This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1lriley
Have been thinking that there are a lot of young French Muslims who went to bed last night inspired by yesterday's attacks. To be a martyr in a holy war. It appeals to some. How do you go about stopping them? I don't think these kinds of events are going to go away anytime soon. I'm thinking that they are effective in their own particular ways and that there are going to be more of them. I'm wondering just where the breaking point is where things snap and the French Army and/or Police start moving into certain areas and start shooting people.
I also think how none of this would be happening if it weren't for George W. Bush's preemptive strike on Iraq back in March of 2003. Sure Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power but there would have been no Al Quaeda in Iraq and no ISIS. It seems to me that what we saw yesterday was just more blowback from the heady days of Shock and Awe and invading and occupying a country under the false pretense that maybe Saddam and his govt. had something to do with the 9-11 attacks. You sow and you reap. We've created these conditions and that invasion and occupation was popular here for quite a while. I wonder how many people who thought invading Iraq way back then would now like to turn back the clock knowing what they know now? George's brother Jeb apparently doesn't wonder at all. Practically the whole Republican field currently running for POTUS approve of the invasion still. Hilary like most of the Senate gave G. W. the go ahead. These are all established and experienced pols. One of them almost assuredly will be our next POTUS.
I also think how none of this would be happening if it weren't for George W. Bush's preemptive strike on Iraq back in March of 2003. Sure Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power but there would have been no Al Quaeda in Iraq and no ISIS. It seems to me that what we saw yesterday was just more blowback from the heady days of Shock and Awe and invading and occupying a country under the false pretense that maybe Saddam and his govt. had something to do with the 9-11 attacks. You sow and you reap. We've created these conditions and that invasion and occupation was popular here for quite a while. I wonder how many people who thought invading Iraq way back then would now like to turn back the clock knowing what they know now? George's brother Jeb apparently doesn't wonder at all. Practically the whole Republican field currently running for POTUS approve of the invasion still. Hilary like most of the Senate gave G. W. the go ahead. These are all established and experienced pols. One of them almost assuredly will be our next POTUS.
2faceinbook
>1 lriley:
"I also think how none of this would be happening if it weren't for George W. Bush's preemptive strike on Iraq back in March of 2003. Sure Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power but there would have been no Al Quaeda in Iraq and no ISIS"
Destabilization. I believe the American administration was warned of this. Yet we had a leader with the kahuna's to believe that might made right. The leaders of the free world are trying to deal with this in a new way. Not many are paying attention and too many would love to see us forget about collateral damage and wipe most of the civilization in the Middle East right off the map. Sadly I believe that the current contenders for the crown would be more Bush like than Obama like. Instead of looking a different way, as Obama has, they would continue to repeat the past with more deadly results. Bush=strength Obama= weakness. Hmmmm I think somewhere in this lies the definition of insanity.
Saddam Hussain was brutal but he dealt with brutal peoples.
"You sow and you reap."
Karma.
There will be payment for our actions and our continued inability to recognize what it is we did. I am wondering why some people knew this beforehand ? Not your flag waving, fist pumping, "send our best and brightest into battle" crowd, but the frustrated "thinking" individuals, the readers and thinkers, those with the ability to see things in a circular fashion, were all well aware that once the hornets nest is disturbed, there will be no controlling what happens next ?
"I also think how none of this would be happening if it weren't for George W. Bush's preemptive strike on Iraq back in March of 2003. Sure Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power but there would have been no Al Quaeda in Iraq and no ISIS"
Destabilization. I believe the American administration was warned of this. Yet we had a leader with the kahuna's to believe that might made right. The leaders of the free world are trying to deal with this in a new way. Not many are paying attention and too many would love to see us forget about collateral damage and wipe most of the civilization in the Middle East right off the map. Sadly I believe that the current contenders for the crown would be more Bush like than Obama like. Instead of looking a different way, as Obama has, they would continue to repeat the past with more deadly results. Bush=strength Obama= weakness. Hmmmm I think somewhere in this lies the definition of insanity.
Saddam Hussain was brutal but he dealt with brutal peoples.
"You sow and you reap."
Karma.
There will be payment for our actions and our continued inability to recognize what it is we did. I am wondering why some people knew this beforehand ? Not your flag waving, fist pumping, "send our best and brightest into battle" crowd, but the frustrated "thinking" individuals, the readers and thinkers, those with the ability to see things in a circular fashion, were all well aware that once the hornets nest is disturbed, there will be no controlling what happens next ?
3RickHarsch
These things exhaust and disgust, and the second victim is thought. Similar to school shootings, I guess when the students are young and the number is high, there is also a felt need in the immediate aftermath to make the event the last of its kind. With school shootings, as the feelings attenuate with time and the flux of preoccupational geegaws, the NRA stands in and ensures order. In this case, there will be the need for military revenge overseas, a desperate search for a clear place to enact revenge, and, hopefully, nothing that perpetuates the cycle will actually happen.
Most disturbing to me is the possible change in the strategy of the splinter terrorists. I read an article the other day about the hijacking of a Sabena plane in 1972 (I think), and the thinking of the Black September hijackers, who had threatened to blow up the plane, was that actually doing so would work against their interests. One of the hijackers said that she now wishes she had done it (blown up the plane). I think now the disgust with the west, the exhaustion with the half century of blatant Israeli violations of international law committed with impunity and the utter failure of every 'peace process', is changing the feelings of what I presume to be a majority of muslims--those not directly engaged in battle, looking on merely hoping for a more fair socio-economic circumstance.
Most disturbing to me is the possible change in the strategy of the splinter terrorists. I read an article the other day about the hijacking of a Sabena plane in 1972 (I think), and the thinking of the Black September hijackers, who had threatened to blow up the plane, was that actually doing so would work against their interests. One of the hijackers said that she now wishes she had done it (blown up the plane). I think now the disgust with the west, the exhaustion with the half century of blatant Israeli violations of international law committed with impunity and the utter failure of every 'peace process', is changing the feelings of what I presume to be a majority of muslims--those not directly engaged in battle, looking on merely hoping for a more fair socio-economic circumstance.
4RickHarsch
>2 faceinbook: 'Saddam Hussein was brutal but he dealt with brutal peoples.' Besides Rumsfeld I have no idea who you mean. He was a common tyrant 'dealing' primarily with peaceable people who like you, I would guess, more or less merely want to live a fair life with economic opportunities available to allow you to live modestly, perhaps have a family life, and so on.
5richardbsmith
https://medium.com/dan-sanchez-blog/the-paris-attack-was-all-about-the-grayzone-...
Extinction of the gray zone?
And, I suppose, such a strategy will require an escalation of similar attacks.
Extinction of the gray zone?
And, I suppose, such a strategy will require an escalation of similar attacks.
6LolaWalser
There's a lot of disgust with the West even among those Muslims living in the West, but the vast majority isn't about to join the Daesh.
7faceinbook
>4 RickHarsch: "He was a common tyrant"
I was referring to those who would form and lead groups like ISIS. I was not referring to the general population. Hussain kept his eyes and ears open for any organization that may upsurp his power. Obviously the Middle East has plenty of these as well as your everyday normal person. I would suppose we do as well.
I was referring to those who would form and lead groups like ISIS. I was not referring to the general population. Hussain kept his eyes and ears open for any organization that may upsurp his power. Obviously the Middle East has plenty of these as well as your everyday normal person. I would suppose we do as well.
8lriley
There is a repressive component within any nation/state no matter how benign the state. Rulers like to rule. Leaders like to lead. Any army or police force is hierarchical by design. They follow the ruler or the leader--sometimes in more extreme situations they take over and rule themselves but an army or police need direction and they don't get it from the population at large--the decision making comes from the highest levels of society. What decisions will be made for us next? Again I'll point out that at least in the case of those running for POTUS there's a lot to be desired in their political decision making. G.W. Bush and his administration IMO is at least greatly responsible for creating this mess. Practically the entire republican field still supportive of the decisions he made. Hilary Clinton gave him the go ahead to preemptively attack Iraq. What does that say about her?
And OTOH I have no sympathy though for people who would force their beliefs--religious or otherwise on me. I look at these people as a bane---the kind of society they would build devoid of nuance and absolutely repressive. I can't think of a more lifeless and stultifying existence than the one some of these yokels are imagining. They've fundamentalized themselves into creating a mad dog offshoot of their own religious beliefs. It's not necessarily that Islam is fucked up--or any more fucked up than Judaism or Christianity--but their version of it. They do need to be stopped and I'm not sure there's any other way than extreme violence.
