From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 13:48:40 BST
Alternatively Sam and Mark,
We could just get off the merry-go-round that assumes there is such a
thing as "fundamental causes", stop wasting valuable time analysing
them, and propose some quality dynamic moves for the future.
There is a balance to be had between those who ignore the lessons of
history being doomed to repeat its mistakes, and the conuterproductive
paralysis of analysis of history as written by the winners of mass
communications power. (What we know of causes isn't so black and white
that logical analysis, calculated probabilities or marginal costings
add any value.)
Ian
On 7/27/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > sam 7-25-05
> > The trouble is that those who carry out these acts *describe
> > themselves* as Muslim,
> >
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > But they don't describe themselves as "Muslim Terrorists." To
> > suggest that the use of the phrase in this case is purely descriptive
> > is disingenuous of you.
>
> Hmm. Not sure about disingenuous, but I misunderstood what you were
> objecting to, so I'll now need to ask some questions to clarify. With the
> phrase 'muslim terrorist' are you objecting to a) the ascription 'muslim' to
> these perpetrators; b) the ascription 'terrorist' to these perpetrators; or
> c) the yoking together of 'muslim' with 'terrorist'.
>
> I had thought you were objecting under a), but now it seems to be either
> b) - because they don't call themselves terrorists, or c) when you say:
>
> > The combination of the terms is meant to
> > convey a fundamental connection between them,
>
> which seems to be a non sequitur to me. There are all sorts of terrorists,
> the use of the word 'muslim' in this context is a restrictive modifier. It
> is to say 'these are terrorists of muslim [faith/culture/background/?]' - as
> opposed to, say, Irish terrorists, or Hindu terrorists, or Tamil terrorists,
> or US terrorists (McVeigh), or state terrorism (as with many of your
> descriptions of the US government actions in, eg, Latin America). If any
> fundamental connection arises it is purely through the repetition of the
> phrase, whereby, over time, the two words may become interchangeable. But
> that certainly hasn't happened yet, nor do I think it particularly likely.
>
> > which is further
> > entrenched through repetition followed by comments such as "who
> > gladly blow themselves out of existence so as to be rewarded with an
> > eternity of fornication. "
>
> Are you denying that this has formed part of the motivation for the various
> terrorists? It has certainly been part of Islamic history:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html
>
> I think there is a significant sexual element in a) the critique of the West
> offered by the Qutbists, and b) the specific motivations of some of the
> bombers.
>
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > The desire for an "eternity of fornication" goes deeply into some
> > traditions of Islamic theology? This may be true, but I doubt it; I
> > don't know enough about the wahhabi tradition, or Outb, to make a
> > judgement.
>
> See the guardian article linked above for a review. There's lots of stuff
> available if you google '72 virgins' (which is how I got to that Guardian
> article in the first place).
>
> > Perhaps Khaled can provide more information. Are you
> > suggesting that the author of the offending remark is well-versed in
> > the wahhabi tradition, that the intent of his remark was merely to
> > add a little historical background to the discussion? Please, my
> > friend. The "eternity of fornication" stuff is right out of
> > Limbaugh, not Outb.
>
> Or not, at least according to that article - and various other sources I've
> read. As to whether the author of the offending remark is well-informed or
> not, I don't know (I didn't know who wrote it when I responded to your
> reference, but that is simply because I pay much closer attention to your
> posts than to those of various others).
>
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > Again, the phrase that's being objected to is "Muslim Terrorist," as
> > used in the way it is in the offered quotes. Lemme know when people
> > on this list start referring to GWB and Blair as "Christian
> > Terrorists," doing what they do to secure a blissful eternity in
> > heaven. I'll be the first to object to such remarks.
>
> OK.
>
> > sam 7-25-05:
> > If we are to abandon the word 'muslim' as an adjective in this
> > context, might we also abandon the use of the word 'Christian' when
> > describing the crusades and the Inquisition?
> >
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > We need to be careful in using EITHER adjective. I would strongly
> > object to anyone who characterizes the Inquisition and Crusades as an
> > expression of Christian theology; they were an obscene aberration of
> > Christian theology conducted by people interested in maintaining and
> > expanding power.
