Soldiers against imperialism

Dear Sergeant Moebus,

I heartily commend you on your service to our country. God bless you for that. But now I have a quetion for you. Do you think you have to be in the military, or ex-military in order to have a valid opinion on war?

How many years has Bill or Hillary Clinton served in the military? Barack Obama? John Edwards? How about Michael Moore? I’m sure they all served with distinction too, right?

Tim R.

Why are you here? Do you get paid to spew the party line?

I want to know how many years has Mitt served? How about Ill Duce? Huckster? etc.? Oh McCain, that’s right. Still riding high on that Vietnam thing, Although he’s so crazy, he does not support the party line on torture.

Little info: in case you did not know: most politicians are cowards, as are laptop bombadiers. Go find a pro-war, pro-blood website and knock yourself out. Go fight for the empire, better yet.

Kenneth,

You want me to muster an iota of support for my assertion? Well, here you go! As I said, the Islamo terrorists hate us because we are not Muslim and they seek to establish a radical Islamic theocracy throughout world. They want all non Muslims to convert or else! So here is some support for my thesis:

http://www.denverpost.com/war/ci_6828600

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/index.html

Now what do you say? I think that is more than an iota of support.

As for your point about our foreign policy, I agree with you to the extent that it is a factor. But it is not the only factor. Yes, you are right, the radical Muslims are irritated to no end the the USA supports Israel. I mean, really! How dare we support a tiny nation of five million Jews, about the size of the State of New Jersey, that is totally surrounded by over two hundred and forty million Muslims in dozens of much larger countries that would love to destroy her. You are quite correct, Bin Laden does not like that.

Now what do you say? I think that is more than an iota of support.

I see your grasp of logic is as feeble as ever, as your conclusion is a non-sequitur. While in may be true that Bin Laden wants us to convert to Islam, it does not mean that is directly related to his attacks. In this vein, America’s desire to see North Korea become capitalist or Syria to abide by its edicts does not imply an impending invasion. It is simply a long term ideal that Bin Laden would like to see realized someday. It is not the motivation for the attacks, which were executed with the express intent of getting American troops out of Saudi Arabia.

How dare we support a tiny nation of five million Jews, about the size of the State of New Jersey, that is totally surrounded by over two hundred and forty million Muslims in dozens of much larger countries that would love to destroy her. You are quite correct, Bin Laden does not like that.

A brutal apartheid state at that, but it is not the sole aspect of American foreign policy that Bin Laden finds disagreeable. The occupation of Mecca and Medina by American soldiers and the continuing support for the corrupt monarchy there is also a key irritant.

Free Market and Capitalism are 2 different things. Capitalism is another word for national socialism(where corporate or business and goverment bond like two teenagers in heat). In a free market our goverment would invest nothing for any business venture incluiding oil gas(Iraq afganistan wars) free foriegn labor(Korean and vietnam wars) or controlling medical industry(to the benifit of the rich and medical workers and owners) detriment to the poor, etc etc etc!

Doug,

Not being an economist, I thank you for the clarification. But that distinction has been rendered an epistemological exercise in futility by the overwhelming state sponsored apathy and mindless consumerism sweeping the land. Free markets, capitalism, national socialism and various other isms have been morphed into the social Darwinism(dog eat dog) that seem to be the fundamental axiom of today.

Let me paste a passage from “The Taking of Tigert Hall: Reminiscences from a Bygone Era” :

” Unfortunately, the opposite has evolved since. Instead of a society that encourages uniqueness and independence in men, we now see the supremacy of multinational corporations that cultivate conformity in individuals and control every aspect of their livelihood. Democracy has been equated to a warped free market economic fundamentalism run amok, that shortsightedly speculates on decreasing wages, layoffs, unemployment, poverty and misery as indices that maximize profits and increase corporate share value. We live in a world where corporations have been allowed to commandeer the very essence of life by patenting the genes of the crops humanity depends upon for survival and declaring them their intellectual property for which poor farmers around the world must pay them royalties. The vast majority of Americans do not participate in the crucial social or economic decisions that determine the quality or direction of their lives, the healthcare they are entitled to or the educational opportunities that will be available to their children. Most of these decisions are taken by a few for the benefits of a few. We are constantly reminded of the admonition of the great American jurist, the late Chief Justice Brandeis, that we can either have great concentration of wealth in the hands of the few or we can have democracy, but we can not have both!”

Why is it that in today’s “politically correct” world, certain subjects, certain thoughts even, are taboo? No, I do not believe that Islam(at least in its current form of practice) is a peaceful religion. I base this on having read the Quran as well as on the fact that 95% of terrorist attacks on civilians are committed by Muslims. I contend that one way to judge any religion or belief system is by the actions it tends to promote in its adherents. Now, could I be wrong? Of course I could. But the point is, why are certain views, even mere thoughts, considered off limits? Is that the type of world we want to live in?

