What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Global Warming and the Jihad

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The popular trope on the Right is that Leftists are suicidal dhimmi when it comes to the Jihad. While there may be some truth to that, I don't think it is the whole story. In a recent thread, Lydia and I were both making dire predictions which we fervently hope will not come to pass. In the course of that thread a metaphor came up which may be helpful in understanding how modern left-liberals think about the Jihad.

The metaphor is this: the modern Left views the Jihad in much the same way that the modern Right views global warming.

Now, it isn't my intention in this post to assert that global warming is truly the dire crisis that it is portrayed to be on the Left. I am highly sceptical not of the claim itself per se, but rather of the prerequisite claim that it is even possible for such claims to be well grounded. In fact my view on global warming is probably similar to the conventional conservative view: we don't really know what effects man has on the weather, if any. It isn't even possible for us to know, so the things being asserted as knowledge are in fact almost entirely guesswork, and self-serving guesswork grounded in a priori assumptions at that. I think global warming alarmists are for the most part sincere in their beliefs, but it is no accident that their beliefs coincide with the radical leftist idea that we have to remake society from the top down in a way that just happens to coincide perfectly with the radical leftist programme. Color me sceptical.

And that is precisely how the Left views the Jihad. 9-11 was an event with respect to the Jihad much like hurricane Katrina was an event with respect to global warming: right-wingers are simply taking advantage of it, exaggerating the threat and engaging in misdirection and speculative nonsense about causes as cover for their racist totalitarian agenda.

Viewed in this way it isn't enough to say that the Left is dhimmi when it comes to Islam, any more than it is enough to say that the Right is dhimmi when it comes to environmental threats. The putative massive environmental destruction caused (supposedly) by global warming is the political Left's ally, because it creates a political crisis which makes leftist solutions necessary. The threat of the Jihad simply cannot be real, because if it were then that would make racist xenophobic right wing solutions necessary.

But alliances of the unlike don't last forever. The Japanese were not Aryan supermen, and you can bet that if Emperor Hirohito had directly attacked Berlin the unlikely alliance between an old world empire and a radically modernist regime of free and equal supermen would have come to an end. The Left isn't dhimmi because of some innate desire to submit to Islam. The Left will act dhimmi for just as long as doing so is perceived to serve the purposes of the Left, and not a moment more.

Comments (95)

So who is our Al Gore?

Thanks for the clarification on global warming. I wondered just what-all you meant by the analogy but didn't ask. The thing is, though, that there is a difference of _rationality_ here. After all, people _did_ 9/11. It wasn't a storm. And we know the jihadist ideology of those people. They've made no secret of it. So I would assert that the conservatives are rational to be skeptical that man is causing global warming, but leftists are very irrational to be skeptical that jihadism is a threat, since people expressly motivated by jihadism are indeed going about and blowing things up. It's not like Katrina came with a "caused by car-driving" label on it.

And, as you know (but I thought we were more or less agreeing to disagree) I doubt very much that the leftists will have much of an opportunity to turn around down the line and stop acting dhimmi in an effective fashion. We may or may not agree, too, on the motives behind the "acting dhimmi." I, for one, think that at this stage of the game it's a lot more a) pathological and b) craven than a matter of calculated alliance.

So who is our Al Gore?

From the perspective of the Left? George W. Bush.

The thing is, though, that there is a difference of _rationality_ here.

Yep. But my point here is to illustrate perspectives -- to know the enemy from his own perspective, not to evaluate the objective truth of his metaphysics.

I was listening to Dennis Miller last night and a liberal called to complain about liberals being painted with too broad a brush for their positions.

He then proceeded to say why global warming was a bigger threat than jihadism to him. The chances of him being killed by a terrorist were much smaller then the chances that climate change (which he was certain was man caused) was going to affect him.

I wanted to reach through the radio to strangle the fellow since his essential attitude was that jihadism doesn’t affect him. That 3000 fellow Americans were murdered is beside the point. They aren’t him or anyone he loves. That scumbags in Iraq saw American heads off is their tough luck.

If bombs go off in India, Philippines, England, Spain, Iraq, Israel and so on it is of little matter - only a few of the herd are culled that way. The stupid buffalo keep eating their way across the landscape and their flatulence is making the whole place stink so why not reduce their numbers?

Liberalism is only slightly less about selfishness than the infantilism of the very Left. It is like William Blake’s engraving of a boy with a long ladder he is trying to put up to the Moon captioned - I want! I want!

I identify with my neighbor, though. He is me. His children are mine, too. If someone comes to kill him, then I go and get my gun and help defend him.

If the climate changes, then I have faith that my neighbors and I can work it out to help each other because we have the same interests but also good neighborliness or affinity.

Liberals always talk about community but everything they do is centrifugal; everything they emphasize destroys cohesion since the only things which maintain cohesion are traditions.

I may dislike my neighbor intensely but when evil people come to kill him and his family, if I am not willing to get my gun and help him out, we no longer have a country, compact, tradition, or community. We have then become the damned.


Good post. I have one question, though:

"Viewed in this way it isn't enough to say that the Left is dhimmi when it comes to Islam, any more than it is enough to say that the Right is dhimmi when it comes to environmental threats. The putative massive environmental destruction caused (supposedly) by global warming is the political Left's ally, because it creates a political crisis which makes leftist solutions necessary."

Are you saying that you believe that if global warning is a major threat, then leftist (and/or globalist) solutions are the only possible solutions, or merely that such a belief is a common perception? I myself think that global warming is probably real (though the results are probably exaggerated), and I am no leftist. I'm one of those "small is beautiful" people and I'd like to think that such an approach would have great ecological benefits. I think it is important for traditionalists to take an interest in ecological concerns and not let them be exclusive property of leftists, globalists, and enviro-misanthropes.

As an aside, it was highly unwise of Al Gore to appoint himself Official Prophet of Global Warming, as that casts it as a partisan issue.

Mark, I can't help liking someone who listens to a call-in guest who says stuff like that and who wants to reach through the phone lines and strangle him. Hearty agreement!

What Lydia said.

Are you saying that you believe that if global warning is a major threat, then leftist (and/or globalist) solutions are the only possible solutions, or merely that such a belief is a common perception?

I was trying to put myself in the position of left-liberals and articulate things as they see them. Substantive judgements on the issues take a backseat to that in the present post. It does seem to be the case though that if some global ecological catastrophe is impending (which I find very doubtful) it would likely require some sort of global solution. I don't know that "global solution" necessarily implies leftism, or any form of liberalism at all for that matter, but it sets off alarm bells nonetheless. In general threats which require vast centralized power to address tend to be exaggerated in the minds of those who would like to acquire vast centralized power.

I think it is important for traditionalists to take an interest in ecological concerns and not let them be exclusive property of leftists, globalists, and enviro-misanthropes.

I agree, though I think the relevant issues tend to be more local (e.g. some company dumping toxic waste and leaving the problem for the public to deal with).

He then proceeded to say why global warming was a bigger threat than jihadism to him.

Well there you go. And I didn't pay the caller a dime to publicly confirm my thesis.

Full agreement that the perceived allies and concomitant enemies of the left and right are as Zippy posits. Clearly, however, the Holy Father is beginning to sense that global warming (let's call it abrupt [in geological scale perspective] climate change) is an issue worthy of serious concern, as here. And Islamic fascism IS the Islamic "reformation", just as Belloc points out that the Protestant Reformation was an interruption of reason, art, and culture, halted by bowing to "false authority" (How the Reformation Happened, [hb] p. 268).

The issues and themes are notoriously grasped at by the rivalrous right and left, but not at the tectonic plate level, as it were.

Oh, heavens! Let's not have _another_ *empirical issue* on which we're going to be told that because the Holy Father says it's real, or a cause for concern, or not merely a theory, or something, there is now some big-time reason for Catholics to believe the empirical statements in question. Surely the Holy Father has no better access than anyone else in his particular ordinary social and epistemological circumstances to the question of whether man is causing abrupt climate change! And I would hope that, as it isn't a matter of religion or morals nor has been taught de fide, Catholics can treat his opinions on this subject as those of an individual.

