US and UK citizens who dare to criticise the bombing in Afghanistan are not threatened with bodily harm, only with being lectured by the rest of us. The people we are talking about are defending the killing of innocent people for crying out loud. Killing the people who have a made a society where they can come as immigrants, enjoy the good things of this culture and then turn them against those who built it.
And, by the way, I doubt most of those people were born and grew up in the west. I think most of them would be immigrants. I think those who were raised here would (mostly) have a more enlightened view.
But if, indeed, it is shown most of them have lived among us for generations, then they must be pretty isolated from the society around them.
Oh, and I forgot to add… think about how you’d interpret a poll taken of Christians that happened in the parking lot of a local church. I don’t think those people can speak for all people who call themselves “Christian.” And boy oh boy, depending on the denomination, they could be way way way off from representing the general opinion of Christians.
Bet you half a dollar I could find someone who has been…
Funny thing, that - British politicians have spent the last month telling us why it’s ok to kill Afghan civilians (not “ok”, perhaps, but “unavoidable” which is much the same thing)
Ain’t the case here in the UK. We have 19 year-old muslim lads talking about fighting for the Taleban - these are third and sometimes fourth generation UK citizens. Many of them have seen their communities marginalised and under-funded for years. Not surprising they are less than 100% behind the Government.
Exactly. And in many cases we (maybe I mean “I”) are to blame for that. Hate exists on both sides of this particular coin.
Ah, the beauty of essentialist assumptions and circular logic.
Muslims expressing support for Bin Laden can’t have grown up in the west, because we are so much more ‘enlightened’ than everyone else.
Those who did grow up here must be more ‘enlightened’.
And if they’re not, all it shows is that they are “pretty isolated from the society around them”.
We westerners can’t lose in this argument. If immigrants are ‘enlightened’, then it’s our great society that made them that way. If they’re not, then it’s their own fault for being ‘isolated’. Beautiful! :rolleyes:
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, Hairy. I’m just offering a perspective I’ve come into contact with quite often and one not overly represented on the board.
Most don’t support terrorism – anymore than they support the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam – but they do understand the grievances and do, in differing ways, support the political agenda.
IMHO, you do need to separate out those two, otherwise I’d suggest you’re on the way to having the characteristics of a fundamentalist.
Many see the current bombing campaign as about as legitimate as UK warships broadsiding Boston and New York all through the 1980’s (when Noraid funding was at its height). They do not see consistency but rather an Islamic-specific agenda.
Also, for many of us, the context is a convenient 8 weeks, for them it’s 50 years. It’s generational.
One possible reason of very many:
To escape the financial slavery of current taxation in, for example, Pakistan. Taxation that pays for loans made without due care as to where the money was going and to (what we knew to be) corrupt Governments– and it wasn’t going to the people. Resulting now in almost non-existent health care, little quality education, no services…I believe currently 70% of taxation in Pakistan currently goes to external loan servicing (no cite). In those circumstances, what would you do for your family ?
Still, look on the bright side: The loans are being serviced, Pakistan is obligated to follow a Western designed (and friendly) economic policy and is in our thrall – at least as far as we can push them without the country going totally fundamentalist. That was The Plan, wasn’t it ?
mhendo, I think it is fair to say most people support the culture, religion, etc they grew up in. East or west, I think it is what happens to most people.
At any rate, (even though you didn’t ask in so many words), yes, I do believe democratic cultures which respect human life and dignity are better than cultures of religious fanaticism where human life and human rights have no value. Sorry, just my opinion.
Now then, some people from those cultures believe it is OK to kill us. Ok, I say, let the games begin because they are going to get the worst part. I do not doubt for a moment that western culture will come out on top when this is over. Or does anyone think this is the beginning of the triumph of the Talibans?
In closing: people who defend terrorism should not complain when they are at the receiving end of violence.
I don’t think you can shrug off widespread Muslim sentiment quite so easily. This poll in Britian is just one more example how Muslim support has been seriously lacking in this war.
After all, Pakistan is under threat of collapse because so many Muslims in the population support Bin Laden and are rioting in the streets. Saudi Arabia STILL refuses to freeze Bin Laden’s assets. Indonesia is calling for an end of all military operations until after Christmas.