For example, I am a theist. I believe in a Creator. However, many do not. In his excellent book, “God Is Not Great” Chistopher Hitchens excoriates all religions. Is that not his right? He has used his logic to come to certain conclusions. So too have I also used my logic to come to certain conclusions about Islam. For that I am lambasted and called all sorts of names. But why? Do we really want to live in a society where people are scared to express their thoughts? Where the mere thought of certain things is considered taboo and off limits? Don’t we want, isn’t it better, to have a society where the marketplace of ideas is fully stocked, rather than only stocked with ideas we find agreeable?

It seems to me that it is fashionable as of late to bash religious Christians. That is not taboo. They can be called all sorts of names like “Jesus Freaks.” But Islam today is under the strong protection of the “politically correct” thought police. So for a person, in good faith, to come to the conclusion that Islam is anything but a peaceful and great religion is deemed a “calunmy” to use Kenneth’s term. Some people think that today’s Muslim terrorists are a product of America’s foreign policies. And there may be some truth to that.

But I for one believe that their primary motivation is religious fundamentalism and zealotry. When they kill and maim they scream “Allah Akbar,” they don’t scream that Bin Laden is great or Palestine is great, they scream that God is great as they are about to kill innocents in his name. To me, that is a strong indication of religious zeal as their primary motiviation. But you see, I’m not supposed to even have that view! It is not politically correct and the thought police have not approved it.

I for one am sick and tired of people who are afraid of thoughts. Thoughts, ANY thoughts, are a good things, even if you disagree with them! And if my thoughts are incorrect? Well, then as Thomas Jefferson said, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Right. You’ve done it. Now the gloves are coming off.

Why is it that in today’s “politically correct” world, certain subjects, certain thoughts even, are taboo? No, I do not believe that Islam(at least in its current form of practice) is a peaceful religion. I base this on having read the Quran as well as on the fact that 95% of terrorist attacks on civilians are committed by Muslims. I contend that one way to judge any religion or belief system is by the actions it tends to promote in its adherents. Now, could I be wrong? Of course I could. But the point is, why are certain views, even mere thoughts, considered off limits? Is that the type of world we want to live in?

Let me recapitulate, in case you didn’t get it the first time: THERE IS NO CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAM AND TERRORISM. TERRORISM IS A TACTIC USED TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC GEOPOLITICAL GOALS. IT IS A RESPONSE TO THE INTRUSION OF WESTERN POWERS INTO THE MIDDLE EAST. Nice and clear is it now? Or do I have to belabour this point more?

For example, I am a theist. I believe in a Creator. However, many do not. In his excellent book, “God Is Not Great” Chistopher Hitchens excoriates all religions. Is that not his right? He has used his logic to come to certain conclusions. So too have I also used my logic to come to certain conclusions about Islam.

It isn’t logic he’s using, but a superficial historical narrative that gives undue weight to religion and ideology when they rightly belong at the periphery of any explanation.

For that I am lambasted and called all sorts of names. But why? Do we really want to live in a society where people are scared to express their thoughts? Where the mere thought of certain things is considered taboo and off limits? Don’t we want, isn’t it better, to have a society where the marketplace of ideas is fully stocked, rather than only stocked with ideas we find agreeable?

No one’s trying to censor you, Tim. You’re exercising your right to free speech by posting on this thread and we’re exercising our rights by criticizing you. Indeed, even if I did believe censorship was permissible in some cases (which, for the record, I obvious don’t), I still wouldn’t want you censored, because you do more harm to your cause than good, and for this reason it is better that your replies are left unedited for the entire world to see. We have reason and argument; you have demagogy, bad logic, no definitive proof, and empty sensationalism.

It seems to me that it is fashionable as of late to bash religious Christians. That is not taboo. They can be called all sorts of names like “Jesus Freaks.” But Islam today is under the strong protection of the “politically correct” thought police. So for a person, in good faith, to come to the conclusion that Islam is anything but a peaceful and great religion is deemed a “calunmy” to use Kenneth’s term.