It is correctly pointed out (above) that the Holy Father was not making a definitive statement. But, you know, you pays your money and you takes your choice in many areas out there. I think I will stick with the epistemological certainty of the one who sits in Peter's Chair over, say, you.

Please understand: I don't mean to be disrespectful here at all. It is just, as you say, Lydia, a matter of epistemology. Who are you going to trust in terms of presenting truth? Just because "global warming" is a kneejerk topic for the left doesn't signify it isn't, as BXVI says, a grave concern.

Recall that I see Islamic fascism as a perilous adversary and, in Belloc's terms, a "reformation" that is casting whatever is good in Muslims of goodwill into turmoil, silence, and acquiescence. Think of the silent majority of Catholics in England during Henry VIII's and Elizabeth's reigns. They aged, died, left England, "Mary's Dowry," to go down the path to present-day dhimmitude. Will the Islamic fascists leave a similar legacy?

So my point is, who does one trust if NOT the Holy Father on this, and a good many other matters? Just askin'.

So... this "jihad." It sounds a lot like the "gay agenda" or the "patriarchy," these ridiculous aggregates of reified concepts that one merely uses as a justification for the venting of their resentment.

I'm curious. I live in an area with a substantial number of Muslims. I see them everyday. Should I expect their imminant conquest of the municipal government?

Athos:

1) Lydia isn't Catholic, though as a Protestant she doesn't appear to have any bias against what the Holy Father says. For example, when it comes to deontological morality Lydia's understanding is more Catholic than most Catholics.

2) Global warming (and evolution for that matter) are questions of empirical science and predictions in empirical science, over which the Church herself claims no epistemic charism. (There is a long conversation in here about the distinction between empirical fact and moral principles. Whether Iraq had in fact had WMD's it was going to give to Al Qaeda was also an empirical matter. The Just War doctrine, however, is a matter of moral principle. If in fact human-driven ecological catastrophe is occurring, we do have an obligation to do something within the bounds of prudent action about it. But that is a big "if").

On the matter of global warming I do rely to a significant extent on my own knowledge of scientific principles, as well as my knowledge of weather models and phenomena as a regular user of them as products (as a private pilot I regularly use the RUC model to predict skew-T characteristics in the areas I am flying, so that I know where cloud layers will be at least in stable air, where icing conditions might obtain, etc). In empirical matters one cannot escape from the need to make empirical judgements about what is, you know, true.

It is my view, both as a general scientific matter and as a relatively sophisticated (for a layman) consumer of weather prediction products, that when someone predicts that global warming is going to cause long-term ecological catastrophe he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is expressing a gut feeling, a sense of foreboding, as if it were knowledge. But it isn't knowledge. It isn't just that what he is saying is wrong: it is that it is impossible for him to know what he claims to know, no matter what computer modeling and scientific jargon he has wrapped around it. He might even be right -- that is, there may be an impending mankind-induced global ecological catastrophe. But if there is, then his being right is purely a matter of a wildly lucky guess, not a matter of knowledge.

However, the point of my post wasn't to start a debate over the objective merits of either global warming or the Jihad: the point was to help my fellow travellers understand the mentality of those to whom we are opposed politically, and perhaps to some smaller extent to help us understand our own mentality. Thus the lede.

Should I expect their imminant conquest of the municipal government?

If by "imminent" you mean "within a few generations", then I would say yes. You should expect that.

Athos, I was pointing out that, as Zippy says, the Church claims no special charism over matters such as whether man is causing global warming any more than (say) over whether the Yankees will win the World Series. (The World Series analogy is mine; I won't saddle Zippy with it.) But unfortunately there are some people who believe that if the Pope has an opinion on *any topic whatever*, even if that topic is not claimed by the Church to lie within its special magisterial authority, but if that topic is believed to be _important_, then we must give special deference to that opinion. I am a Protestant, and a rather strong-minded one at that. But honestly, it seems to me that very traditional and faithful Catholics should be completely within their proper behavior as such faithful and traditional Catholics to give no special deference at all to the Holy Father's opinion on so obviously entirely scientific and non-magisterial a question as whether man is causing climate change.

Mike, American Muslims certainly are aiming at, running for, and in some places winning by landslides, positions in local government and do consider at least accommodation of Islam to be something that can be aided by their having such positions. I suppose you could say that the same is true of any group that tries to get people elected. But sharia is a much bigger problem to accommodate within an American system than (say) American evangelicalism.

So we're facing the end of liberal democratic capitalism?

"Facing" again seems to indicate a short time-frame. I don't claim to be a prophet. It's possible that the various types of attempts to spread global Islam will be sufficiently checked in the United States that we won't see either the end of democratic capitalism or of the United States as a recognizable entity within anything like our own lifetimes. What I think _is_ true is that there are an awful lot of people who think imposing sharia in the United States would be great and that they are pursuing this end in their own various ways, not coordinated from some central location, some probably disagreeing with others as to strategy, but agreeing that spreading Islamic law and rule is a genuine goal.

There has been more success in Europe than in America. Coming from Europe, and aside from all the stories about people told they can't have pictures of Piglet on their desks or eat at their desks during Ramadan we have even more seriously disturbing stories regarding the incorporation of Islamic cultural assumptions into legal contexts. Instance: A girl in Morocco was tied up by her parents and brother to a chair and beaten severely. She was nineteen years old. The parents were charged with something like assault and battery and unlawful restraint or whatever the Italian equivalent is. That charge was recently overturned by the Italian Supreme Court, not with the argument that the parents didn't do it but with the argument that they did it "for her own good" and were motivated by her offenses to their cultural mores (she had an unapproved boyfriend). It was also mentioned that the father hadn't made a _habit_ of beating the tar out of his daughter. Instance: A German judge refused a woman an expedited divorce from her abusive husband, citing expressly *in the opinion* the fact that the Koran permits beating of wives and that the couple were of Moroccan origin, so it was part of the husband's "culture" to beat his wife.

Will we see some legal cases like this coming down in the United States within our lifetime? This would not surprise me. How much farther it will get in the U.S. depends on too many factors for me to predict with any exactness.

That we _already_ have instances of using "hate crimes" legislation to persecute people far out of proportion to any crime they have committed is undoubtedly the case--e.g. the college student who set a Koran in the toilet and is being charged with a _felony_, the bizarre "ham steak of hate" instance at a public school, for which police were called in. These instances and CAIR's flying imams suit are examples of an attempt to create wildly heightened sensitivity to the feelings of Muslims in the U.S. As of yet they cannot prosecute mere criticism of the religion as "hate speech," but that is also a goal and may be realized within our lifetimes.

And you'll notice I haven't even gotten to questions of how many more Muslim terrorist plots---successful and unsuccessful--we will have, though that is of course relevant to the question of how much of a threat global jihad is. Even if our legal system and freedoms remain largely intact in their present form, I suppose you might consider jihad to be something to worry about if someone you knew or loved died in a blown-up train or ... in the World Trade Center.

So if all that's true, and likely to get worse, why can't you agree with me that adherents to that religion ought to be allowed to practice it but not spread it? Like certain secular ideologies, e.g. National Socialism, Communism, it's incompatible with republican government, comprising, in fact, a genuine threat to it.

There's spreading and spreading. We could inhibit their spreading it if our government simply wouldn't _cooperate_ with that spreading by, for example, sponsoring sensitivity nonsense. And I speak here of public schools, as well. Then there's giving CAIR tours of our TSA procedures to prove there's no profiling. And why not? We _should_ profile at airports and such. And there's nothing for preventing the spread of Islam like preventing the immigration of Muslims. If we would stop _cooperating actively_ with this junk, that would go a long way towards stopping it. Then there's Paul's idea of an anti-jihad law that shows that we aren't such fools as to buy this "inner spiritual struggle" stuff. I'll sign on to that. (By the way, Jihad Watch did something quite funny a week or two ago. They started putting "Inner Spiritual Struggle" into headlines, like [this one is a made-up example] "Inner Spiritual Strugglers Blow up Stores in Gaza.")