This narrative that the Bush/Cheney administration created out of thin air----their arrogance and they're going to skate away and they're going to opine on what should be done and some people are going to listen to them. It's disgusting to me. If there were any justice they would be tried as war criminals.
And OTOH I have no sympathy though for people who would force their beliefs--religious or otherwise on me. I look at these people as a bane---the kind of society they would build devoid of nuance and absolutely repressive. I can't think of a more lifeless and stultifying existence than the one some of these yokels are imagining. They've fundamentalized themselves into creating a mad dog offshoot of their own religious beliefs. It's not necessarily that Islam is fucked up--or any more fucked up than Judaism or Christianity--but their version of it. They do need to be stopped and I'm not sure there's any other way than extreme violence.
This narrative that the Bush/Cheney administration created out of thin air----their arrogance and they're going to skate away and they're going to opine on what should be done and some people are going to listen to them. It's disgusting to me. If there were any justice they would be tried as war criminals.
9LolaWalser
Islam is fucked up in the way every authoritarian totalitarian religion is fucked up, but not, as far as I can see, theoretically worse so than Christianity or Judaism. I repeat what I always say--if Islamic fundamentalism is the worst one today, that's due to the circumstances of history and politics. The Catholic church killed and oppressed millions more than Islamist terrorists have, so far, and it has its own maniacs who would like nothing better than to be able to do so again.
But, practically, the problem to deal with is getting rid of these extremists--getting rid of in the West and putting the lid on in the East.
But, practically, the problem to deal with is getting rid of these extremists--getting rid of in the West and putting the lid on in the East.
10librorumamans
I'm not clear why a thread reacting to the most recent Paris attacks immediately becomes focused on the US presidential election.
>9 LolaWalser: Largely, I agree. My sense is, however, that Islam is even more fucked up than other authoritarian, totalitarian religions are. I'm reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Heretic in which she sets out the ways in which the Islam of the past several centuries has gotten itself fucked up in special ways.
It's not a hopeful read. When I read Malise Ruthven's Islam in the world years ago, I could not see how this culture, outlook, and system of thought, having carefully insulated itself for centuries from the intellectual, economic, and political change happening around it, could possibly adapt itself now that modernity had breached the walls and had kicked in the door.
Twenty years later, Ali, as far as I've read, doesn't show a practical way forward.
What most disturbs me is not how the next US president is going to deal with ISIS. I think we more or less know that already.
What disturbs me comes up in several books I've read about Islam. This intellectual system has its foundation in a notion of a micromanaging deity; without that as a starting point the rest of the world view pretty much falls apart.
The broad mass of Muslims across the Middle East and Asia have never heard of Darwin. And if they've never heard of him, I'm damned sure they've never heard of Neils Bohr, Kurt Gödel, Werner Heisenberg, etc.
What happens when they do? We know what happened in Europe after Luther, Copernicus, and Galileo; and Europe became aware of these new insights tentatively and at intervals.
>9 LolaWalser: Largely, I agree. My sense is, however, that Islam is even more fucked up than other authoritarian, totalitarian religions are. I'm reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Heretic in which she sets out the ways in which the Islam of the past several centuries has gotten itself fucked up in special ways.
It's not a hopeful read. When I read Malise Ruthven's Islam in the world years ago, I could not see how this culture, outlook, and system of thought, having carefully insulated itself for centuries from the intellectual, economic, and political change happening around it, could possibly adapt itself now that modernity had breached the walls and had kicked in the door.
Twenty years later, Ali, as far as I've read, doesn't show a practical way forward.
What most disturbs me is not how the next US president is going to deal with ISIS. I think we more or less know that already.
What disturbs me comes up in several books I've read about Islam. This intellectual system has its foundation in a notion of a micromanaging deity; without that as a starting point the rest of the world view pretty much falls apart.
The broad mass of Muslims across the Middle East and Asia have never heard of Darwin. And if they've never heard of him, I'm damned sure they've never heard of Neils Bohr, Kurt Gödel, Werner Heisenberg, etc.
What happens when they do? We know what happened in Europe after Luther, Copernicus, and Galileo; and Europe became aware of these new insights tentatively and at intervals.
11cpg
>10 librorumamans: "I'm damned sure they've never heard of . . . Kurt Gödel. . . . What happens when they do?"
My guess: They'll misinterpret him, just like a lot of Westerners do. (See Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse.)
My guess: They'll misinterpret him, just like a lot of Westerners do. (See Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse.)
12lriley
#10--Past and future American foreign policy IMO should be kept in mind when situations like yesterday occur. Who ends up being POTUS impacts that. Again if Saddam or one of his kids were still running Iraq--very little chance that Al Quaeda would have made any inroads there and no ISIS. The USA IMO has a nasty habit of putting its nose where it doesn't belong. The preemptive invasion of Iraq as foreign policy of the Bush administration continues to be a disaster all the way around.
#9--Historically you're correct that Christianity could be seen as the worst--though these days you can easily live in a western society and opt out of the whole religious shebang and hardly anyone will bat an eye. Judaeo--Christianity still have millions of adherents but religion is hardly the driving the train and the further we head in the future it looks like the less influence it will have on the way people think, act or even hope. Israel to me though is a really fucked up country concerning Judaism---the whole entire rest of the middle east with the various strains of Islam. They particularly and increasingly for the most rabid seem to see the world through the lens of a prophet dead well over 1000 years.
#9--Historically you're correct that Christianity could be seen as the worst--though these days you can easily live in a western society and opt out of the whole religious shebang and hardly anyone will bat an eye. Judaeo--Christianity still have millions of adherents but religion is hardly the driving the train and the further we head in the future it looks like the less influence it will have on the way people think, act or even hope. Israel to me though is a really fucked up country concerning Judaism---the whole entire rest of the middle east with the various strains of Islam. They particularly and increasingly for the most rabid seem to see the world through the lens of a prophet dead well over 1000 years.
13theoria
>12 lriley: Not everything has to do with US foreign policy. We only think we are the center of the world, for better and for worse. France has its own relationship with the middle east, independent of any particular POTUS.
14krolik
>13 theoria: We only think we are the center of the world
Agree--acknowledging that is the first step. After which, though, the scenario is bleak. (Which explains much of the attraction of the current formula, in which we like to see ourselves as both fixers/victims.)
France became my adopted country and right now I'm feeling rather upset and republican (in the French sense). It's a cliché, I suppose--under attack, people lock arms--but it's very real and powerful, nonetheless.
I'm trying to sort out my nasty anger from my constructive anger. I'm feeling a lot of the former, at present.
Agree--acknowledging that is the first step. After which, though, the scenario is bleak. (Which explains much of the attraction of the current formula, in which we like to see ourselves as both fixers/victims.)
France became my adopted country and right now I'm feeling rather upset and republican (in the French sense). It's a cliché, I suppose--under attack, people lock arms--but it's very real and powerful, nonetheless.
I'm trying to sort out my nasty anger from my constructive anger. I'm feeling a lot of the former, at present.
15RickHarsch
> Though very little escapes US foreign policy attention. At least France had the good sense to refuse to get sucked into the Iraq war, they've been less careful of late. And though their imperial history is much older in the Middle East and north Africa, it's still unclear why they were targeted--it may have been because they were easy to hit (wasn't Norway recently an attempted target?).
As for the SPUTUM (sacrificial president unit to uplift multinationals), it hardly seems to matter.
As for the SPUTUM (sacrificial president unit to uplift multinationals), it hardly seems to matter.
16LolaWalser
>13 theoria:
Yeah, the US isn't the centre of the world, but one would like to think this would not be the time for it to dodge responsibility for ISIS etc. But I forget--it's all up to Putin now, yes?
Yeah, the US isn't the centre of the world, but one would like to think this would not be the time for it to dodge responsibility for ISIS etc. But I forget--it's all up to Putin now, yes?
17RickHarsch
Two other thoughts.
Lebanon was hit the other day and lost over 40 dead. A shocking number in Beirut.
The other is that if this is a war, I can't say the tactics of, let's say it is ISIS, are any less humane than those used on them, the drones and bombings, and in fact, I think it has been well-established that drone attacks in particular are effective recruiting tools for anti-Western forces.
