini, apart from their penchant for killing innocents (a trait they both share with the past several American heads of state). Freely appending the “fascist” epithet to whatever evokes your ire empties the term of meaning; we might as well label certain extreme ideological tendencies in both the United States and Israel as “Christofascist” or “Judeofascist”, since they have a much greater structural similarity with the old Italian doctrine than do Islamist ideologies. Islamism isn’t an existential threat, and it is only a nuisance because the west insists on foisting its will upon the Islamic world.
Kenneth:
Did you know that statistically over 95% of all violent crimes in the United States are committed by men. But you can’t say that men are more violent than women right? Just because men commit the overwhelming amount of violent crimes, how can we make the logical leap of faith that men are more violent in general? Same thing with Muslims, just because the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are committed by them we can’t dare say that they are more violent than bhuddists, or Hindus for example.
Kenneth, you have already made up your mind and you don’t care about the facts, so I am probably wasting my time trying to reason with you.
And don’t bother me with your quotes from the Quran because I could site you many more that are bloodthirsty and violent (8:12, 47:4, among others) Why don’t you go back to the University of Southern California Muslims Students link you sent to me. Go read how they make lame excuses for the violence, sexism and racism and hompophobia in their religion.
I’m not wasting any more of my time. You are beyond the reach of reason.
Did you know that statistically over 95% of all violent crimes in the United States are committed by men. But you can’t say that men are more violent than women right? Just because men commit the overwhelming amount of violent crimes, how can we make the logical leap of faith that men are more violent in general? Same thing with Muslims, just because the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are committed by them we can’t dare say that they are more violent than bhuddists, or Hindus for example.
You’re correct: we can’t say that men are inherently more violent than women, as this argument implies, since men are socialized very differently. Likewise, Muslims exist in a very different social climate than Hindus: they happen to be astride large oil reserves, have both their holy cities occupied by American forces, and they are squarely in Israel’s cross-hairs. In the past, various nationalist movements, such as the Tamil Tigers, employed suicide bombings; Islamism has risen to replace them because secular nationalism has failed to achieve its objectives, and such attacks have geopolitical, rather than ideological, motivations. I suggest you read Robert Pape’s Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism as well as Michael Scheuer. Specifically, the vast majority are conducted to compel the West to withdraw its troops from their homelands. Observe that Muslim states like Bangladesh and Malaysia (home to the two largest Muslim communities in the world) which aren’t subject to American occupation haven’t produced any suicide bombers.
Kenneth, you have already made up your mind and you don’t care about the facts, so I am probably wasting my time trying to reason with you.
I do care about the facts, which is why I’ve cited several of them, including the conclusions of the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer. You’ve adduced a few tendentious sources which abstract from the circumstantial particulars and demonstrated a persistent inability to look beyond the “Islamic terrorism” label. You’re wasting your time if you think employing logical fallacies of this nature will sway me, and you’re also wasting your time at law school, since reasoning and argument aren’t your strong points.
And don’t bother me with your quotes from the Quran because I could site you many more that are bloodthirsty and violent (8:12, 47:4, among others) Why don’t you go back to the University of Southern California Muslims Students link you sent to me. Go read how they make lame excuses for the violence, sexism and racism and hompophobia in their religion.