But as you know, Bill, I draw the line at advocating legislation that says you can't buy a billboard that says, "Mohammed is the Prophet of God."

I know. I might too, if only because I find billboards trivial. I worry about elective and appointive office, and other positions of public influence. That's why I want a constitutional amendment binding all office holders to the Judeo-Christian tradition of natural law. I realize the impossibility of it, those hailing from that tradition not even being able to agree on what it is, as, for example, Auster's visit here made clear. But I'd like Muslims to have to swear to uphold that tradition, if they could stomach it. Sorry to go off-topic, Zippy. It was a good post.

Currently, and probably since the garden of eden, there has been a capital shortage, a lack of tools/means of production necessary for everybody to live a decent life. Reducing the capital shortage saves lives all else being equal. There is an optimum point of temperature which maximizes global economic production. I don't believe we're on it and we would do well to get on it if we can gain the technology to do so.

No matter what the truth is about anthropogenic global warming (ie human caused global warming), gaining a planetary thermostat would be useful. The really fun part is that doing so would very likely cost less than the "Kyoto style" regime of CO2 emission prevention that is so currently in vogue and would certainly be less intrusive with regard to our personal liberties and our local, national, and global economic prospects. Such solutions are usually called geo-engineering.

Want to have fun? Try talking to an AGW proponent about geo-engineering in this way and watch their blood pressure rise. It is often an explosive reaction.

So liberal democratic capitalism can survive (or grow concurrently with / out of) slavery and communism, but is somehow deeply threatened by Islam?

Slavery involved far more injustice - both qualitatively and quantitatively - than your examples do, and it was firmly entrenched in American society.

Communism has had the backing of actual military and economic powers; the only military threat that Islamic terrorists have is a nuclear threat.

Liberal democratic capitalism is all but invincible. In the long run, McDonald's conquers all. There's a reason you can buy Che Guevara t-shirts in any department store.

Based on that position, I can't help but see all this "jihad" stuff as just another conservative hysteria.

Mike, if we're to talk about the _injustice_ of an Islamic society, I could curdle your blood with plenty of entirely true stories. But you should do the research yourself, as I'm not inclined to waste much time informing someone who says that "this whole jihad thing is just another conservative hysteria."

I had not thought that we were talking about how unjust a fully Muslim society is but rather about what is likely to happen w.r.t. American forms of government and life that are valuable (and yes, I haven't missed the irony in your repeated references to "capitalism"--I've chosen to ignore it) and to American lives as a result of the jihad. There are plenty of things that some of us here regard as bad that have happened already. I'll never forget Maximos's photo essay on airport security on the old Enchiridion Militis. And several thousand people all murdered at once by Muslim terrorists is nothing to sneeze at! Nor will it be anything to sneeze at if and when other terrorist attacks succeed here and elsewhere.

Moreover, something will have been irretrievably lost if and when the police are called in here in the U.S. to investigate criticism of Islam as a "hate crime," and that is not implausible at all.

If we are to talk about slavery, your point seems rather grim: "Oh, well, even if we do get something horrible in the U.S., it will go away again eventually." Indeed, the comparison is more apt than you know, as slavery, including sexual slavery, is widely practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia, and some Saudis have been arrested and tried for carrying on the enslavement of maids here in the U.S. (there was a case in Colorado). It would be a very big deal indeed if that sort of thing were looked on leniently in the U.S. I'm not predicting that, but the blase statement that America came _out_ of slavery so, hey, democratic capitalism is invincible, seems to me to give too little imaginative thought to what it would mean if slavery came back, even temporarily. As for Communism, is your point that no one should have talked about it or been concerned about it, that the invisible hand of McDonald's would have erased it as a threat to the U.S. without any vigilance or awareness of the danger, at all? If so, then I disagree strongly.

Liberal democratic capitalism is all but invincible. In the long run, McDonald's conquers all

Isn't this kind of what Marx said about communism?

Mike, I just read your 11:54 post, be patient and you may yet be surprised.

Oops, just read your 5:19 post, are you just getting warmed up?
May I point out that also in the seemingly limited arsenal of the militarily impoverished islamic warriors,[restricted to nuclear weapons] are the imaginative use of jet liners. Can't happen again?
Well there are substitutes available but for now I'll skip a listing.

Appreciate your calm in the face of our hysteria, after all, it's other people who have died, so what the hell !

How crappy Islamic countries are has nothing to do with anything I said. Of course they're crappy. I was responding to your examples, which all took place in western countries.

Listen, we need to be specific here. The liberal democracies of the west are built upon capitalism. Whatever your feelings for or against transnational corporations, if you want to talk about a threat to the west, you first have to talk about a threat to capitalism.

It doesn't matter how many Americans they blow up, and it doesn't matter if there are a few stupid court cases featuring stupid judges. None of that can change the structural basis of the west. All the jihad in the world is powerless in the face of the power of the market, because all the jihad can do is blow stuff up - and the market can produce faster than the jihad can destroy.

So, again, conservative hysteria. You find your pet out-group, sneer at them, fear them, fight them, and feel tough.

Um, but they _do_ blow people up? And this is, from their perspective, a continuation of a religious war against us? (See Paul's wonderful post, above.) But it's just hysteria to talk about this as a major problem or to fear these people? In other words, I or my loved ones could get blown up on an airliner or in some other act of terrorism, they are trying to hijack airplanes to blow up our buildings and kill us, trying to carry out acts of terrorism, but it isn't _objective_, _rational_, and _well-founded_ to consider these people a problem or a threat? We've just sort of chosen them as our "pet out-group"?

That's totally, utterly, nuts. Post-modern politics on display. But perhaps not surprising.

(By the way, as for "fighting them," if you are referring to the Iraq war, perhaps you've not noticed, but several of our contributors weren't exactly in favor of that particular war. So that's a red herring.)

"So, again, conservative hysteria. You find your pet out-group, sneer at them, fear them, fight them, and feel tough." -- Mike

It is very difficult for an American to find an appropriate way to respond to a Canadian who can post something like this on an American blog on September 11.

I think I'll just borrow some words from Darryl Worley:

They took all the footage off my T.V.

Said it's too disturbing for you and me

It'll just breed anger -- that's what the experts say

If it was up to me I'd show it every day

Some say this country's just out looking for a fight

After 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

* * *

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?

To see your homeland under fire

And her people blown away?

Have you forgotten when those towers fell?

We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell

And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden

Have you forgotten?

To read a depressing and haunting article about militant Islam, National Geographic has an excellent story this month on Pakistan.
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0709/pakistan/pakistan.html

But it's just hysteria to talk about this as a major problem or to fear these people? In other words, I or my loved ones could get blown up on an airliner or in some other act of terrorism, they are trying to hijack airplanes to blow up our buildings and kill us, trying to carry out acts of terrorism, but it isn't _objective_, _rational_, and _well-founded_ to consider these people a problem or a threat?

Mike stated, "It doesn't matter how many Americans they blow up, and it doesn't matter if there are a few stupid court cases featuring stupid judges. None of that can change the structural basis of the west. All the jihad in the world is powerless in the face of the power of the market..." According to Mike, it does not matter how many people are murdered, your loved ones included. All that matters is that capitalism remains, as if some abstract idea is more important than people.

I'm actually pretty sure that Mike strongly _dislikes_ capitalism. Perhaps from his perspective it's rather a shame that (in his opinion) the Islamists won't bring down some of the external forms of democratic capitalism. Or perhaps this is meant for a clever attempt to catch the supposedly shallow conservatives: "What right do you guys have to complain so long as capitalism remains? That's all you conservatives care about, right, is being able to buy T-shirts and nice cars?"

I'm probably one of the most strongly pro-capitalist people around here, and I resent the implication. And it is hardly hysteria to care even about the things that have happened already, much less about the probability of later attacks and underminings of our freedoms (e.g., to criticize Islam) and safety. If things were even as bad in the U.S. as they are in Europe *right now* as regards both the suppression of dissent from the pro-Islamic line, groveling to Muslim sensibilities in all manner of public spheres, Muslim gang violence and terrorist plotting, and turning a blind eye to Muslim immigrants' mistreatment of their own women, it would be very bad indeed.