Lebanon was hit the other day and lost over 40 dead. A shocking number in Beirut.
The other is that if this is a war, I can't say the tactics of, let's say it is ISIS, are any less humane than those used on them, the drones and bombings, and in fact, I think it has been well-established that drone attacks in particular are effective recruiting tools for anti-Western forces.
18LolaWalser
>15 RickHarsch:
it's still unclear why they were targeted
Well, the scum says it's because of French air strikes in Syria. I see no reason to disbelieve them, although there's certainly the practical side to the thing too--as you say, apparently Paris is a soft target. (Because, if vengeance were all, then why not the fuck blow up Moscow?) And this shocks me, after Charlie Hebdo. Major intelligence failure, at the least.
it's still unclear why they were targeted
Well, the scum says it's because of French air strikes in Syria. I see no reason to disbelieve them, although there's certainly the practical side to the thing too--as you say, apparently Paris is a soft target. (Because, if vengeance were all, then why not the fuck blow up Moscow?) And this shocks me, after Charlie Hebdo. Major intelligence failure, at the least.
19LolaWalser
>17 RickHarsch:
I can't say the tactics of, let's say it is ISIS, are any less humane than those used on them,
On the other hand, the West isn't enslaving and raping their children.
I can't say the tactics of, let's say it is ISIS, are any less humane than those used on them,
On the other hand, the West isn't enslaving and raping their children.
20RickHarsch
No, but they are blowing a lot of them up.
There isn't a pretty side to this, is there.
There isn't a pretty side to this, is there.
21LolaWalser
>20 RickHarsch:
I'd rather see my niece blown up than in the hands of this scum.
And, I know which side I want to win, pretty or not.
I'd rather see my niece blown up than in the hands of this scum.
And, I know which side I want to win, pretty or not.
22RickHarsch
Something to consider about this ugly business: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq?CMP=shar...
eta another: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/jeb-bush-isis_n_7284558.html
eta another: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/jeb-bush-isis_n_7284558.html
23lriley
#13--it's not like I think the US is the 'center of the world'. The thing is the foreign policy decisions made by a former POTUS and his administration helped very much create the group that perpetrated yesterday's attacks. And then basically the republican party on the one side and almost assuredly their presidential nominee for POTUS will defend those foreign policy decisions to the death. On the other side the almost sure to be nominated democratic candidate is a person who is always blowing whatever way the wind is blowing---afraid to challenge anything as long as she sees the %'s leaning for something and if she manages to win next November she'll be setting the tone. The problem for me at least is we're going to have the same kind of misguided foreign policy and circling of the wagons when something blows up. Nothing that needs to be changed is going to be.
24barney67
"The Catholic church killed and oppressed millions more than Islamist terrorists have, so far, and it has its own maniacs who would like nothing better than to be able to do so again."
-- Would you elaborate on this? Specifics? Sources?
-- Would you elaborate on this? Specifics? Sources?
25John5918
>22 RickHarsch: Thanks, Rick, for these. From the Guardian link:
Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.
Obviously this doesn't relate directly to Paris, which clearly was terrorism and murder by most reasonable people's definitions, but it is one of the insidious spin-offs of the so-called "war on terror". The Geneva conventions have been torn to shreds by all parties to these conflicts, and this is worrying. I live in an active war zone and have done for much of the last thirty-odd years, and while we're used to seeing military dictatorships and undisciplined guerrillas and militias ignoring international humanitarian conventions, it saddens me to see the very nations which created them routinely doing the same.
Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.
Obviously this doesn't relate directly to Paris, which clearly was terrorism and murder by most reasonable people's definitions, but it is one of the insidious spin-offs of the so-called "war on terror". The Geneva conventions have been torn to shreds by all parties to these conflicts, and this is worrying. I live in an active war zone and have done for much of the last thirty-odd years, and while we're used to seeing military dictatorships and undisciplined guerrillas and militias ignoring international humanitarian conventions, it saddens me to see the very nations which created them routinely doing the same.
26RickHarsch
File this under numbers: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/coalition-killing-civilians
27faceinbook
>8 lriley:
"This narrative that the Bush/Cheney administration created out of thin air----their arrogance and they're going to skate away and they're going to opine on what should be done and some people are going to listen to them. It's disgusting to me. If there were any justice they would be tried as war criminals."
What on earth do people think it looked like on the ground when we bombed Iraq ? Preserving our freedoms ? Hell no, creating further problems....more death and destruction. Only a fool would not have seen something like this coming. Same thing going on within this country......more weapons, more suspicion/fear and a greater sense of being in the "right" is going to come to nothing good. Not one thing.
Indeed Bush/Cheney did nothing different than the master mind who planned the Paris attack. Actually the Paris bombers used the fact that their country is being bombed....we fabricated nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
"This narrative that the Bush/Cheney administration created out of thin air----their arrogance and they're going to skate away and they're going to opine on what should be done and some people are going to listen to them. It's disgusting to me. If there were any justice they would be tried as war criminals."
What on earth do people think it looked like on the ground when we bombed Iraq ? Preserving our freedoms ? Hell no, creating further problems....more death and destruction. Only a fool would not have seen something like this coming. Same thing going on within this country......more weapons, more suspicion/fear and a greater sense of being in the "right" is going to come to nothing good. Not one thing.
Indeed Bush/Cheney did nothing different than the master mind who planned the Paris attack. Actually the Paris bombers used the fact that their country is being bombed....we fabricated nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
28LolaWalser
Actually the Paris bombers used the fact that their country is being bombed..
It's still not known where all the attackers where from. ISIS is a multi-national organisation, drawing the worst from many countries, and their main aim seems to be--really--establishing a "caliphate", an Islamic state regardless of the current national borders. They are NOT fighting the Western invasions; they have used the opportunity Western invasions have opened for conquest of power and expansion.
They are not the PLO. They are not freedom fighters, and they are not victims of the West--in fact, they profited by the West's actions.
It's still not known where all the attackers where from. ISIS is a multi-national organisation, drawing the worst from many countries, and their main aim seems to be--really--establishing a "caliphate", an Islamic state regardless of the current national borders. They are NOT fighting the Western invasions; they have used the opportunity Western invasions have opened for conquest of power and expansion.
They are not the PLO. They are not freedom fighters, and they are not victims of the West--in fact, they profited by the West's actions.
29krolik
Another view, from The Nation: "Many assume that these fighters are motivated by a belief in the Islamic State, a caliphate ruled by a caliph with the traditional title Emir al-Muminiin, “Commander of the faithful,” a role currently held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; that fighters all over the world are flocking to the area for a chance to fight for this dream. But this just doesn’t hold for the prisoners we are interviewing. They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate. But a detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of Islam isn’t necessarily relevant to the ideal of fighting for an Islamic State, as we have seen from the Amazon order of Islam for Dummies by one British fighter bound for ISIS."
Full text here: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prison...
Full text here: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prison...
30LolaWalser
That's not "another" view because no one here has posited the strawman in that passage, that in order to do what ISIS are doing they must needs be, in short, fucking theologians:
Lol!
But a detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of Islam isn’t necessarily relevant to the ideal of fighting for an Islamic State, as we have seen from the Amazon order of Islam for Dummies by one British fighter bound for ISIS."
Lol!
31Kuiperdolin
France pays the price for 2003 as it paid for Munich in 1940.
The most ghastly thing is the surge of gutter republicanism, half my facebook timeline is the tricolore flag which put us there is the first place.
The other half is a garbage spammy vulture app that you can't even block efficiently that keeps pestering me to declare myself "safe". Nobody's safe you tossers.
The most ghastly thing is the surge of gutter republicanism, half my facebook timeline is the tricolore flag which put us there is the first place.
The other half is a garbage spammy vulture app that you can't even block efficiently that keeps pestering me to declare myself "safe". Nobody's safe you tossers.
33librorumamans
>29 krolik: & >30 LolaWalser:
Yet what Ali argues at length in her book is that this sort of expansive violence lies at the core of Islamic texts and is mandated in multiple places. (I could scan through her text to provide references if you wish.) Her basic position is that Islam, as it stands historically, is not a religion of peace.
So while individuals may need to pack a crammer from Amazon, their leaders and inciters are not, according to her, misrepresenting or distorting what is there in the sources.