You cannot have had more than a cursory glance at the University of Michigan page. They aren’t making “lame excuses” for homophobia, sexism, and racism in the Qu’ran: they’re showing clearly that the Qu’ran does not support them (or at least the latter two), and cannot be construed as such. On racism:
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/lastsermon.html)
On sexism:
O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them – except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womenquransunnah.html)
I’m not disputing that there are distasteful passages in the Qu’ran: there probably are. You, however, are making a much stronger argument; namely, that the Qu’ran is exceptional in this regard, a contention which you have, thus far, been unable to prove. It isn’t. It may very well condone homophobia, but so does the Bible. Meanwhile, I’d like you to make excuses for this list of what constitute “capital crimes” in the Old Testament:
Murder, applies to Noachides as well (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17-23, Numbers 35:9-34)
Disobedience to parents (Exodus 21:15, 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7)
Negligent homicide, specifically by ox-goring (Exodus 21:28-32)
Sorcery and Augury (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
Bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16)
Sacrificing to gods other than God alone (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 27:29)
Sabbath breaking (Exodus 31:12-17, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
offering Human sacrifice to Molech (Leviticus 20:1-5)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11-12)
Sodomy (Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22, see also Leviticus 18)
Marrying your wife’s mother (Leviticus 20:14)
Prostitution by the daughter of a priest (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Worshipping Baal Peor (Numbers 25:1-9)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:1-10, 17:2-7, 18:20-22)
Contempt of court (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)
False witness in a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:15-21)
Unchastity among those engaged to marry (Deuteronomy 22:13-29)
Examine the relatively trivial nature of some of the “crimes” listed here: disobeying one’s parents, failing to maintain chastity, false prophecy, blasphemy (effectively circumscribing the range of free speech), etc. A primitive and violent sounding code, no? Clearly, however, the vast majority of modern day Christians and Jews don’t kill their offspring when they disobey them, nor homosexuals, nor adulterers. What is clear from all this is that we cannot compartmentalize theology and sociology; the latter begets the former. To similarly seek out a theological explanation for political acts is a hopelessly glib characterization of modern day terrorism.
I’m not wasting any more of my time. You are beyond the reach of reason.
Then stop coming to antiwar.com, idiot.
A few parting comments: since the Qu’ran contains passages condemning both gratuitous violence and the degradation of women, it automatically renders moot all claims that Islam is warlike, regardless of what it may say elsewhere. The most that can be argued from this is that the Qu’ran, like most holy texts, is peppered with contradictions, not that it leans one way or another. It would be arbitrary to argue that certain passages in the Qu’ran take precedent over others, especially in light of your repudiation of the atrocious passages in parts of the Talmud.
The bible has lots of terrible things written in the old Testament. But you don’t even see the difference do you? When was the last time you heard of a Rabbi or a Priest killing someone in the name of God? When was the last time you heard of a Rabbi stoning someone to death? When was the last time you heard of a Priest burning someone at the stake? The difference is that Jews and Christians have progressed a great deal, the radical Muslims have not.
Also, Jesus said “He who is without sin should caste out the first stone.” The Catholic Church is totally oppossed to capital punishment. But the Muslims love capital punishment and use it all the time, especially in Iran. The New Testament is filled with love and peace. The Quran, despite having some loving and good things in it, is overwhelmingly violent and bigoted.
The bible has lots of terrible things written in the old Testament. But you don’t even see the difference do you? When was the last time you heard of a Rabbi or a Priest killing someone in the name of God? When was the last time you heard of a Rabbi stoning someone to death? When was the last time you heard of a Priest burning someone at the stake?
That’s exactly my point. The deformities in Islam as it exists today are the product of social conditions, not any intrinsic tendency for violence. Mind you, Islam in the Arab world has not merely failed to progress; it has regressed. In the past, the Islamic world was relatively tolerant of other religions- the Ottoman empire, for example, welcomed Jews fleeing Spanish persecution. Modern day terrorism, however, is only distantly related to this degeneration. Not all modern day Muslim countries are intolerant and backward nowadays, anyway: Malaysia and Turkey, while they have their problems, are quite pluralistic, despite experiencing a few bumps along the way.
Also, Jesus said “He who is without sin should caste out the first stone.†The Catholic Church is totally oppossed to capital punishment. But the Muslims love capital punishment and use it all the time, especially in Iran. The New Testament is filled with love and peace. The Quran, despite having some loving and good things in it, is overwhelmingly violent and bigoted.
Overwhelmingly? Tim, you’ve produced precious little evidence to this effect. The Old Testament, which Christians and Jews both view as canonical (indeed, it forms the core of the Talmud), is full of violence and bloodshed. You are simply insisting Islam, and, by extension, all more most Muslims, are uniquely violent on the basis of irrelevant characteristics (the current backwardness of the Muslim world vis-a-vis the west, a state that Christendom was in several centuries ago), a fallacy in logic known as “special pleading” (might want to jot that down for law school). At any rate, your continued theological exertions have only served to divert attention from the prior points in my argument that you could not refute; namely, the roots of modern terrorism and America’s penchant for wantonly killing innocent people around the globe.
Correction: That should be “Torah”, not “Talmud”. But my point still stands.