We don't have to all be living in mud huts (not to mention, God forbid, being unable to buy a Che Guevara T-shirt) to have lost a great deal that is worth mourning, lives and freedoms included.

We don't have to all be living in mud huts (not to mention, God forbid, being unable to buy a Che Guevara T-shirt) to have lost a great deal that is worth mourning, lives and freedoms included.

I agree. The idea that the only thing that matters is that democratic capitalism still exist in a thousand years is ridiculous. Defending democracy and capitalism is important, but the fact is, it does matter how many Americans are murdered because every innocent life matters.

Perhaps from his perspective it's rather a shame that (in his opinion) the Islamists won't bring down some of the external forms of democratic capitalism.

That may be. It is interesting to note that in the video a few days ago, bin Laden criticized capitalism, corporations, and "globalization". He also criticized the United States with regards to global warming. He then when on to praise Noam Choamsky.

He also criticized the United States with regards to global warming.

He apparently knows how to play to his leftist audience.

"He apparently knows how to play to his leftist audience."

Everyone knows that the Bush administration considers him a low priority these days. Three thousand victims isn't enough to warrant their primary concern. His continued survival is the only evidence needed to show how misguided our tactics have been. I guess the Left is responsible for that as well.

I guess the Left is responsible for that as well.

Oh no, the right-liberals/neocons own that one, in my view. But you've got to also realize that from my perspective, the difference between G.W. Bush and A. Gore is about as much as the difference between Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. Which is to say, I can tell them apart by superficial differences but they belong to the same tribe.

If I had to pick who has been more of a functional ally of bin Laden -- that is, who has advanced the cause of the Jihad more through reaction to 9-11 -- it would almost certainly be the right-liberals. An inept enemy is sometimes a better ally than an overt friend.

Well, you do have a unique perspective Zippy. How you can find Gore and Bush similar to any significant degree is beyond my ken. They are both globalists, but that is the end of the similarity and even on that issue there are major differences.

How you can find Gore and Bush similar to any significant degree is beyond my ken.

They appear to share the same basic modern liberal political metaphysic (mirroring the parties to which they belong), and in the abstract they disagree on two basic things: (1) assessment of the factual state of the world, and (2) policy prescriptions to address that factual state. If they agreed about #1 then most of their differences in #2 would disappear. Which is why on the antiwar left the Jihad simply must not exist as a threat, and why on the corporatist right global warming simply must not exist as a threat. Because if the factual state of the world as assessed by the other guy is right, then he wins.

Everyone knows that the Bush administration considers him a low priority these days.

I think this is the general problem with the Left. They think this is all about one man. It is not. This is not a war against bin Laden or even a war against al-Qaeda. This war is against Islamic fanatics of any stripe.

I cannot understand how the "neocons"; the people actually fighting the jihad, are "functional allies" of bin Laden. I will have to respectfully disagree with Zippy on that point.

I think it is obvious that the Left is the functional ally of terrorism. Just look at George Galloway, who claims that "Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization", or Noam Chomsky, who claims that the policies of Hamas are more conducive to peace than then those of Israel and the United States. Then there are members of the Left, like Cindy Sheehan, who are not even sure bin Laden was behind 9/11. The 9/11 Truth movement thinks Bush was behind it. People like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte, think Bush is the number one terrorist. The problem with many on the Left, is that they think the U.S. government and George Bush are more dangerous than bin Laden and the jihad. It is not a coincidence that bin Laden speaks like a Leftist in his most recent video.

I'd like to see the Republicans fight the jihad more effectively on domestic soil--by altering immigration policies, by kicking CAIR out of tours of the TSA, by getting rid of all the PC-speak about "the religion of peace," by making sure imams don't pray to open Congress, and so forth. And even just by speaking out openly about the danger of the jihad.

That doesn't mean that I'm making any sort of equivalence with the left. I agree with X wholeheartedly (and I suspect so does Zippy) about the insanity of the left on these topics.

And I have strong opinions about the alliance of the left with the Islamists. They are far more complicit there than the right. Zippy and I have exchanged views on this on an earlier thread.

but it isn't _objective_, _rational_, and _well-founded_ to consider these people a problem or a threat? We've just sort of chosen them as our "pet out-group"?

The whole problem lies with your phrase "these people." The only people that it is "rational" to fear are those that are directly involved in terrorism. Directly, not by virtue of ideological similarity. Find bin Laden and draw and quarter him. I have no problem with that. But if you can't see the difference between the select, finite group of people responsible for 9/11 and Muslims as such, than God help us all. This distinction must be fierce and unquestionable.

The belief in a threat (to our lives and to liberal democracy) from Islam as such is hysteria. Only fear, resentment or laziness can coax us into going beyond the empirical fact that only a finite set of Muslims are involved in violence.

By "fighting them," I was speaking generally, yes. More than just Iraq.

I'm actually pretty sure that Mike strongly _dislikes_ capitalism.

Well, at the end of the day, I'm ambivalent.

"What right do you guys have to complain so long as capitalism remains? That's all you conservatives care about, right, is being able to buy T-shirts and nice cars?"

This blog is clearly and obviously not merely worried about an Islamic military threat, unless you want to argue that Islam as such is a military threat, which is an empirically ludicrous statement. Islam, to this "10th Crusade," clearly represents a wider cultural and political threat, and the west's culture and politics are bound up with capital.

Defending democracy and capitalism is important, but the fact is, it does matter how many Americans are murdered because every innocent life matters.

The sentiment behind this statement is only coherent if you believe that current American military actions are solely about defeating a military threat... and if you actually believe that's the case, it's time to lay off the shrooms.

Every innocent life matters? What, 30 000 dead Iraqi civilians are the eggs that needed to be cracked to make... what kind of omelet again? What's the latest excuse? There are so many lately.

He apparently knows how to play to his leftist audience.

Is this really meant to pass for serious thinking?

The sentiment behind this statement is only coherent if you believe that current American military actions are solely about defeating a military threat... and if you actually believe that's the case, it's time to lay off the shrooms.

Huh? Maybe you need to lay off the shrooms.

Every innocent life matters? What, 30 000 dead Iraqi civilians are the eggs that needed to be cracked to make... what kind of omelet again? What's the latest excuse? There are so many lately.

No. The U.S. government does not target innocent civilians. The military does its best to avoid civilian deaths. The people murdering the civilians are the terrorist. It is not the policy of the United States to "crack eggs".

I cannot understand how the "neocons"; the people actually fighting the jihad, are "functional allies" of bin Laden.

The somewhat speculative argument in the post I linked (here it is again) is fairly specific on exactly how, by going into Iraq and not finishing things in Afghanistan, we handed AQ what they had hoped to accomplish via 9-11. (That is a different matter from the similarities in political metaphysic between Bush and Gore).

See, I knew the Iraq war would come to be a factor, here. You can always tell a lefty because he can't keep away from the subject. And I say this as someone who is ambivalent about the Iraq war. But it isn't an obsession with me.

Right. So it would be a matter of "hysteria" to limit immigration from Muslim countries. How about laws stating that the teaching of jihad shall be counted as incitement to murder?

In other words, it really doesn't matter how many terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims *in the name of Islam,* expressly motivated by the doctrine of jihad. It doesn't matter how much jihad is and always has been a part of Islam. The sheer fact that "only a finite group" of people actually carry out the various attacks means that any _inferences_ about the teachings of the group are out. And induction? God forbid. Mere bigotry.

This is what passes for rationality among leftists. Ignore evidence. Pretend that ideas don't have consequences (including, e.g., the idea of religious conquest taught expressly by a particular group in mosque after mosque).

Oh, and by the way, Mike: Have you paid attention at the results of polls showing large numbers of young Muslims in the UK supporting such things as suicide bombings? It wasn't a numerical majority, but it ended up being a heck of a lot of people. And the younger ones were the more radical.

But it would be just "picking an out-group" and "hysteria" for Britain to pay attention to such information and restrict Muslim immigration, of course.