Edited for clarity
Yet what Ali argues at length in her book is that this sort of expansive violence lies at the core of Islamic texts and is mandated in multiple places. (I could scan through her text to provide references if you wish.) Her basic position is that Islam, as it stands historically, is not a religion of peace.
So while individuals may need to pack a crammer from Amazon, their leaders and inciters are not, according to her, misrepresenting or distorting what is there in the sources.
Edited for clarity
34librorumamans
>31 Kuiperdolin: Exactly why I despise Facebook!
35LolaWalser
>32 krolik:
I took "another view" to mean "on the other hand" i.e. "opposite" view, but as far as I can see, it was a complete non sequitur, so if you care to offer anything other than sarcasm, why not explain what was the point your post was addressing.
>33 librorumamans:
this sort of expansive violence lies at the core of Islamic texts and is mandated in multiple places.
From what I understand: "texts", maybe, but not the Koran, which is at least as open to interpretation as is the Bible. If it were that absolute, there'd be no "moderate" Muslims at all, let alone modernists--and yet those people not only exist, they are (the former at least) presumably in a great majority. Maybe it's naive, and I'm not nor have any desire to become expert on the topic, but pragmatically, knowing there are Muslims (and knowing some personally) who are devout and yet not only aren't killers or pro-killers but are outspoken champions of human rights and tolerance, is enough, imo, to demonstrate that the problem isn't in Islam absolutely.
Biblical fundamentalism can return too in the same vicious form. Maybe it will, nobody knows the future etc.
I took "another view" to mean "on the other hand" i.e. "opposite" view, but as far as I can see, it was a complete non sequitur, so if you care to offer anything other than sarcasm, why not explain what was the point your post was addressing.
>33 librorumamans:
this sort of expansive violence lies at the core of Islamic texts and is mandated in multiple places.
From what I understand: "texts", maybe, but not the Koran, which is at least as open to interpretation as is the Bible. If it were that absolute, there'd be no "moderate" Muslims at all, let alone modernists--and yet those people not only exist, they are (the former at least) presumably in a great majority. Maybe it's naive, and I'm not nor have any desire to become expert on the topic, but pragmatically, knowing there are Muslims (and knowing some personally) who are devout and yet not only aren't killers or pro-killers but are outspoken champions of human rights and tolerance, is enough, imo, to demonstrate that the problem isn't in Islam absolutely.
Biblical fundamentalism can return too in the same vicious form. Maybe it will, nobody knows the future etc.
36barney67
There's a list here on LibraryThing on the pages titled, oddly, Lists, which suggests some books about radical Islam and related subjects. I read some of them. After 9/11 I started with Bernard Lewis and went from there before becoming thoroughly discouraged that these problems would be solved in my lifetime. I learned a lot from Lewis's thin but weighty introduction to the subject, The Crisis of Islam.
37.Monkey.
>35 LolaWalser: not the Koran, which is at least as open to interpretation as is the Bible. If it were that absolute, there'd be no "moderate" Muslims at all
I disagree. Moderates/modernists of religions come from accepting that these are very old texts which should not actually be taken so literally, and that the general notions in them ought to be applied to life but that plenty of things are no longer applicable to the way people live. The extremists of the religions are those that take the words of these books at their literal face value, without recognizing that the world we live in is not the world in which they were written.
I disagree. Moderates/modernists of religions come from accepting that these are very old texts which should not actually be taken so literally, and that the general notions in them ought to be applied to life but that plenty of things are no longer applicable to the way people live. The extremists of the religions are those that take the words of these books at their literal face value, without recognizing that the world we live in is not the world in which they were written.
38LolaWalser
>37 .Monkey.:
Moderates/modernists of religions come from accepting that these are very old texts which should not actually be taken so literally
Which means that they are open to interpretation. No devout Muslims reject the Koran, but the moderates DO reject the extremist interpretations.
Moderates/modernists of religions come from accepting that these are very old texts which should not actually be taken so literally
Which means that they are open to interpretation. No devout Muslims reject the Koran, but the moderates DO reject the extremist interpretations.
39librorumamans
>35 LolaWalser: >38 LolaWalser:
I'm not going to préçis Ali's book. I do recommend it.
She outlines a process in the tenth century in which scholars decided that the essential matters of interpretation had been settled once for all. The effect was to create "a framework of inexorable legal rigidity" [quoting Harris in Nationalism and Revolution in Egypt: the Role of the Muslim Brotherhood].
Ali shortly after says:
Ali sets out three broad classes of Muslims, the vast majority of whom fall into her non-militant, moderate group. She suggests, however, that these, as they become more exposed to modernity, are forced by the rigidity that Harris mentions to live in a difficult cognitive dissonance of the sort I referenced in my >10 librorumamans:.
I'm not going to préçis Ali's book. I do recommend it.
She outlines a process in the tenth century in which scholars decided that the essential matters of interpretation had been settled once for all. The effect was to create "a framework of inexorable legal rigidity" [quoting Harris in Nationalism and Revolution in Egypt: the Role of the Muslim Brotherhood].
Ali shortly after says:
Muslims around the world cannot go on claiming that “true” Islam has somehow been “hijacked” by a group of extremists. Instead they must acknowledge that inducements to violence lie at the root of their own most sacred texts, and take responsibility for actively redefining their faith. (104)The contrast she makes with Judaism and Christianity is that while most leaders in these faiths have repudiated certain passages (e.g. Psalm 137:9), the majority of Islamic scholars have not done this with their texts.
Ali sets out three broad classes of Muslims, the vast majority of whom fall into her non-militant, moderate group. She suggests, however, that these, as they become more exposed to modernity, are forced by the rigidity that Harris mentions to live in a difficult cognitive dissonance of the sort I referenced in my >10 librorumamans:.
40librorumamans
>36 barney67: I share your discouragement.
41krolik
>35 LolaWalser:
I had gathered what "you took" but the subject of the thread seemed larger.
To answer your question more specifically: the main point of my post was, hey, look at this, an article in The Nation that talks about some Isis fighters, and how their idea of the "Caliphate" is woeful.
Might be of interest, no?
I wasn't trying to attack your position or assert a strawman. I was throwing something out there on the thread. Looking back on the posts, I now see how you might interpret >29 krolik: in that way, but that interpretation seems to me very tetchy and trying too hard. I share your LOL, but whatever.
I'm not very interested in personal stuff, or in whoever you are. I don't give a fuck about you. Nor should you about me. Which I'm sure you don't.
At least we agree on that much?
This thread is about larger events.
Edited for bad italics
I had gathered what "you took" but the subject of the thread seemed larger.
To answer your question more specifically: the main point of my post was, hey, look at this, an article in The Nation that talks about some Isis fighters, and how their idea of the "Caliphate" is woeful.
Might be of interest, no?
I wasn't trying to attack your position or assert a strawman. I was throwing something out there on the thread. Looking back on the posts, I now see how you might interpret >29 krolik: in that way, but that interpretation seems to me very tetchy and trying too hard. I share your LOL, but whatever.
I'm not very interested in personal stuff, or in whoever you are. I don't give a fuck about you. Nor should you about me. Which I'm sure you don't.
At least we agree on that much?
This thread is about larger events.
Edited for bad italics
42RickHarsch
This was posted by the person I know personally who knows the most about Islam in general and from a woman's perspective: http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/ten-ways-islamic-forbids-terrorism.html
and it may speak to some of what Librorumamans has posted.
ET fix a mix up of posts. This came from someone else and I have only skimmed it: http://muslimmatters.org/2015/02/23/what-is-islamic-a-muslim-response-to-isis-an...
and it may speak to some of what Librorumamans has posted.
ET fix a mix up of posts. This came from someone else and I have only skimmed it: http://muslimmatters.org/2015/02/23/what-is-islamic-a-muslim-response-to-isis-an...
43RickHarsch
An al Jazeera documentary on ISIL I haven't seen yet: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2015/10/enemy-enemies-rise-isi...
44librorumamans
>42 RickHarsch: As a matter of curiosity, Rick, what do you mean when you say that Juan Ricardo Cole writes from a woman's perspective? Or is that not a male name?
I didn't find the second link — the riposte to the Atlantic article — impressive.
I didn't find the second link — the riposte to the Atlantic article — impressive.
45LolaWalser
>39 librorumamans:
The contrast she makes with Judaism and Christianity is that while most leaders in these faiths have repudiated certain passages (e.g. Psalm 137:9), the majority of Islamic scholars have not done this with their texts.