>
> Thank you for saying that.
>
> > sam 7-25-05:
> > Finally, the phrase about 'real reasons' begs a few too many
> > questions.
> >
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > I don't see this as begging a question, but as a rational request
> > that we thoroughly explore what's behind these attacks, rather than
> > write them off as being carried out by a bunch of whackos looking to
> > get laid in heaven.
>
> I think there is a difference between the language of 'real reasons' and the
> language of 'thoroughly explore what is behind these attacks'. I'm wholly
> with you in wanting to analyse, eg, the contribution of Western foreign
> policy for the last two hundred years, and the Islamic response to that, as
> part of the cause for the present terror. But I happen to think that *part*
> of the cause is precisely a desire "by a bunch of whackos looking to get
> laid in heaven". I think if we say that that is not a 'real reason' then we
> are missing something very important. It may be precisely that which
> distinguishes one 21 year old Brit from another.
>
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > Well, if I were a Londoner riding the tube, the important question
> > would be, why are more and more people opting for terrorism as a
> > means of expressing political dissent? That 21 year old British
> > citizen wasn't born with the idea to blow himself up. Every report
> > indicates that terrorist attacks are INCREASING dramatically
> > throughout the world, just as predicted, not only by guys like Zinn,
> > Parenti, Chomsky, but by our own intelligence services. What's
> > wrong with asking why?
>
> Nothing. But is it also wrong to point out that the majority of such
> terrorism is associated with people formed by "Islamic" cultures -
> specifically the Wahhabi strain, as developed in the madrassas of Pakistan
> and elsewhere? Why, for example, is it that there was no Vietnamese
> terrorism against the United States - when what the US did in Vietnam was
> much worse than what is going on in Iraq? Or Latin American terrorism, for
> the same reasons? Or Korean? (the South Koreans are seriously pissed off at
> the US for all sorts of reasons). It seems to me that there are culturally
> specific reasons involved in why that 21 year old British citizen took the
> actions that he did, but also that, at the end of the day, none of those
> culturally specific reasons give either a full explanation or any sort of
> justification for his actions. He chose an evil path.
>
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > I agree he made a personal choice. As above, the important question
> > is what drove him to it? You can dismiss him for now as an
> > "aberration" of your society (what makes him different to all the
> > other 21 year old muslims coming from Leeds), but this does nothing
> > to help us understand, and predict, when the next kid from Leeds or
> > elsewhere in England or the world, makes the same choice. And, also
> > above, the numbers of such "aberations" is clearly increasing.
>
> Even if we have a full analysis of the 'root causes', I don't think we'll be
> able to get away from the moral failure represented by one individual's
> choice to perform evil acts. This is where I think some of Pirsig's
> (dangerous) language about the ruthless treatment of germs starts to get a
> purchase. How do you resist the one who is evil? Jesus says you shouldn't -
> as it gives the evil strength - but I'm not sure that translates neatly into
> government policy, nor am I sure it applies precisely when somebody is about
> to blow up a troupe of innocents. A real question though.
>
> > sam 7-25-05:
> > There's only one race: human. I'm sure we're agreed on that.
> >
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > Some of us are agreed on that. Not nearly enough, not yet, I'm
> > afraid. And the sort of comments criticized in this thread only
> > drive the wedge deeper.
>
> Hmmm. I'll come back to that below.
>
> > "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
> > government"
> > - Edward Abbey
>
> Marvellous quote.
>
> On to the DMB stereotyping of the benighted English ;-)
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > Well, lets look at the situations, as the context of the remarks are
> > all-important. The exchange between you and dmb, more or less
> > friendly rivals for a number of years, involved some tweaking of the
> > Brits, for the purpose of making a valid point. David's American,
> > you're British, so there's a friendly, funny poke.
> >
> > The context of the offensive remark under criticism is quite
> > different. The exchange occurred between two reactionary, white,
> > American jingoists. The comment was gratuitous, not illuminating, and
> > certainly not funny, at least not to anyone with a post-pubescent
> > sense of humor.