The somewhat speculative argument in the post I linked (here it is again) is fairly specific on exactly how, by going into Iraq and not finishing things in Afghanistan, we handed AQ what they had hoped to accomplish via 9-11.

Debating whether or not going into Iraq was a good idea is not really relevant anymore. You may have had the better argument, but in the end, your argument lost. The only relevant question now, is what to do with Iraq. I think pulling out of Iraq would only further convince bin Laden that the United States is a paper tiger. They would see it as a major victory.

What is your position now?

The sheer fact that "only a finite group" of people actually carry out the various attacks means that any _inferences_ about the teachings of the group are out. And induction? God forbid. Mere bigotry.

Does he really think that an infinite amount of jihadist is even possible? Is it not simply a meaningless truism to state that it is a finite group? What exactly is an infinite group?

X, I was being nice in not pointing that out. I take it the intention behind the phrases "a finite set" and "a finite group" is merely that it isn't the case that 100% of Muslims actually do this stuff. Somehow we are supposed to go from "it is not the case that all Muslims carry out acts of terrorism" to "no inferences must be drawn about the teaching of Islam; no public policy should 'discriminate' against Muslims in any way, shape or form; being a Muslim should not be regarded as in any sense a risk factor for planning, sympathizing with, inciting, financing, or carrying out violent or anti-social acts; Islamic teaching is no threat of any kind to Western culture," etc.

There seems to be something missing in that step...

What is your position now?

On what the best course forward is w.r.t. Iraq?

I don't have one. I'm pretty sure that at this point there aren't any particularly appealing options. And I'm pretty sure that getting us into a no-win quandary like that was one of AQ's strategic objectives on 9-11.

That doesn't mean that I'm making any sort of equivalence with the left. I agree with X wholeheartedly (and I suspect so does Zippy) about the insanity of the left on these topics.

I'm happy to convert suspician into explicit agreement on the point.

I take it the intention behind the phrases "a finite set" and "a finite group" is merely that it isn't the case that 100% of Muslims actually do this stuff. Somehow we are supposed to go from "it is not the case that all Muslims carry out acts of terrorism"

I think there is a tendency by many to dismiss all generalities. If something is not an absolute, it thus can be dismissed. Therefore, if it is not the case that all Muslims are terrorist, we have to concede absolute ignorance. My response to those that make the accusation of "generalizing", is that I am aware that it is a generalization, the relevant question is, is the generalization true?

"This is not a war against bin Laden or even a war against al-Qaeda. This war is against Islamic fanatics of any stripe."
It is a sad testimony that a war against sworn enemies has been abstracted to incoherence by that mistaken belief. Do you even know who the enemy is under such a vague framework? By Sun Tzu's standard, you've already lost half the battle.

Step2, I'd agree with you if we were talking uniformly about literal war. Perhaps that's a problem with the phrase "war on terrorism" or "war on terror," which I have _never_ liked. But if it's just a metaphor, then I agree with X that we should be "fighting" against "Islamic fanatics of any stripe," where I take it that "of any stripe" doesn't mean that we're talking about harmless forms of Islamic fanaticism (are there any?) but just about different groups who pursue their goals in different ways, both Sunnis and Shiites, etc. So, for example, we could try fighting Islamic fanatics who want to hijack airlines by profiling in airports. We could fight Islamic fanatics who teach jihad by making it explicit that the teaching of jihad is incitement to illegal activities. We could fight Islamic fanatics who want to set up a madrassah in New York City by not giving them public money to make it a public school. (Duh! But the school opened this fall as a public school!) And, sometimes, we'll end up fighting in conventional fashion, as in Afghanistan and possibly--now that we're in this mess--in Iraq.

I guess MikeWC will have to leave us to our shrooms, because we sure do regard Islam qua Islam as a threat.

[Shall we await, as if on cue, the "I live among Muslims and they never tried to blow me up" anecdote?]

One of the striking facts about most captured Jihadist plotters is how much of a shock it is, even to their immediate family and neighbors, that they were involved in "extremism." We see, hear or read these expressions of shock and dismay virtually every time a plot is uncovered. Every. Single. Time.

The West has thus far shown a remarkable incapacity to discern moderates from jihadists; and the fact that the former may be turned into the latter by various offenses on our part, does not help matters.

Considering all this -- that is, our basic ignorance -- yes, Islam as such is a threat.

It is a sad testimony that a war against sworn enemies has been abstracted to incoherence by that mistaken belief

There have been many attempted attacks on European and American soil by terrorist organizations that have no functional ties to al-Queda. These groups may draw inspiration from al-Queda and thus can only be loosely tied to bin Laden. The one common theme is that they are all Islamic terrorist groups. What I mean is not some abstraction, but actual terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the slaugher going in in Sudan, the attacks in Indonesia, Pakistan and India. If the president of Iran says he dreams of a day without America, I do not say to myself, "Oh well, Iran has nothing to do with al-Queda.".

Right on, Paul. Moreover, I take it you are being mildly ironic by "turned into the latter by various offenses on our part." They are even more often (IMO) turned into the "extremists" by falling in with extremist teaching, found all over the place in the West, which teaching makes reference to real or imagined misdeeds on our parts and uses these as an excuse for teaching jihad, which would be regarded as an imperative even without those particular excuses.

Mr X,
I think you are missing a basic strategy of war, which is not to create more enemies than you are destroying. Your goal is to divide your opponent, not unite him under one banner. Can we agree that this should be a fundamental tactic?

Given that, do you think it is better to go after specific, named groups that have targeted us directly, or to declare a broad war on Islamic fanatics? Sticking with Lydia's guidelines, let's be more precise about language. If you mean Islamic militant groups, you should write Islamic militant groups. Inserting ourselves into the middle of every conflict around the world that involves Islamic militant groups would be, under any circumstances, difficult. Under the current strategy, it is impossible. More importantly, it is making a mockery of our stated goal to bring those who did commit mass murder on our soil to justice.

It's not clear to me that X is saying that we have to go to Sudan and make war on groups there, etc. I think he's merely pointing out that these groups all over the world do indeed hate the U.S. and are indeed a danger to Americans. It behooves us to keep this in mind. Remember that Hezbollah has attacked U.S. targets and citizens abroad. I for one think it entirely reasonable that funding them should be illegal in the U.S.

I do indeed believe in being specific. I just don't think that means writing off groups of murderous people who hate us as negligible and unimportant if they've never actually carried out a mass attack on our soil. What we should do about them will vary from group to group, of course. But pointing out that they are all Islamic militant groups needn't mean massive interventionism all over the world.

As for "uniting them under one banner," I think _they_ know they are all Islamic militant groups. They may, of course, hate one another, as we've seen between Hamas and Fatah. But frankly I have little agreement with people who seem to think there's some nifty strategy of getting them to fight our battles for us by playing one off against another. I find that people who say this are often advocating making nicey with one group of America haters and terrorists in the hopes that this will divide our enemies. (Step2, I'm not saying you're advocating this. I actually have someone else specific in mind.) I'm reminded of the scene in LOTR where Sam and Frodo witness a fight between two orcs culminating in one orc's killing the other. Sam says something like, "Well, wouldn't it be great if this sort of spirit spread all over Mordor? Then they would kill each other." And Frodo says something like, "It has spread all over Mordor, into every nook and cranny. But they hate us more, and they'd drop their quarrel with each other to kill us if they saw us."

Huh? Maybe you need to lay off the shrooms.

So you want to argue that current American military actions are solely and exclusively about ending a military threat? Are you one of those peopel that still believes in Iraqi wmds?

It doesn't matter if the U.S. military attempts to avoid civilian deaths. Cluster bombs still fall on civilians, and you're still making the calculation "X number of dead Iraqi civilians is worth goal Y."

See, I knew the Iraq war would come to be a factor, here. You can always tell a lefty because he can't keep away from the subject.

So you want to have a discussion about east/west relations that ignores the tens of thousands of western troops stationed in/occupying the middle east? Good luck with that.