You still don’t get it, do you? The essentialist mindset with which you approach the argument, which aims to distill an incredibly varied religious tradition down to a few supposedly inherent traits, make a reply to the effect that Islam isn’t always such a bad thing after all a rhetorical necessity. If you would say, for example, that “Islam as it is practiced today” has many problems, then I wouldn’t dispute that. Since, however, you aim to ascribe timeless qualities to the religion on the basis of what parts of the Qur’an said and what Islamic states have done you are guilty of religious bigotry, since you admit no possibility that the problems with modern day Islam might simply be the product of social conditions rather than residing with the religion itself. It would be as though I were to claim that the violence practiced by medieval Christians was an essential aspect of the religion, rather than the result of its abuse by a feudal aristocracy. It is slander. Nothing less. It is also the worst kind of historical revisionism. And your attempt at correlating Islamic doctrine with terrorism is still unsuccessful. I think it would be pertinent to reproduce part of my reply to a previous post:

I’m…making the [theological] comparison to illustrate the futility of trying to explain terrorism by reference to religion. Of course the Qu’ran contains objectionable material; the whole point is that it is not unique in this respect, and can’t be used to make generalizations about the behaviour and aspirations of 1.3 billion people.

If Christians were being demonized in this fashion, I would be obliged to come to their defense. If someone claimed that the Christian missionary impulse (as left-liberal types are so fond of doing) was the driving force behind American imperialism, I would gladly rise to the task of slapping some sense into them. I have no truck with atheistic bigots like Sam Harris who blame Christianity for America’s ills. I suppose, in the interests of the discussion, I should lay my cards on the table: I, too, am an atheist, and I do not regard the issue of god’s existence to be particularly relevant or important to the world. That, however, is my opinion, and if anyone tried to denigrate that by comparing me to Joseph Stalin or Enver Hoxha I would dismiss it as a manifestation of self-righteous and self-validating stupidity of the same sort that the anti-Christian bigots and the anti-Muslim bigots and the anti-Jewish bigots proffer in order to dehumanize their opponents and elevate their relative moral status.

But I for one believe that their primary motivation is religious fundamentalism and zealotry. When they kill and maim they scream “Allah Akbar,” they don’t scream that Bin Laden is great or Palestine is great, they scream that God is great as they are about to kill innocents in his name. To me, that is a strong indication of religious zeal as their primary motiviation.

What that indicates is a dedication to an ideology that promises national liberation. Their reasons for internalizing it have little to do with its inherent traits and everything to do with its position as the only doctrine sufficiently radical to take violent action against the occupiers, but ultimately the doctrine itself plays, at most, an ancillary role. And you still haven’t addressed Robert Pape’s study or Scheuer’s.

But you see, I’m not supposed to even have that view! It is not politically correct and the thought police have not approved it.

There are no “thought police”, only those who have the balls to challenge your intellectually lazy excuse for an explanation. Case in point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/14/pressandpublishing.religion

I for one am sick and tired of people who are afraid of thoughts. Thoughts, ANY thoughts, are a good things, even if you disagree with them! And if my thoughts are incorrect? Well, then as Thomas Jefferson said, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

That’s the first intelligent statement you’ve made on this blog, even if it is just a paraphrase.

“THERE IS NO CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAM AND TERRORISM.”

Can you please explain this statement? How do you define a “causal link?” The philosopher David Hume said that causality is always determined by our sense perception. Well, my five senses tell me that whenever I see terrorist attacks, in the vast majority of cases, I see radical Muslims following radical Islamic theology. Hume contends that we know of causality based on three things: priority in time, contiguity in space, and constant conjunction. Example: Match is put to paper and then paper burns (priority in time) Match is near the paper (contiguity in space)Every time we put a match to paper, paper burns. ( constant conjunction).

So let me see if I can piece this together regarding Muslims and terrorism.
1.Priority in time: Well,radical Muslims appear on the seen and then things get blown up. One follows the other.
2. Contiguity in space. Radical Muslims are nearby and things get blown up.
3. Constant conjunction: Pay attention now because this one is most important of the three. Radical Muslims are responsible for 95% of terrorist attacks. So terrorist attacks and radical Muslims are CONSTANTLY CONJOINED, to use Humes term.

So this does indeed, show a causal link between radical Islam and terrorism. No? Ok, let’s try another test.

In law we know that causality is important when it comes to many issues. So an important question to ask is, what really determines causality? Let us apply a famous test called the “but for” test. Ask yourself the following: But for the religous zeal of radical Muslims would they still commit acts of terrorism? But for radical Islamic theology, would Bin Laden and his miscreant friends have killed 3,000 Americans on September 11?

You get it now? To deny a link between radical Islam and terrorism is to either be willfully blind or astoundingly dumb. I cetainly don’t think your dumb so I think you are willfully blind to facts that don’t fit neatly with your worldview.

“you are guilty of religious bigotry, since you admit no possibility that the problems with modern day Islam might simply be the product of social conditions rather than residing with the religion itself. ”

Yes, I admit that social problems are a factor that must be considered. But realigous zeal is the central factor. Many of the Islamic terrorists come from middle class or even wealthy homes, and many are highly educated; Aymin Al Zawahiri is a doctor. Normally, middle class or wealthy people who are well fed and well educated do not blow themselves up or conspire to do so with others, UNLESS they are motivated by religious zeal.