Even if that's true (I'm in no position to judge), so what? The majority of Catholics were fine once upon a time with their church torturing and murdering people. Hell, the majority of any Christians--those "love thy neighbour as thyself" people--anywhere in Europe thought public executions were splendid entertainment for adults and children.
Christians used to stone to death too, and used the Bible to justify it.
On the other hand, there were--and I hope will exist in the future--secular Muslim states with secular laws, societies accommodating various degrees of faith observance and tolerating different faiths--and atheism.
It's not that anyone's denying that radical Islamists are using extreme, violent discourse and inciting attacks on "unbelievers", obviously that's what they do, how they interpret the faith etc. It's that it's clear, from the sheer fact of existence of billion+ peaceful, non-jihading, non-beheading, non-ISIS Muslims that being a devout Muslim in actual fact doesn't absolutely impose on one the duty of war, conquest, enslavement, forced conversion and rape and murder of others.
The contrast she makes with Judaism and Christianity is that while most leaders in these faiths have repudiated certain passages (e.g. Psalm 137:9), the majority of Islamic scholars have not done this with their texts.
Even if that's true (I'm in no position to judge), so what? The majority of Catholics were fine once upon a time with their church torturing and murdering people. Hell, the majority of any Christians--those "love thy neighbour as thyself" people--anywhere in Europe thought public executions were splendid entertainment for adults and children.
Christians used to stone to death too, and used the Bible to justify it.
On the other hand, there were--and I hope will exist in the future--secular Muslim states with secular laws, societies accommodating various degrees of faith observance and tolerating different faiths--and atheism.
It's not that anyone's denying that radical Islamists are using extreme, violent discourse and inciting attacks on "unbelievers", obviously that's what they do, how they interpret the faith etc. It's that it's clear, from the sheer fact of existence of billion+ peaceful, non-jihading, non-beheading, non-ISIS Muslims that being a devout Muslim in actual fact doesn't absolutely impose on one the duty of war, conquest, enslavement, forced conversion and rape and murder of others.
47librorumamans
>45 LolaWalser: I think perhaps we're talking past one another. At any rate, I'm having difficulty following you in this thread.
Kamal al-Solaylee's Intolerable : a memoir of extremes tells of his family's journey, geographical and cultural, during his lifetime. It gives a dispiriting account of how life for ordinary Muslims in several countries has deteriorated socially and well as economically since, say, the seventies.
The homosexual and transgender refugees whom my church sponsors do not find the Muslim majority in their countries of origin in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to be champions of human rights and tolerance.
Having said that, I will end this particular dialogue.
Kamal al-Solaylee's Intolerable : a memoir of extremes tells of his family's journey, geographical and cultural, during his lifetime. It gives a dispiriting account of how life for ordinary Muslims in several countries has deteriorated socially and well as economically since, say, the seventies.
The homosexual and transgender refugees whom my church sponsors do not find the Muslim majority in their countries of origin in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to be champions of human rights and tolerance.
Having said that, I will end this particular dialogue.
48LolaWalser
>41 krolik:
It seems we're both on edge. I'm sorry I was curt.
On how "woeful" ISIS' ideas of a caliphate may be... personally I'm just appalled that they command sizeable territory at all--and expanding. The quality of their historical and religious education and level of general culture definitely takes a back seat to their politics, in my eyes.
It seems we're both on edge. I'm sorry I was curt.
On how "woeful" ISIS' ideas of a caliphate may be... personally I'm just appalled that they command sizeable territory at all--and expanding. The quality of their historical and religious education and level of general culture definitely takes a back seat to their politics, in my eyes.
49LolaWalser
>47 librorumamans:
The homosexual and transgender refugees whom my church sponsors do not find the Muslim majority in their countries of origin in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to be champions of human rights and tolerance.
Point taken, but I never said that the majority would be champions of human rights and tolerance, only that I knew Muslims who were. Let's also remember that until very recently no Western majority spoke up for homosexuals and transgender people either. Not every Western majority does even now.
I keep talking about "degrees of freedom" in Islam--the range of possibilities, that there IS a range of possibilities, nothing more, nothing less.
Just because certain attitudes prevail now doesn't mean they'll prevail tomorrow, same as they didn't necessarily prevail yesterday.
ETA: Incidentally, when I said "champions", I wasn't being metaphorical, I was talking about Muslim activists for human rights, women's rights, gay rights etc. I know.
The homosexual and transgender refugees whom my church sponsors do not find the Muslim majority in their countries of origin in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to be champions of human rights and tolerance.
Point taken, but I never said that the majority would be champions of human rights and tolerance, only that I knew Muslims who were. Let's also remember that until very recently no Western majority spoke up for homosexuals and transgender people either. Not every Western majority does even now.
I keep talking about "degrees of freedom" in Islam--the range of possibilities, that there IS a range of possibilities, nothing more, nothing less.
Just because certain attitudes prevail now doesn't mean they'll prevail tomorrow, same as they didn't necessarily prevail yesterday.
ETA: Incidentally, when I said "champions", I wasn't being metaphorical, I was talking about Muslim activists for human rights, women's rights, gay rights etc. I know.
50John5918
>35 LolaWalser:, >37 .Monkey.:
Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese scholar and holy man who was executed in 1985 by Sudan's Islamist regime, was a proponent of interpretation of the Holy Qur'an. Some texts are timeless, but others are products of time and place, in particular the governance and defence of a city state. The latter are open to development. He led a non-violent movement which was very progressive, including its attitude to women. His book The Second Message of Islam has been published in English.
>36 barney67: A progressive South African imam who writes in English is Farid Esack. Worth reading some of his books. Rashied Omar is another progressive South African imam, currently teaching at a Catholic university in the USA. I know both of them personally and they are inspiring.
Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese scholar and holy man who was executed in 1985 by Sudan's Islamist regime, was a proponent of interpretation of the Holy Qur'an. Some texts are timeless, but others are products of time and place, in particular the governance and defence of a city state. The latter are open to development. He led a non-violent movement which was very progressive, including its attitude to women. His book The Second Message of Islam has been published in English.
>36 barney67: A progressive South African imam who writes in English is Farid Esack. Worth reading some of his books. Rashied Omar is another progressive South African imam, currently teaching at a Catholic university in the USA. I know both of them personally and they are inspiring.
51John5918
>42 RickHarsch: Thanks, Rick. Might also be worth recalling the "Open Letter to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi" written by credible (and relatively conservative) Muslim authorities more than a year ago. There's a report and executive summary here; I downloaded the complete text in English and Arabic last year but can't remember now where from.
52RickHarsch
>44 librorumamans: Poorly written, sorry. What I meant to say was that the person who posted the article was the one with the woman's perspective, that she knew a lot about Islam and from a woman's perspective--which is important to me in that I doubt it's possible for a man to grasp what any religion is like from a woman's perspective--her being a woman and living in Islamic zones for a long time. Juan Cole may or may not be female.
53LolaWalser
>50 John5918:
What a coincidence, last night, following on the things in some comments to the article Rick posted (on Muslim Matters), I read this:
The Moderate Martyr: A radically peaceful vision of Islam.
This is what I find, personally, most important (my emphasis in bold):
These ideas are from inside Islam. They are in it; they come from out of it, and will keep coming no matter how many people are murdered. We must help them in the face of other.
What a coincidence, last night, following on the things in some comments to the article Rick posted (on Muslim Matters), I read this:
The Moderate Martyr: A radically peaceful vision of Islam.
This is what I find, personally, most important (my emphasis in bold):
Why did the Sudanese state, the religious establishment, and the Islamist hard-liners consider the leader of such a small movement worth killing? Perhaps because, as Khalid el-Haj, a retired school administrator in Rufaa, who first met Taha in the early sixties, told me, “They are afraid of the ideas, not the numbers. They know that the ideas are from inside Islam and they cannot face it.”
These ideas are from inside Islam. They are in it; they come from out of it, and will keep coming no matter how many people are murdered. We must help them in the face of other.
54LolaWalser
The comment that led me to that article, from a poster with a Muslim name I don't remember exactly (there are more than a hundred comments and most are junk):
And (same poster):
There is enough corroboration in the Quran to validate Progressive or Modernist Islam. Sudanese religious thinker Mahmoud Mohammed Taha believed that the Meccan verses, making up the “Second Message” of Islam, should form the “basis of the legislation” for modern society.