And seriously. You actually complain about someone bringing Iraq up after 9/11 has already been used in a rabble rousing way on this thread? Do you ever look in a mirror?

I think there is a tendency by many to dismiss all generalities.

Not a single one of these "anti-jihad" arguments can stand without resorting to generalities. In any other context, generalities of the sort on display in this thread would be sneered at as sloppy and cheap. As if the "left" and the "jihad" exist as entities. It's ridiculous.

I think you are missing a basic strategy of war, which is not to create more enemies than you are destroying. Your goal is to divide your opponent, not unite him under one banner. Can we agree that this should be a fundamental tactic?

I am not sure how we are creating more enemies by defending ourselves against the existing ones. The opponent is being specifically defined by ideology, which is the jihad. Whether the jihad is coming from Sunni or Shiite groups makes little difference. Our enemies, whether it is Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, or just some independent jihadist planning an attack, share similar ideologies based on the religion of Islam. They hate the West, the United States, and Israel, or simply the "Crusader-Zionist" alliance as bin Laden would call it. If you are suggesting that I wish to unite all Muslims under the same banner, then I do not. I wish to call a jihadist a jihadist. What flavor of jihadism it is, is something I am less concerned with.

Given that, do you think it is better to go after specific, named groups that have targeted us directly, or to declare a broad war on Islamic fanatics? Sticking with Lydia's guidelines, let's be more precise about language. If you mean Islamic militant groups, you should write Islamic militant groups. Inserting ourselves into the middle of every conflict around the world that involves Islamic militant groups would be, under any circumstances, difficult. Under the current strategy, it is impossible. More importantly, it is making a mockery of our stated goal to bring those who did commit mass murder on our soil to justice.

If it is possible to go after specific groups, then we should do so. The problem with the jihad, is that it is not deeply centralized. It is not the product of one nation or one group. It is not like fighting Germany or Japan in WWII. We are not going to simply kill the Emperor and declare victory. The jihad is the product of a loosely connected string of individuals.

I think Lydia has it right. Due to the nature of our enemies, this is not going to be a military conflict in the same sense WWII was. We need to fight the jihad by doing things that Lydia suggested. If a group of individuals are using Islam to justify attacks against the United States, what difference does it make whether they know bin Laden or not?

Military strikes will have their place, as it did in Afghanistan, and whether one likes it or not, it currently does in Iraq. As much as I would like to stop the genocide in Sudan and end terrorism around the world, the United States has neither the resources nor the time to acheive such a goal. Our objective is not only to bring those responsible to justice, but to protect the United States from future attacks. Whether or not the battle in Iraq is making us safer is obviously something people disagree with.

All I am saying, is that we know a jihadist by their fruits, not by the specific group they claim to be a part of.

It doesn't matter if the U.S. military attempts to avoid civilian deaths.

Of course it matters because the actions are totally different. We are morally responsible for the civilians we intend to kill, which I hope is none. When terrorist murder civilians, they are responsible for the murders. They are "cracking the eggs", not us. It appears that you are saying that all war is wrong because civilians die in war.

"And seriously. You actually complain about someone bringing Iraq up after 9/11 has already been used in a rabble rousing way on this thread? Do you ever look in a mirror?"

Ah, the scent of moral equivalency at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Almost as familiar as coffee, but not nearly so pleasant.

Not a single one of these "anti-jihad" arguments can stand without resorting to generalities.

In one sense it is a generality and in one sense it is not. All Islamic fundamentalist are Islamic fundementalist. This is an absolute and is true by definition. We also know that many Islamic fundamentalist exist. It is a general statement to claim that so and so numbers of Muslims are Islamic fundamentalist. I do not know what the number is, maybe 1%, maybe 10%, but I do not think anyone has ever claimed it is all Muslims. But does it really need to be all Muslims before there is a threat?

Mr X,
I am not sure what part of the Iraq war you consider to be defensive.

You have confirmed that you have no real way to determine who the enemy is, so thanks for that at least.

I am not sure what part of the Iraq war you consider to be defensive.

You do not think a man who was shooting at American planes and tried to assasinate an American president is a threat? You do not think the members of al-Qaeda that are fighting in Iraq are a threat? Bin Laden understands this is central to the "war on terror"; why don't you? Whether it had to be central is a different question, but the fact is, it is now.

You have confirmed that you have no real way to determine who the enemy is, so thanks for that at least.

Right. Absolutely no way to identify them.

The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars... the true criminals, the Jewish terrorists, that slaughtered our children, that turned our wives into widows and our children into orphans, and desecrated our holy places. They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah... it is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them anyplace that you find yourself. Any place that you encounter them -- kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans that are like them... Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere... (Palestinian TV, October 13, 2000)

This is a tough one.

Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council): “This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation… Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine… Make us victorious over the infidel people… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.” [PA TV, April 20, 2007]

Hmm...honestly, I do not think he is telling the truth.

Like I said, we know them by their fruits.

Bin Laden understands [that the Iraq war] is central to the "war on terror"; ...

Well, I strongly suspect that that is true, but not in the usual way in which it is understood to be true.

Of course it matters because the actions are totally different. We are morally responsible for the civilians we intend to kill, which I hope is none. When terrorist murder civilians, they are responsible for the murders. They are "cracking the eggs", not us. It appears that you are saying that all war is wrong because civilians die in war.

I'm not making moral judgments here. You can't deny that the U.S. military has killed civilians; you can hand wave that away with some kind of self-referential moral "argument," but you're still making the calculation I described.

But does it really need to be all Muslims before there is a threat?

Your line of reasoning is only relevant to my points if you're saying the "jihad" is a limited military threat, and not a cultural, political and economic threat to the west as such.

Ah, the scent of moral equivalency at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

Ignoring that what you quoted is only half my post is manipulative on your part.

...but you're still making the calculation I described.

No he isn't. The distinction is clearly valid: accidents are not the same kind of thing as on-purposes. This is morality 101.

One might make an argument that the specific actions leading to specific accidental deaths of specific civilians in a particular war are immoral, because of imprudence, circumstances, disproportionality, etc. One might even argue that some of the specific deaths in these two wars which are claimed to be accidental are not in fact accidental (e.g. the civilians in the restaurant in the initial failed "decapitation strike" against Saddam Hussein); and I would probably agree, in certain instances. But to flatly assert moral equivalence between some foreseen rate of accidental deaths and intentionally killing civilians is a specious argument.

Note that I agree to some extent on some of the other points about scoping: e.g. our enemy abroad meriting military action is Al Qaeda and AQ's direct affiliates and allies. Unless someone else attacks us, or we are genuinely certain that they are making actual concrete and feasible preparations to do so, that is it. Our enemy at home is radical Muslims who engage in seditious jihad, and of course all actual terrorists. Defending against each of those implicates different tactics. Defeating those enemies requires a clear understanding of what victory entails. Defeating those enemies requires the use of moral means to acheive our legitimate defensive ends.

But this idea that accidental deaths are morally equivalent to murders is manifest nonsense. You should drop it.

But this idea that accidental deaths are morally equivalent to murders is manifest nonsense. You should drop it.

These conversations would be a lot shorter if you'd assume that I actually mean what I say. I'm not making a moral argument.

Whatever the moral value of the situation, you're still arguing that actions that inevitably lead to the deaths of civilians are justifiable in the name of a particular goal.

That isn't important because of moral reasons. Remember why this came up in the first place? I pointed out the death toll of Iraqis after someone said "every innocent life matters," while calculating away the value of the lives of innocent Iraqis. I was pointing out a contradiction, not a moral failing.

Actually, Mike, _no one_ was "calculating away the value of the lives of innocent Iraqis." If anyone forgets how things come up, it's you. We were not discussing so grand a topic as "east/west relations"--though apparently you are. You said the jihad is a matter of "conservative hysteria" and that "it doesn't matter how many Americans die" because capitalism will live on. Several of us pointed out that 9/11 is a counter-example to the claim that the jihad exists only in the minds of fevered conservatives, and moreover that it is something _rationally_ to worry about when there are people around trying to commit acts of terrorism such as 9/11 and sometimes succeeding. This is something to try to stop and prevent by recognizing jihad ideology, and it is something to worry about, try to stop, and prevent, even if it doesn't bring down our entire socio-economic system in flaming ruins. What the Iraq war has to do with your claims and our counter-arguments, to which 9/11 was relevant, I cannot see. You don't seem to know a crushing response when it is right in your face. Yet you have insisted on dragging in the red herring of the Iraq war again and again.