Can you please explain this statement? How do you define a “causal link?”

A causal link is a systematic and direct relationship between two variables that involves one variable producing the other. It is established if two variables acting in tandem produce an outcome that ceteris paribus would not occur in the absence of the independent variable. As we have seen, the independent variable (radical Islam) is absent in a number of cases involving Arabs committing terrorism (the P.L.O.)- indeed, scarcely present until relatively recently. Conversely, we would expect the outcome to occur if the two variables remained unaltered and some other factor were missing. This is also demonstrably true- Somalia, Malaysia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Xinjiang, and the central Asian republics have not produced any terrorists, despite having sizeable Muslim populations. What is different about these regions is that the West has not intruded militarily or diplomatically into them in the same way that it has in states like Saudi Arabia and Palestine.

The philosopher David Hume said that causality is always determined by our sense perception.

Contrary to your expectations, this is not an imprimatur of logical rigour or empirical veracity for post hoc arguments that you list below. Of course, such a statement is logically vacuous in any case as all our knowledge of the external world, and not merely causality, derives ultimately from perception. What Hume means is that it is only systematized, applied perception- i.e., the scientific method- that can successfully interpolate a causal relationship between two quantities. There is, I might hasten to add, an element of deduction involved as well: we tacitly work from prior knowledge to establish the direction in which the causality goes. It would be obviously ridiculous, whatever one’s thoughts on the subject, that it is terrorism that gives rise to Islam, or that frog mutations are responsible for elevated levels of pollutants. Pedantries aside, let us study how well you make use of the scientific approach.

So let me see if I can piece this together regarding Muslims and terrorism.
1.Priority in time: Well,radical Muslims appear on the seen and then things get blown up. One follows the other.
2. Contiguity in space. Radical Muslims are nearby and things get blown up.
3. Constant conjunction: Pay attention now because this one is most important of the three. Radical Muslims are responsible for 95% of terrorist attacks. So terrorist attacks and radical Muslims are CONSTANTLY CONJOINED, to use Humes term.

Such arguments, as is apparent to even a lowly adolescent such as myself, show nothing by themselves. As we have seen, all of these facts can be readily explained by the fact that radical Islam is the regnant revolutionary ideology in the region and monopolizes opposition to the west. The fact that most terrorist attacks will be committed by Muslims in predominantly Muslim areas under sustained western assault is also to be expected. When trying to move from correlation to causation, one must always remember to control for other variables- in this case, western interference. I dealt with this above, and found it to be the case that, tellingly, predominantly Muslim countries, indeed, the two largest Muslim communities in the world, not under western occupation or control by western-sponsored despotisms or experiencing intervention in domestic politics by the west have not produced any terrorists- even in Somalia, a society where Bin Laden spent several years in waiting.

In law we know that causality is important when it comes to many issues. So an important question to ask is, what really determines causality? Let us apply a famous test called the “but for” test. Ask yourself the following: But for the religous zeal of radical Muslims would they still commit acts of terrorism? But for radical Islamic theology, would Bin Laden and his miscreant friends have killed 3,000 Americans on September 11?

At last, we reach the nub of the issue. Individual cases like this one only serve to deter aggregate analysis which, as it turns out, revealed that a great deal of suicide bombings were carried out by nationalist, secularist groups. September 11th was an aberration, and its incidence says nothing about terrorism as a whole. Since nationalism is clearly capable of inspiring suicidal attacks, it is almost certain that a terrorist attack, perhaps from secular pan-Arabists, would have been unleashed on the United States at some time. It may not have happened, however, since no nationalist terrorist organization was given the same degree of financing or clandestine political and military aid, not to mention the resources of an entire state, by the CIA that al-Qaeda was, and no parallel exists in the history of pan-Arabism or secular nationalism.

Bah. I wish the comments had an editing function, because my hasty typing typically results in mutilated syntax. Anyone willing to take up on this idea?

Yes, I admit that social problems are a factor that must be considered. But realigous zeal is the central factor. Many of the Islamic terrorists come from middle class or even wealthy homes, and many are highly educated; Aymin Al Zawahiri is a doctor. Normally, middle class or wealthy people who are well fed and well educated do not blow themselves up or conspire to do so with others, UNLESS they are motivated by religious zeal.

You misconstrue me. I said social conditions in the Arab world produce the ideology which helps inspire attacks of this nature. Of course, Robert Pape has shown that the overwhelming majority of attacks indicate nationalist rather than ideological goals. Naturally, zeal is required to produce a suicide bomber, but this is a moot point since any ideology is capable of inspiring such zeal given the right circumstances. I recommend that you read him.