>
> OK, well I don't know the context (I'm not even certain who the two parties
> were). But the comment that particularly made me join in was the one that
> mentioned 'flower water', which I took to be a reference to the smell of
> explosives (I could be wrong on that - in which case I wouldn't disagree
> with your reaction). As such, I thought it related to the question of racial
> profiling, which is where we can concentrate on some substance.
>
> > sam 7-26-05
> > I think the underlying concern I have is that bringing in the assertion of
> > racism _can_ generate more heat than light.
> >
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > I, for one, think the light-heat metaphor has had its play on this
> > list, and should be retired to the vault of once-sacred cliches. If
> > we are to survive and evolve as a species, we need both intelligence
> > AND passion, and to fight hateful ignorance WITH passion where ever
> > we encounter it
>
> Well, let's abandon the heat-light language and get more MoQ specific. As it
> happens, I read Lila24 after sending that post in, and here is RMP: "... a
> second part of the paralysis probably came from the fact that the criminals
> were black... In the atmosphere of public opinion of that time no
> intellectual dared to open himself to the charge of being a racist. Just the
> thought of it shut him up tight. Paralysis." The problem with levelling the
> charge of racism is that it paralyses free intellectual exchange (or else
> simply becomes a prompt for venting nastiness). As Pirsig puts it "it is
> immoral to speak against a people because of the color of their skin, or any
> other genetic characteristic..." but it's not immoral to criticise cultural
> characterisics which can be changed. So we need to be careful to distinguish
> these things (and 'muslim' is cultural....)
>
> > sam 7-26-05
> > But quite possibly I still have racist elements in my own thinking.
> >
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > We all do, which is all the more reason for passionate vigilance.
>
> Agreed on that.
>
> > sam 7-26-05
> > For example, I think a strong argument can be made for racial
> > profiling when assessing potential bomb threats. Perhaps we could
> > focus on that?
> >
> > msh 7-26-05:
> > I think if your government wants to stop people who fit a particular
> > racial profile from carrying bombs into the tube then, sure, racial
> > profiling at the turnstyles is the way to go. I trust you see that
> > this is not the same thing as stopping terrorist attacks against the
> > citizens of London and all of England.
> <snip>
> > The point I hope I'm making is that security alone is not going to
> > solve the problem, especially as the number of potential terrorists
> > grows and grows. So, what good is racial profiling, unless you are
> > willing to lock-up or otherwise 24-7 surveil everyone who matches the
> > criteria? Even surveillance can tragically fail, as we've just seen
> > in the fear-driven murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. In short,
> > racial-profiling is not a rational response to an international
> > problem created in large part by past and present actions of the UKG
> > and USG. Your choices are a diplomatic effort to come to terms with
> > root causes, or use your profile and, borrowing the phrase of a
> > prominent contributor to this list, "kill 'em all like germs."
> > Option 2 requires you to check your humanity at the door.
>
> I don't think that's realistic, and it's a bit of a red herring. It's a
> question of probabilities and marginal costs. No security system is going to
> be perfect; the question is how to allocate the scarce resources so that the
> security services can do the best job possible. If the option is between
> random spot-checking, and racial profiling, the question is about the
> relative costs and benefits. If it was 100% random then I would expect the
> hit/miss ratio to be extremely high. If it was 100% racial profiling the
> hit/miss ratio would be better - on the assumption that there IS a link
> between the racial profile and people likely to be suicide bombers, which,
> given the experience of the last few years, would seem to be quite a robust
> connection. It won't be perfect, but no system is, and to criticise a system
> for not being perfect is a mistake in this context. It has to be the best it
> can be.
>
> I agree, however, that security alone will not solve the problem (nor will
> military solutions) and that we need to engage with the fundamental causes.
> I suspect we'd still disagree on our analyses of those, though ;-)
>
> > "If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil.
> > The worst you can say about him is that basically he's an
> > underachiever."
> > -- Woody Allen
>
> Ha!
>
> Cheers
> Sam
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 29 2005 - 09:36:33 BST