True Shariah law, Taha believed, was not fixed, but had the ability “to evolve, assimilate the capabilities of individual and society, and guide such life up the ladder of continuous development”. While the Medina Qur’an was appropriate in its time to form the essence of the Sharia, he believed the “original, uncorrupted form” of Islam was the Mecca Qur’an. It accorded, (among other things), equal status to people – whether women or men, Muslim or non-Muslim. Taha preached that the Sudanese constitution should be reformed to reconcile “the individual’s need for absolute freedom with the community’s need for total social justice.”
And (same poster):
Progressive, Liberal, Moderate, Reformist and Modernist are qualifications of Islam which are not rigidly defined but generally carry the meaning of freedom from obscurantism and dogmatism, opposing coercion and supremacism and supporting inclusiveness and respect for the religions and sects of others.
55librorumamans
>54 LolaWalser: Ali, in her book that I've been reading, makes what sounds like a similar distinction. She speaks of "Mecca Muslims" and "Medina Muslims".
She roots this distinction in a change of attitude following the flight to Medina that introduced much more aggression, militancy, and intolerance into the texts of the emerging religion.
She roots this distinction in a change of attitude following the flight to Medina that introduced much more aggression, militancy, and intolerance into the texts of the emerging religion.
56krolik
>48 LolaWalser: Thanks for your reply. Part of my earlier post has an intemperate personal tone that I regret and distracts from the subject. Will continue to muddle on.
57John5918
>53 LolaWalser: Thanks, Lola. I stood near the prison when Mahmud Muhammad Taha was hanged. There was a government rent-a-mob inside the prison to cheer when he died, but over the rest of the city there was an eery silence. His spirit and his ideas certainly haven't died.
>55 librorumamans: I think that fits well with Taha's thinking too. The laws needed to govern and defend a city state in that area in that century were pragmatically more aggressive, militant and intolerant, but they should not form the basis for the religion for all time.
>55 librorumamans: I think that fits well with Taha's thinking too. The laws needed to govern and defend a city state in that area in that century were pragmatically more aggressive, militant and intolerant, but they should not form the basis for the religion for all time.
58LolaWalser
>55 librorumamans:
Well... I don't know what texts are meant but as far as I know there are none except the Koran that are embraced by the totality of the hundreds of existing Islams. (I stand ready to be educated.) I don't see how it is possible to talk in any way meaningfully about "the emerging religion", as if there were one, when Islam has been riddled by significant sectarianism to a higher degree than any other major religion, and that from the moment Muhammad died. Moreover, it's decentralised, with basically every school independent of any other except insofar they claim intellectual heritage.
As for aggression, militancy and intolerance, that is the problem with religions that teach they possess absolute truth and sole way to salvation. Islam is no more aggressive, militant and intolerant than Christianity proved to be before secularism took hold (about five minutes ago) or than what Christianity may yet engender. (And you can still get Presidents of the Free World leaving evidence that they imagined themselves as crusaders for the faith.)
But the main point I'd wish to make in regard to aggression and intolerance is that it's impossible to blame them all on religion--yes, even extreme versions of religion--while history and politics have made of the so-called Middle East what it is. No matter what the role of religion in their creation may or may not be, without the West there would have been no ISIS.
Well... I don't know what texts are meant but as far as I know there are none except the Koran that are embraced by the totality of the hundreds of existing Islams. (I stand ready to be educated.) I don't see how it is possible to talk in any way meaningfully about "the emerging religion", as if there were one, when Islam has been riddled by significant sectarianism to a higher degree than any other major religion, and that from the moment Muhammad died. Moreover, it's decentralised, with basically every school independent of any other except insofar they claim intellectual heritage.
As for aggression, militancy and intolerance, that is the problem with religions that teach they possess absolute truth and sole way to salvation. Islam is no more aggressive, militant and intolerant than Christianity proved to be before secularism took hold (about five minutes ago) or than what Christianity may yet engender. (And you can still get Presidents of the Free World leaving evidence that they imagined themselves as crusaders for the faith.)
But the main point I'd wish to make in regard to aggression and intolerance is that it's impossible to blame them all on religion--yes, even extreme versions of religion--while history and politics have made of the so-called Middle East what it is. No matter what the role of religion in their creation may or may not be, without the West there would have been no ISIS.
59LolaWalser
>56 krolik:
Marchons, marchons! ;)
>57 John5918:
What an event to witness. Reading the article, I felt awful for knowing so little about Sudan.
Marchons, marchons! ;)
>57 John5918:
What an event to witness. Reading the article, I felt awful for knowing so little about Sudan.
60librorumamans
For those who wish to poke around, a list of current voices in the Islamic reform movement (as listed towards the end of Ali's book):
Lay persons:
Maajid Nawaz (UK), Samia Labidi(FR), Afshin Ellian(NL), Ehsan Jami(NL), Naser Khader(DK), Seyran Ares (DE), Yunis Qandil (DE), Bassam Tibi (DE), Raheel Raza (CA), Zuhdi Jasser (US), Saleem Ahmed (US), Nonie Darwish (US), Wafa Sultan (US), Ibn Warraq (US), Asra Normani (US), Irshad Manji (CA)
Clerics
'Abd Al-Hamid al-Ansari, Ahmed al-Qabbanji, Yassin Elforkani (NL), Iyad Jamal al-Din, Ibrahim al-Buleihi, Dhiyaa al-Musawi
(Best efforts at transcribing these names accurately; other transliterations doubtless exist; country codes from memory.)
Lay persons:
Maajid Nawaz (UK), Samia Labidi(FR), Afshin Ellian(NL), Ehsan Jami(NL), Naser Khader(DK), Seyran Ares (DE), Yunis Qandil (DE), Bassam Tibi (DE), Raheel Raza (CA), Zuhdi Jasser (US), Saleem Ahmed (US), Nonie Darwish (US), Wafa Sultan (US), Ibn Warraq (US), Asra Normani (US), Irshad Manji (CA)
Clerics
'Abd Al-Hamid al-Ansari, Ahmed al-Qabbanji, Yassin Elforkani (NL), Iyad Jamal al-Din, Ibrahim al-Buleihi, Dhiyaa al-Musawi
(Best efforts at transcribing these names accurately; other transliterations doubtless exist; country codes from memory.)
63RickHarsch
If a bit too short
64lriley
Oliver has done a number of pieces over the last year or so on various aspects (confiscation of money or goods, bail, parole, court appointed lawyers etc. etc.) of the American criminal justice system which are well worth watching. Some of his other major interests this past year or so have been the crooks in FIFA and in televangelism and outright homophobia--Uganda was one of the targets for that.
65librorumamans
From today's Globe and Mail op-ed page, a column by Bernard-Henri Lévy Thinking the unthinkable: This is war.
I don't know whether the piece has been syndicated; at present it's accessible at the G&M site.
Two (separated) passages that interested me:
[The assassins] should rightfully be labelled fascists. Better: fascislamists.
Better: the product of the grafting that Paul Claudel saw coming when he noted in his journal for May 21, 1935, in one of those insights that occur only to the truly great: “Hitler’s speech? A kind of Islamism is being created at the centre of Europe.”
Huh. 1935!
and then
. . . Islamic lands are the only parts of the world that never underwent the work of remembrance and grieving done by the Germans, French, other Europeans, and Japanese, because in much of the Islamic world, the myth has persisted that the fascist storm of the 1930s was contained within the perimeter of Europe.
Perhaps not "the only lands", but still an angle that I had not thought of.
It's a lengthy piece — half a broadsheet page — and the two bits I've quoted don't summarize its argument.
I don't know whether the piece has been syndicated; at present it's accessible at the G&M site.
Two (separated) passages that interested me:
[The assassins] should rightfully be labelled fascists. Better: fascislamists.
Better: the product of the grafting that Paul Claudel saw coming when he noted in his journal for May 21, 1935, in one of those insights that occur only to the truly great: “Hitler’s speech? A kind of Islamism is being created at the centre of Europe.”
Huh. 1935!
and then
. . . Islamic lands are the only parts of the world that never underwent the work of remembrance and grieving done by the Germans, French, other Europeans, and Japanese, because in much of the Islamic world, the myth has persisted that the fascist storm of the 1930s was contained within the perimeter of Europe.
Perhaps not "the only lands", but still an angle that I had not thought of.