I think the best description of the attitudes of moderate Muslims is ‘conflicted’. They don’t agree with Bin Laden’s attack on Sept. 11, but on the other hand, it’s kind of nice to see the U.S. get their face slapped a bit, y’know? And Bin Laden is a hero to many Muslims because of his fighting the Soviets successfully, and it’s hard to let go of that. And besides, the U.S. is not innocent either, and they ARE desecrating holy lands with their military and supporting the evil Israel…
This is somewhat understandable from a sociological viewpoint. It’s not necessarily religious. Imagine how we would have felt in this hypothetical situation:
Fictional Scenario:
How would we feel? Forget the arguments that we’re not the Soviet Union, that we’re not evil and they were. The PERCEPTION of the average Muslim overseas is that we are. So how would you feel? Probably much the same as they do. The attack is barbaric, and you can’t support that. But still… the man who did it is a great hero, and a hero to your kids. It’s hard to believe that he doesn’t have some kind of valid point of view. And man, it sure feels good to see those evil Soviets running scared for a change. And now your hero is in hiding, and they are hunting him down. And yes, that attack was sure brutal, and you can’t agree with it, but don’t you kinda hope the hero gets away?
I think that those are the kinds of thoughts that are going through the heads of many Muslims today.
I think you’ve got a good call on the sociological angle. I’d only say that bin Laden as a hero I think is kind of conflicted. My sense is, and as I said I’m having a hard time following this, that for most people he’s an underdog figure without being necessarily a hero. Just a slight spin on your post.
BTW, I believe that Saudi Arabia has long frozen bin Laden’s personal assets, I believe the issue is wider set of assets of ambiguous ownership. That’s my off-the-top-of-the-head recollection so perhaps something to be reverified.
Yes, maybe, but a general level of support does not automatically mean unquestioning support for all actions, or for all aspects of a particular culture or religion. You’re formulation leaves very little room for discriminating between the good and bad, moral and immoral aspects of any particular society (as particualr individuals might define those things). My respect for many aspects of American democracy, for example, is tempered by contempt for the gross inequalities that still result from it, and the continued use of state power to kill criminals (just two examples among many possibilities).
Wow, that’s a hard choice: “democratic cultures which respect human life and dignity” or “cultures of religious fanaticism where human life and human rights have no value”? When you put it like this, it becomes totally unproblematic, but is also so simplistic as to be worthless.
The problem was that in your earlier post, and in this one also it seems, you assume that the former characteristics are natural and inherent in some societies you call Western, and that the latter are natural and inherent in places where Muslims come from. It was not your distinction between democracy and fanaticism that i was questioning, but the essentialism with which you invoked it. There are plenty of people in the middle east who support democracy, human rights etc., just as there are many in the West who are religious fanatics with no thought for human life or human rights.
Well, if your first sentence here is a moral judgment, you’d better apply it on the home front too. Because anyone who supports the bombing of Afghanistan obviously also believes that it is OK to kill innocent civilians in pursuit of a political goal.
Your second sentence then implies that, well, it’s not the moral position you take that’s important anyway, only how much firepower you have to back it up.
Your third sentence confuses things, because it is not Western “culture” which will come out on top in this war, but Western firepower.
And the fourth sentence presumes a global dichotomy between the West and the Talibans. This is a naive adoption of GW Bush’s “you’re with us or against us” formulation. What about all the muslims worldwide who have no sympathy for the Taliban but who also have little desire to adopt the trappings of Western culture (whatever exactly that is), and who oppose US policy in the middle east?
The only defence of ‘terrorism’ discussed on this post has been verbal. So are you advocating violence against those who happen to disagree with your view of what constitutes terrorism? While i find repugnant the views of anyone who expresses support for the September 11 actions, i’m not going to descend to the level of terrorists by advocating that those who express such views be subjected to violence. Threatening violence against people for their political views in order to get them to renounce those views is terrorism. If we really believe in freedom of expression (and i do), then we must believe in it precisely for views with which we disagree, or the belief has no meaning.
There are also statements in the article that basically say that the majority of British Muslims do not share the extremist position. Also Tony Blair is trying to tighten the asylum laws.
mhenado, I am not disagreeing with you, just pointing out another facet of things. No culture is perfect but given the choice between what we have and what they have in Afghanistan I think I choose what we have, thank you very much.
Now Western countries are at war with Afghanistan (they don’t say it like that but that is what it is) each one trying to protect their culture and way of life. It’s not a pleasant event but shit happens and we have to deal with it. I am rooting for my side because I do believe it’s better even if not perfect.
What I meant is that you cannot start a war and then cry that you are being pummeled. Well, you could of thought of that before you started the fight but now it’s too late. I remember Argentina doing that during the Falklands war and now Usama releases a tape doing the same thing, asking for pity. Sorry, you asked for it.