I'll respond more later, I have to leave this computer. But...

Actually, Mike, _no one_ was "calculating away the value of the lives of innocent Iraqis."

Feel free to prove me wrong by saying that U.S. goals in Iraq were not worth the Iraqi death toll.

I'm not making a moral argument.

Then you aren't arguing about what we ought and ought not do or whether this was or was not worth that in a war, because every time someone argues about those kinds of things he is making a moral argument. Even if he is arguing that we ought to do it because it is effective/ineffective or prudent/imprudent with respect to some goal, he is still - if he is saying anything about what we ought to do or not do - making a moral argument.

The first resort of the modernist scoundrel is to make a moral argument while pretending that he isn't making one. That may fly with some people, even lot of people, and it may even fly with the person who is doing it himself; but it doesn't fly with me. If you aren't making substantive evaluations then you have nothing to say about the "worth" of doing or not doing this or that in a war. And if you are making substantive evaluations, you are talking about morality.

"Feel free to prove me wrong by saying that U.S. goals in Iraq were not worth the Iraqi death toll."

I'm not sure U.S. goals in Iraq were worth the _American_ death toll. I'm not at all sure the Iraq war should have been started in the first place. I've told you again and again that the Iraq war isn't terribly popular around here, though speaking for myself I don't make a big song and dance about the matter partly because some people seem so deranged about the subject, and I don't want to join them, and because the anti-war crowd is by and large exceedingly unsavory. But why are we talking about the Iraq war at all? Why are the allusions to 9-11 not recognized for their actual place in the argument rather than as an (exceedingly poor) excuse to drag in the Iraq war?

Feel free to prove me wrong by saying that U.S. goals in Iraq were not worth the Iraqi death toll.
I'm tempted to illustrate in great detail just how little the contributors to this blog resemble the Mars-worshipping, war-in-Iraq-loving strawmen (strawpersons?) with whom you seem to be arguing, but I'll resist. You're barking up the wrong tree. Besides, your point isn't relevant to the issue raised in the initial post. Your insouciance with respect to the internal threat posed by jihad is, on the other hand, quite illuminating by, presumably unintentionally, supporting Zippy's description of the mental state of garden-variety liberals. Bonus points for the use of "reified". Having spent four days with Berkeley students this past week, I appreciated it all the more.

Lydia,
You are asking why bring Iraq into it. Looking at the intial post Zippy wrote, "9-11 was an event with respect to the Jihad much like hurricane Katrina was an event with respect to global warming: right-wingers are simply taking advantage of it, exaggerating the threat and engaging in misdirection and speculative nonsense about causes as cover for their racist totalitarian agenda."
If we happen to be right about our suspicions, one way to demonstrate it would be to show how the original atrocity was dovetailed into a misdirected war and occupation against a country which was never a significant threat to us. I hope that answers your objection.

Mr X,
"You do not think a man who was shooting at American planes and tried to assassinate an American president is a threat?"
A) We gave a military response to the assassination attempt at the time it was discovered. We could nurse all wounds until the end of time, creating an infinite list of grievances. That would be so productive.
B) After six years of firing blindly into the sky, his ludicrous attempts to shoot down planes were simply the status quo.
C) If you are opposed to Islamic fanatics of any stripe, deposing a brutal yet secular dictator should be very low on your priorities list.

"You do not think the members of al-Qaeda that are fighting in Iraq are a threat? Bin Laden understands this is central to the "war on terror"; why don't you? Whether it had to be central is a different question, but the fact is, it is now."

Because I don't understand why making bin Laden stronger is helping the war on terror. I don't accept the framing of the question, which is that bin Laden somehow gets to dictate where and how we fight him. I cannot imagine a faster way to lose a conflict.

Re: Palestinian TV- If you are opposed to hate speech, welcome to the club.

Cyrus--Go, man, go.

Step2,

"I hope that answers your objection."

No, it doesn't, because it was still a sidestep that avoided saying honestly, "Gee, you're right. That bit about jihad as a matter of conservative hysteria was a pretty stupid comment, as several thousand Americans murdered in the name of jihad illustrates. And you're right: More like that would be _really bad_ even if the entirety of democratic capitalism weren't destroyed. Score 1 for the folks at WWWtW." Nope. Instead, repeated allusions to the number of civilian deaths in Iraq. Moreover, this was defended on the grounds that "9-11 was used in a rabble-rousing way." No, 9-11 was used in an argumentative way, as I've pointed out until I'm tired of doing so.

We gave a military response to the assassination attempt at the time it was discovered...

I sense now we are going to have to yet again talk about the reasons for attacking Iraq.

Regime change in Iraq was U.S. policy long before George Bush was in office. The Clinton Administration, who in fact made regime change official U.S. policy, considered him a threat. The threat that Saddam posed was widely accepted by both Democrats and Republicans.

After 9/11, it was Bush who acted or at least brought attention the fact that we should act on official U.S. policy. There were countless UN resolutions against Saddam, including United Nations Resolution 1441, which passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Saddam never complied. Prior to the war, the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, listed all the reasons for attacking Iraq. Some of those reasons included Saddam’s unwillingness to comply with numerous UN resolutions. It mentioned the fact that he invaded Kuwait and was slaughtering his own people, which included the use of WMD. It mentioned that Saddam was funding international terrorist groups, specifically suicide bombers against Israel. It mentioned that al-Qaeda members were known to be Iraq. It mentioned United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, which authorizes “the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security.” It also mentioned that, “Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;” All of these reasons were given to Congress. He was clearly seen as a threat, which is why Congress passed the resolution to authorize force. Therefore, your point that Iraq was a “occupation against a country which was never a significant threat to us” lost in the vote. Now that does not mean the vote was right, but what is done is done.

Now maybe Saddam was the right target at the wrong time or the wrong target at the wrong time, or the right target at the right time. Obviously people disagree, but the fact is, now that we are in Iraq, al-Qaeda is fighting us there and they would like nothing better then to send the U.S. running home in defeat. It is my opinion, and it appears that I may be alone on this here, that we cannot abandon the mission in Iraq. When Iraq is stable enough to take care of itself, then our troops can come home. General Petraeus has just reported some good news in Iraq and I think we should all be hopeful, which is why I am baffled that MoveOn.org, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Hillary Clinton have all come out declaring General Petraeus is a liar. Personally, I find that disgusting.

General Petraeus has just reported some good news in Iraq and I think we should all be hopeful, ...

I am basically on board with Lawrence Auster's take on it. Larry and I have our differences, but he isn't exactly MoveOn. (In fact he thinks I'm a functional pacifist, which though silly in itself tells you something about where he is coming from).

Further, once we arrive at the "goal," this marvelous goal of holding horrible conflict in check, what will we do then? We will have to keep holding it in check, forever.

I think the idea is to allow the Iraqi government to hold the conflict in check. All conflict does not have to end to make this a success. If the Iraqi government can remain in power after U.S. troops leave, that is success.

The only thing I really take issue with is the term "Bushite". Is it all possible that people form an opinion independent of what Bush thinks?

As far is as Bush's "anti-American" immigration policy, none of the top Republican candidates are much different on this issue. The only guy who takes a "no amnesty" position is Tom Tancredo and he is very low in the polls. The Democrats are much worse. Barack Obama thought it was offensive that he was asked whether or not English should be the national language.

As for as the public view goes, the Pew Research Center (June 7, 2007) found that 63% of Americans want to provide a legal pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and 54% support amnesty. It is the Tom Tancredo view that is outside of the mainstream. Of course none of this means Tancredo is not right. It just means he is not popular.

I think honest people can disagree on these issues without calling each other liars, frauds, traitors, betrayers, or anti-American. That is to say, that I respect your opinion.