It's a lengthy piece — half a broadsheet page — and the two bits I've quoted don't summarize its argument.
66LolaWalser
Huh. 1935!
Claudel was an ardent Catholic bigot and reactionary. It's a bit rich to complain about how much "grieving" something described as "Islamic lands" have done when one's elected spokesperson is on record for preferring Nazis to "communist scum".
But then, BHL is not unprejudiced vis-à-vis Islam himself.
Claudel was an ardent Catholic bigot and reactionary. It's a bit rich to complain about how much "grieving" something described as "Islamic lands" have done when one's elected spokesperson is on record for preferring Nazis to "communist scum".
But then, BHL is not unprejudiced vis-à-vis Islam himself.
67barney67
French socialist president promises "no mercy" to militant Islamists. That, I think, must be significant.
68LolaWalser
>65 librorumamans:
Since you seem to have made Hirsi Ali your primary source of information, perhaps you'd be interested in this brand new critique of Heretic:
How She Wants to Modify Muslims
An older article on ISIS (from August) is worth looking at for situating them within the context of Islamist insurgents (not all "radicals" are the same...) and giving a sense, IMO all too rare, of the combination of direction and contingency that really drives history:
The Mystery of ISIS
Since you seem to have made Hirsi Ali your primary source of information, perhaps you'd be interested in this brand new critique of Heretic:
How She Wants to Modify Muslims
An older article on ISIS (from August) is worth looking at for situating them within the context of Islamist insurgents (not all "radicals" are the same...) and giving a sense, IMO all too rare, of the combination of direction and contingency that really drives history:
The Mystery of ISIS
69librorumamans
>68 LolaWalser: Just to clarify, and before having read your links, Ali is not at all my primary source. Heretic simply happens to be the book I was about 2/3 through when last Friday happened. It seemed to be relevant and was to hand to find accurate (rather than hazily recalled) references.
Thanks for the suggestions; I'll look at them a bit later.
Thanks for the suggestions; I'll look at them a bit later.
70lriley
According to an IPSOS/Reuters poll American think that Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton are the best qualified to handle ISIS.
I'm not a religious person but all I can say is Good fucking Lord......
In Clinton's case I wonder why hardly anyone in this country of ours ever takes the time to check past voting records. Her foreign policy decision making including her approving vote to G. W. Bush and Richard Cheney to invade Iraq in 2003 IMO is reason enough for me to disqualify her as anyone I'd ever want to vote for---not to mention that there are a plethora of other reasons as well. That being said I know I'm in the minority of those who would identify themselves as left, liberal or progressive who think she's the same. I'd point out though that many such might think themselves left but are really very conservative.
As for Trump---here's a guy whose solution to the Bataclan massacre was that if only some of the concert goers were armed it would never have happened. If only there were people walking around with guns everywhere and all the time. I remember an All in the Family episode many many years ago where Archie Bunker posits the same solution to airplane hijackings. It was stupid then (and that's generally how the public saw it then) and it's even stupider now (even if there's a higher % of people these days who think that's a really bright idea). It seems the only times that Trump plays to potential voters imaginations is when he delivers on his divisive immigrant bashing.
I'm not a religious person but all I can say is Good fucking Lord......
In Clinton's case I wonder why hardly anyone in this country of ours ever takes the time to check past voting records. Her foreign policy decision making including her approving vote to G. W. Bush and Richard Cheney to invade Iraq in 2003 IMO is reason enough for me to disqualify her as anyone I'd ever want to vote for---not to mention that there are a plethora of other reasons as well. That being said I know I'm in the minority of those who would identify themselves as left, liberal or progressive who think she's the same. I'd point out though that many such might think themselves left but are really very conservative.
As for Trump---here's a guy whose solution to the Bataclan massacre was that if only some of the concert goers were armed it would never have happened. If only there were people walking around with guns everywhere and all the time. I remember an All in the Family episode many many years ago where Archie Bunker posits the same solution to airplane hijackings. It was stupid then (and that's generally how the public saw it then) and it's even stupider now (even if there's a higher % of people these days who think that's a really bright idea). It seems the only times that Trump plays to potential voters imaginations is when he delivers on his divisive immigrant bashing.
71andyl
>70 lriley:
Absolutely that is what everyone wants - 1200 armed individuals, all having had a few (or in some cases many) drinks. The mosh-pit is going to be fun. If there was an attack in such circumstances I confidently predict that there would be a much higher body count.
Absolutely that is what everyone wants - 1200 armed individuals, all having had a few (or in some cases many) drinks. The mosh-pit is going to be fun. If there was an attack in such circumstances I confidently predict that there would be a much higher body count.
72weener
Everyone thinks they are going to be a sharp-shootin' hero that stops the bad guy with a single shot, and nobody thinks they are going to be the idiot that leaves their gun in the public restroom, or negligently lets their toddler grab it out of their purse at Wal Mart. Guess what! There are a lot more of the latter than the former, especially in the general population with no police or military training.
73jjwilson61
...or the guy who shoots the person next to the bad guy.
74Jesse_wiedinmyer
>70 lriley:
"Her foreign policy decision making including her approving vote to G. W. Bush and Richard Cheney to invade Iraq in 2003 IMO is reason enough for me to disqualify her as anyone I'd ever want to vote for"
You seem to think that the majority of the people who think she's qualified to handle ISIS feel that that vote was a mistake.
"Her foreign policy decision making including her approving vote to G. W. Bush and Richard Cheney to invade Iraq in 2003 IMO is reason enough for me to disqualify her as anyone I'd ever want to vote for"
You seem to think that the majority of the people who think she's qualified to handle ISIS feel that that vote was a mistake.
75faceinbook
>70 lriley:
"Absolutely that is what everyone wants - 1200 armed individuals, all having had a few (or in some cases many) drinks. The mosh-pit is going to be fun. If there was an attack in such circumstances I confidently predict that there would be a much higher body count."
1200 ? A mere 1200 armed individuals ?
Here is a nugget of insanity. We are a nation with 300,000,000 privately owned weapons. We have been repeatedly told that these weapons are essential for defending ourselves, against each other, the government and black bears I suppose. However, a political party that has enabled it's members to continue this obsession to the point where many of these are military grade weapons, is scared to death of 10,000 refugees.
If 300,000,000 million weapons, and who knows how much ammunition, are not enough fire power to defend one's self from 10,000 hungry, tired and homeless immigrants, what the hell have they been talking about when it comes to defending themselves ? It would seem that as an individual without a weapon of any sort, I am far less fear based than the person who is armed for every imaginable situation.
It is my strong desire to see everyone and anyone who has ever repeated the NRA talking points.......verbally, on Facebook or by waving flags (Guns, Guts and God) be held responsible for getting rid of those members of ISIS who would do harm to others. THAT is what they have the damn guns for in the first place. Obviously their guns haven't made them any braver.....lots of whining coming from that crowd.
"Absolutely that is what everyone wants - 1200 armed individuals, all having had a few (or in some cases many) drinks. The mosh-pit is going to be fun. If there was an attack in such circumstances I confidently predict that there would be a much higher body count."
1200 ? A mere 1200 armed individuals ?
Here is a nugget of insanity. We are a nation with 300,000,000 privately owned weapons. We have been repeatedly told that these weapons are essential for defending ourselves, against each other, the government and black bears I suppose. However, a political party that has enabled it's members to continue this obsession to the point where many of these are military grade weapons, is scared to death of 10,000 refugees.
If 300,000,000 million weapons, and who knows how much ammunition, are not enough fire power to defend one's self from 10,000 hungry, tired and homeless immigrants, what the hell have they been talking about when it comes to defending themselves ? It would seem that as an individual without a weapon of any sort, I am far less fear based than the person who is armed for every imaginable situation.
It is my strong desire to see everyone and anyone who has ever repeated the NRA talking points.......verbally, on Facebook or by waving flags (Guns, Guts and God) be held responsible for getting rid of those members of ISIS who would do harm to others. THAT is what they have the damn guns for in the first place. Obviously their guns haven't made them any braver.....lots of whining coming from that crowd.
76rastaphrog
>75 faceinbook: Would you object to me swiping the last three paragraphs and posting them on FB and another message board I frequent? I'd just love to see how some of the religigun nuts reply.
77faceinbook
>76 rastaphrog:
Not at all.
Not at all.