I guess my point is that diversity has a limit and we cannot afford to have among us those who wish to destroy us. The limit of diversity is called incompatibility.
I guess we are also learning that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The US has had a very lax attitude in the past for Irish, Basque and other terrorists.
Sailor, i think you’re correct that in some fundamental ways we agree with one another. But i still have a problem with your formulation.
You wrote:
Afghanistan under the Taliban is not the culture of all Afghanistanis. Remove the Taliban’s fundamentalist and misogynist outrages, and much of the native culture of the region is rich and admirable and no less worthy of adherence than much Western culture. The fact that you would choose your culture over theirs does not make yours any more objectively desirable. I too would prefer to live here than in Afghanistan, even if the Taliban were thrown out, but the fact that i prefer to stay with the society i know does not mean that it is better than the one i don’t.
And many Afghanistanis (millions, if UN figures are any indication) are too busy trying to find food and prepare for the winter to be worried about defending their culture. And i really don’t think that Western culture is going to stand or fall on the basis of bombing a starving country. In fact, some of the values that i most respect about Western culture (again, whatever that is) are being abrogated in the name of this so-called war on terrorism.
But you’ve shifted the terms of the debate here. We were talking about those who express support for Bin Laden, not Bin Laden himself. And those who express support for him after the fact are not the ones who started the war. I have no pity for Bin Laden, and if he is killed in the bombings or captured and brought to trial i will have no sympathy for him. But many of those opposed to US bombings had nothing to do with any acts of violence or terrorism. They did not start the fight, Bin Laden did; the two are not the same.
But wanting to “destroy us” is not the same as acting on those wishes. For example, i have a vision of how i would like the United States to be. That vision is quite radically incompatible with the way it is now, and realising that vision would require considerable upheaval, maybe even destroying (not physically, but in terms of the way they are constituted) certain institutions in the US. But i have no intention of resorting to violence in order to achieve my vision, and only even support breaking the law to the extent of non-violent civil disobedience (sit-downs etc.).
You are right that diversity has a limit, but that limit should be one defined by action, not thought or words. The fact that someone would like to “destroy” (in whatever way you might imagine) a society should not be cause for action against that person, unless they act on that desire in an unlawful way, or directly exhort others to do the same.
Exactly. And the US (and other Western countries) has engaged in terrorist actions itself. Carpet bombings of Cambodia and Vietnam (war was never officially declared), sanctions against Cuba and Iraq that have resulted in many civilian deaths, support for coups in Central and South America, just to name a few. So your dichotomising of “us” and “them” is far too simplistic. As citizens in democratic countries, we have to take a certain amount of responsibility for the actions carried out in our names. If you’re going to extend the blame for Bin Laden’s actions to those who have expressed support for him after the fact, then you (all of us) need to cast a look in the mirror as well.
Mhendo, How do you reconcile these two statements–especially your facile assertion that Americans who support the bombing of Taliban strongholds “obviously also believe it is OK to kill innocent civilians”?
Where do you get that notion?
From everything I have read and heard, many Americans are greatly disheartened and philosophically conflicted when innocent Afghani civilians are killed in this conflict.
I would add that your own formulation–of U.S. involvement as a “political goal”–is specious. The goal transcends petty politics and touches on vital issues of national and international security. (Terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, you know.)
By the way, anyone who purports to cherish “radical upheaval” and “destroying certain American institutions” shouldn’t be so squeamish when it comes to wartime deaths.
What do you think radical upheaval entails–highballs at the country club?
First of all, if you believe that all that is being bombed is “Taliban strongholds” then your naivety transcends all possible boundaries. Even the government has conceded that civilian targets have been hit, and you can be pretty sure that the instances they have admitted to do not constitute all the civilian casualties.
Secondly, maybe i should have said that anyone who supports ‘indiscriminate’ bombings believes it’s OK to kill innocent civilians. But even without the qualifier, my argument still holds. You are certainly correct that many people are “conflicted” about the bombings (i love it when people use this sort of jargon to rationalise unsavoury beliefs). However, if someone is troubled by the bombings but still believes that civilian casualties are an acceptable cost, then they are still accepting, at a fundamental level, that it is “OK to kill innocent civilians.”
You also use the beautiful adjective “petty”. This is often used to dismiss politics that a person finds to be an inconvenient hindrance to his or her beliefs. The only way you can leave politics out of this is to adopt the head-in-the-sand approach which says that we should not look back beyond September 11 for any possible reasons that the attacks were carried out in the first place.