I think the idea is to allow the Iraqi government to hold the conflict in check.

Right. Grab the wolf by the ears, and hope to pass it off to someone else, and not just any someone else but a someone else modeled after Western democracies. That isn't a strategy for victory. It is nuts.

That isn't a strategy for victory. It is nuts.

Becuase you do not think it is possible?

Then you aren't arguing about what we ought and ought not do or whether this was or was not worth that in a war, because every time someone argues about those kinds of things he is making a moral argument.

HALLELUJAH, someone is actually reading my words!

No, wait, I've jumped the gun. You still found a way to lump me in with this group you call "modernists." Well, it's a start.

You said the jihad is a matter of "conservative hysteria" and that "it doesn't matter how many Americans die" because capitalism will live on.

I might have been unclear on this point. There are indeed people in this world that could, with the aid of WMDs, represent a military threat to the west. Shoot these people. These people are only ever a select group, though, and this blog seems to be totally uninterested in talking about select groups. And hopefully we can all agree that the current American military actions are not designed to deal with this kind of military threat.

However, when you start talking about immigration, Islam as a religion and this "jihad," you've moved past talking about an empirical military threat. At bottom, you're arguing there is a cultural, economic, political threat. I'm saying that in order for such a threat to actually exist, than it must at base be a threat to capitalism. I have a very difficult time believe such a threat actually exists; no one has even spoken of how such a threat might play itself out. The market can absorb demographic shifts. If the market can survive segregation and slavery, than it can survive a select group of stupid judges that quote the Koran. And if the market survives, than the current liberal democratic system built upon the market will also survive.

But why are we talking about the Iraq war at all? Why are the allusions to 9-11 not recognized for their actual place in the argument rather than as an (exceedingly poor) excuse to drag in the Iraq war?

Well the current U.S. administration does it at every turn. To try and pretend that the Iraq war is not a centre piece issue in global relations is frankly bizarre and I don't understand it.

I'm tempted to illustrate in great detail just how little the contributors to this blog resemble the Mars-worshipping, war-in-Iraq-loving strawmen (strawpersons?) with whom you seem to be arguing, but I'll resist.

Yeah, I'm trying to keep you all differentiated. See the discussion from my point of view, though. Tim's response to me above was flag-waving and pro-Iraq, and I responded to him as such, than the other commentators responded to my comments. You see the chain there, right? The conversation took off from there.

"9-11 was used in a rabble-rousing way."

Lydia, when I said that, I was referring to Tim's song lyrics.

I'm saying that in order for such a threat to actually exist, than it must at base be a threat to capitalism.

Only accidentally. Jihad has been around since long before modern industrial capitalism.

Maybe the particular singer is pro-Iraq-war (I wouldn't know), but I don't see anything in the specific lyrics quoted that is pro-Iraq-war, with the possible exception of "looking for a fight...I'd say that's right." I don't think that in the quotation here that was intended as a pro-Iraq war comment, though perhaps it was for the singer in its original context.

"However, when you start talking about immigration, Islam as a religion and this "jihad," you've moved past talking about an empirical military threat. At bottom, you're arguing there is a cultural, economic, political threat."

Mike, I'm going to try this *one more time*. If you don't get it, you don't get it:

1) Immigration is related to terrorism on domestic soil. Terrorists blowing up our people on our soil is bad and should be prevented, even if it doesn't bring down our entire economic system. Taking this possibility seriously requires talking about the jihad, which doesn't only involve military actions in the conventional sense but also (no kidding!) terrorist actions. Home-grown terrorism is also related to the teaching of jihad in mosques.

2) There are real and credible threats of cultural changes that are bad. You should think so, too, though evidently you don't. These can (and probably will) happen and be bad even if the entire socio-economic system doesn't come crashing down. These include hate crimes laws criminalizing criticism of Islam, increasing exaggerated attention paid to Muslim sensibilities, including extreme sentencing for exceedingly minor acts of vandalism that would be overlooked if they were related to any other group, the weakening of legal protections for women when they are harmed or threatened by their Muslim male relatives, increasing amounts of "in your face" Islamicization of culture (e.g., religious foot baths in public restrooms, employers forced to allow severe interruptions of their working day for Muslim prayers, expensive food expressly dedicated to Allah purchased with public dollars so as to be served at public institutions, also served in private restaurants where people who do not worship Allah may have difficulty avoiding eating it), intimidation by way of lawsuit for people who report suspicious behavior by Muslims, and indoctrination of children in public schools in the lie that "Islam is a religion of peace." This is only a sample. These are all bad. They are in no small part a result of our immigration policies. They serve the global jihad in a variety of ways. They should be stopped both directly and by a revision of our immigration policies.

Lydia, I'm kind of assuming you've never spent a significant amount of time living in another culture?

Mike, I'm kind of assuming you've never spent a significant amount of time living with people who have taught you to stick to a subject and argue like a man?

Lydia,

That would be correct: Mike not only has no class, he has no clue how to argue. He is also under the misimpression that Heidegger is a significant thinker. This may not be a coincidence.

Why he thinks that his opinions are of interest to people here is beyond me. But he does provide, in his comments, an additional illustration of what's wrong with the world.

That was an unfortunate series of exchanges. Let me see if I can salvage something from this discussion. Probably not, but what the hey.

Lydia,
From my reading of Mike's comments, neither Mike nor myself are denying that there is Islamic terrorism or that it poses no threat. That would be like a global warming denier saying there are no hurricanes and weather patterns are never dangerous. What we are denying is the conspiratorial aspect of it, that it is a force, movement, etc. that is cascading into an existential threat.

Let me give a different perspective on your underlying assumption. The mafia is an entrenched criminal enterprise within both Italy and Russia. We do not assume, sans evidence, that Italians or Russians are engaged in illegal activity. Yet that is what you are asking us to accept in this debate.

I am willing to go along with curtailing some of the demands of Muslim adherents in this country, mainly because I believe in a very strong separation of church and state. It is possible to be respectful of a religion without accommodating its every whim.

We do not assume, sans evidence, that Italians or Russians are engaged in illegal activity. Yet that is what you are asking us to accept in this debate.

The "sans evidence" part isn't really true though, is it? Illegal activity doesn't inhere in being Russian or Italian. So it comes down to a question of essences.

It seems then that two essentialist issues underpin this. One is the issue of whether the doctrine of jihad is inherently seditious. The other is whether the doctrine of jihad is inherent to Islam. If the answers to both of those are "yes", then explicit adherence to Islam is in itself seditious.

I tend to think that both are true, but I'm willing as a matter of prudence to treat only the former as politically authoritative. Thus measures like the Jihad sedition law, as opposed to simply banning the practice of Islam tout court. The latter is not a practical possibility nor does it lend itself to moral means, and the former should do the necessary work anyway.

Mike, I'm kind of assuming you've never spent a significant amount of time living with people who have taught you to stick to a subject and argue like a man?

That's a no, then?

Foot baths? Seriously, get a passport.

The other is whether the doctrine of jihad is inherent to Islam.

So the Muslims that I'm surrounded by every day, and that obviously don't plant bombs at any of the Young Campus Conservative or Campus for Christ meetings, they're just bad Muslims? Out of touch with the essence of their religion, as defined by you?

Foot baths? Seriously, get a passport.

I'm curious how you developed the impression that blatant ad hominem makes your argument look more credible rather than less credible.

Out of touch with the essence of their religion, ...

Not necessarily. Jihad doesn't require violence when other forms of conquest - e.g. demographic conquest - are possible.

But if they are liberal Muslims eschewing the doctrine of Jihad entirely then they are like liberal Christians eschewing the historicity and divinity of Christ. In that case then yes, they are out of touch with the essence of their putative religion, not "as defined by me" but objectively so.

Paul Cella is a prophet. (See upthread for the original.)

"Shall we await, as if on cue, the 'I live among Muslims and they never tried to blow me up' anecdote?"

Should I expect their imminant conquest of the municipal government?

In a matter of decades - yes. And it wont be a municipal government that you will recognise.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.