78Limelite
Ahhh, chickenhawks. All feathers and no guts. They're not going to give anyone a fair chance to pry their guns from their cold dead fingers, yet they're the first to volunteer others do so. If Churchill will pardon me, "Never in the history of mankind have so many owned so much firepower and come to the aid of so few."
80barney67
"a political party"
-- You're suggesting that the NRA is populated and supported only by Republicans? Democrats don't belong to the NRA? Or own guns?
"It is my strong desire to see everyone and anyone who has ever repeated the NRA talking points.......verbally, on Facebook or by waving flags (Guns, Guts and God) be held responsible for getting rid of those members of ISIS who would do harm to others"
--Just trying to follow the logic here. You're suggesting that anyone or everyone who has defended the NRA or its positions "verbally on Facebook or by waving flags" should be responsible for "getting rid of" (you don't say how) ISIS terrorists?
-- You're suggesting that the NRA is populated and supported only by Republicans? Democrats don't belong to the NRA? Or own guns?
"It is my strong desire to see everyone and anyone who has ever repeated the NRA talking points.......verbally, on Facebook or by waving flags (Guns, Guts and God) be held responsible for getting rid of those members of ISIS who would do harm to others"
--Just trying to follow the logic here. You're suggesting that anyone or everyone who has defended the NRA or its positions "verbally on Facebook or by waving flags" should be responsible for "getting rid of" (you don't say how) ISIS terrorists?
81theoria
>80 barney67: The National Rifle Manufacturers Association typically funds Republican candidates. Over time, the Republican Party has been captured by this special interest group, mostly to the detriment of the public interest.
83sturlington
NY Times is reporting that Donald Trump believes all Muslims in America should register with a central database.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-abs...
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-abs...
84jjwilson61
>83 sturlington: What's the point? The Washington Post is reporting that the US gov't already has easy access to that data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/20/just-so-you-know-the-g....
85sturlington
>84 jjwilson61: That article describes data collection by companies like Facebook and Google, which may or may not have been purchased by the government and used to get a rough idea of how many people are interested in Islam. That's a far cry from a leading presidential candidate proposing that all members of a religious group be required to register with the government. That Trump is back at the top of the polls now is simply frightening.
86theoria
>83 sturlington: Republicans are addicted to discrimination.
>84 jjwilson61: It makes a difference that the government would mandate religious profiling. I would expect those most vociferous about the threat to "religious freedom" in the last year to be up in arms over such chatter.
>84 jjwilson61: It makes a difference that the government would mandate religious profiling. I would expect those most vociferous about the threat to "religious freedom" in the last year to be up in arms over such chatter.
87prosfilaes
>80 barney67: You're suggesting that the NRA is populated and supported only by Republicans? Democrats don't belong to the NRA?
Have you not read their literature? I was reading some of the stuff they sent out to my dad after he died, and it's all "Obama is coming after your guns! So is Hillary Clinton! So is Sanders! Don't trust the liberal media!" They're more interested in terrifying their members and attacking the left then actually doing a good job as an advocacy group, which would reaching out to politicians of all stripes.
There are surely some Democrats who belong to the NRA. But the NRA is not a monofocused otherwise-nonpartisan political advocacy group.
Have you not read their literature? I was reading some of the stuff they sent out to my dad after he died, and it's all "Obama is coming after your guns! So is Hillary Clinton! So is Sanders! Don't trust the liberal media!" They're more interested in terrifying their members and attacking the left then actually doing a good job as an advocacy group, which would reaching out to politicians of all stripes.
There are surely some Democrats who belong to the NRA. But the NRA is not a monofocused otherwise-nonpartisan political advocacy group.
88faceinbook
>80 barney67:
"Just trying to follow the logic here. You're suggesting that anyone or everyone who has defended the NRA or its positions "verbally on Facebook or by waving flags" should be responsible for "getting rid of" (you don't say how) ISIS terrorists?"
If a gun is used to "get the bad guy" and according to the NRA "there are a lot of bad guys out there" then, if ISIS = bad guy then go use the dang gun. Or are only fellow American's "bad guys" If the ideology of the NRA is that a gun "keeps you safer" well, then prove it.....sign up with your weapon and protect your country.....or is the gun only meant to protect you FROM your country ?
"Just trying to follow the logic here. You're suggesting that anyone or everyone who has defended the NRA or its positions "verbally on Facebook or by waving flags" should be responsible for "getting rid of" (you don't say how) ISIS terrorists?"
If a gun is used to "get the bad guy" and according to the NRA "there are a lot of bad guys out there" then, if ISIS = bad guy then go use the dang gun. Or are only fellow American's "bad guys" If the ideology of the NRA is that a gun "keeps you safer" well, then prove it.....sign up with your weapon and protect your country.....or is the gun only meant to protect you FROM your country ?
90lriley
FWIW I don't see what the NRA has to do with this Jihadi cult of death.
Personally I have no problem with people owning deer rifles and shotguns--even some handguns as long as they're not out to harm other people with them.
However one might want to look at international arms dealers---how a group such as ISIS obtains weapons and who from. This has been big business for years. It's time to follow the money back to the source. It's also time for arms manufacturers to stop saturating the market with military grade weapons.
Personally I have no problem with people owning deer rifles and shotguns--even some handguns as long as they're not out to harm other people with them.
However one might want to look at international arms dealers---how a group such as ISIS obtains weapons and who from. This has been big business for years. It's time to follow the money back to the source. It's also time for arms manufacturers to stop saturating the market with military grade weapons.
91LolaWalser
I didn't know where to put this article, but as this thread doesn't seem to be too narrow...
ISIS Women and Enforcers in Syria Recount Collaboration, Anguish and Escape
I wish people understood what was lost, that people lived lives like ours, with the same feelings, same hopes... they are not some "other" people, they are people just like us. This was done to people just like us.
ISIS Women and Enforcers in Syria Recount Collaboration, Anguish and Escape
I wish people understood what was lost, that people lived lives like ours, with the same feelings, same hopes... they are not some "other" people, they are people just like us. This was done to people just like us.
“Before, I was like you,” she told a reporter, waving her arms up and down. “I had a boyfriend, I went to the beach, I wore a bikini. Even in Syria, we wore short skirts and tank tops, and all of this was normal. Even my brothers didn’t care — I had no trouble from anyone.”
92RickHarsch
Damascus.
93lriley
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-28/isis-oil-trade-full-frontal-raqqas-rock...
The last couple days I've been running into various news articles about Turkey and the Erdogan family that runs that country. Turkey has long been an US ally. The US has for a long time sent massive amounts of military equipment to Turkey. Turkey has often used this equipment to attack Kurds on its southern border to Iraq.
A couple weeks or so ago Turkey shot down a Soviet fighter for entering its air space. There well may be an explanation in the above link. As a member of NATO the US is required to come to Turkey's aid if a non-NATO country attacks it. But here we come again to the Erdogan's who rule the country and who seemingly have connections to ISIS and who at least look like they are making loads of money smuggling oil and artifacts and etc. etc. from ISIS out to the rest of the world--meanwhile funding and supplying ISIS with the materials it needs to continue its war not just in Northern Africa but from time to time operations in Europe as the attack in Paris of the 13th.
Putin is an asshole but if he has proof and has given it to other G20 nations then it seems clear to me that if not a regime change in Turkey--at least cutting it out of NATO and off from US military weaponry/aid should follow immediately even with all the geopolitical problems that that might cause us.
The last couple days I've been running into various news articles about Turkey and the Erdogan family that runs that country. Turkey has long been an US ally. The US has for a long time sent massive amounts of military equipment to Turkey. Turkey has often used this equipment to attack Kurds on its southern border to Iraq.
A couple weeks or so ago Turkey shot down a Soviet fighter for entering its air space. There well may be an explanation in the above link. As a member of NATO the US is required to come to Turkey's aid if a non-NATO country attacks it. But here we come again to the Erdogan's who rule the country and who seemingly have connections to ISIS and who at least look like they are making loads of money smuggling oil and artifacts and etc. etc. from ISIS out to the rest of the world--meanwhile funding and supplying ISIS with the materials it needs to continue its war not just in Northern Africa but from time to time operations in Europe as the attack in Paris of the 13th.
Putin is an asshole but if he has proof and has given it to other G20 nations then it seems clear to me that if not a regime change in Turkey--at least cutting it out of NATO and off from US military weaponry/aid should follow immediately even with all the geopolitical problems that that might cause us.