You assert that the aims of the bombing involve “terrorists” and “weapons of mass destruction”. Well, with respect to the first, even the US government concedes that the majority of Bin Laden’s supporters are nowhere near Afghanistan; and not a single one of the September 11 hijackers has been directly linked to the country. And despite bluster by the State Department, there is not yet any real evidence that the US is close to catching the mastermind himself, Bin Laden. And with respect to the “weapons of mass destruction”, the only ones of those that we have seen in use over the past couple of months are commercial airliners and anthrax spores (the latter has not even been conclusively linked to the former). I don’t think the cure for either of these problems will be unearthed by a bomb dropped in the Afghani desert.
And your last paragraph demonstrates a very narrow conception of what radical change might mean. I asserted my belief in non-violent civil disobedience in a previous post, and fully believe that institutions can be destroyed and rebuilt without a shot being fired if enough people in a nominally democratic country like the US can be mobilized in support of an ideal. You ignore the fact that i had already stated my belief that “destroying” institutions did not have to mean physical destruction, and you make the common naive mistake of equating “radical” with “violent”. This has nothing to do with whether you actually agree with my vision of society or not - i don’t much care either way - but is simply a matter of your (either inadvertantly or deliberately) attributing to me an position that i did not take and do not hold.
The above quote, by itself, implies hostile prejudices. In the context of my post, I do not believe that this is the case. My concern is with individuals who support terrorism, regardless of their race, religion, or national origin. I believe terrorism is a repugnant and evil practice, regardless of the motivation of the perpetrators.
I believe that any group or individual supporting terrorism is a menace to civilized society, and that governments have both a right and an obligation to deport individuals who are actively supporting terrorism, regardless of their race, religion, or citizenship status.
I understand that most Muslims do not support terrorism. I am very much opposed to racial profiling or any other policies legitimizing the prejudicial treatment of any group. My concern is with individuals who actively support terrorism within the countries in which they live. I believe that such individuals are a significant potential danger to society.
First of all, let me say that I know many British Muslims and none of them think that the events of September 11th were justified. Their opinions are, for the most part, conflicted, as Sam Stone put it earlier. They condemn the events of September 11th and regret that many innocent people lost their lives as a result. However, most of them don’t support U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan. This does not mean that they support bin Laden or the Taliban. They are simply opposed to U.S. intervention in general. There are questions regarding the effectiveness of the air strikes and concern over the loss of innocent lives in Afghanistan. I think even supporters of the air strikes would agree that these points have some validity. There are also questions regarding the certainty of bin Laden’s involvement in the terrorist attacks. This scepticism regarding his guilt offers British Muslims the opportunity to criticise efforts to capture him without condoning the terrorist attacks.
Secondly, British Muslims have a way of thinking different from Middle Eastern and Asian Muslims. They do not have the excuse of poverty or ignorance in the way that Pakistani villagers do. But many of them, particularly in the north of England, think of themselves as an oppressed minority. I believe that there are similarities between their mentality and that of African-Americans in America. I am reminded of the day the verdict in the O.J. Simpson case was broadcast on loudspeakers on my university campus in America. Crowds of African-American students rejoiced when the verdict was read. I asked them if they really believed he was innocent. Not one of them said that they did. I did not take this to mean that they supported the crime, but that they overlooked it. This is what many British Muslims are guilty of doing as well. Although the crime in this case is greater, the sociological issues are similar.
I watched BBC clips of a gathering of radical Muslims in, I believe, Birmingham. A girl wearing a headscarf bitterly described an incident in which a man on the street taunted her and spat in her face. She called on her Muslim brothers and sisters to unite against the forces of oppression. There are similar stories in Muslim communities around England. Graffiti on walls near a mosque in South Shields read, “Avenge USA - kill a Muslim now”. Of course, I doubt that the average English person wants to go out and kill a Muslim. Nor does the average Muslim person have any inclination to go out and kill an infidel. But it is easy to forget this and convince oneself that it is time to take up arms in defence of one’s kind. Although terrorism and hate crime both constitute crimes against humanity, which could potentially affect any one of us, in the current situation each serves as an indicator of the hatred of one side for the other. I have as little sympathy for Muslim extremists as I do for racist thugs, but I do not believe that either group is as all-encompassing as it is made out to be by the other.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Mhendo, you are a sad object lesson in good educations going utterly wasted. While I am certainly tempted to point out the non sequiturs, logical inconsistencies, strawman arguments, radical naivete, general ignorance, and dillusional mindset that riddles your posts, the fact is I’ve got better things to do with my time. Obviously, you simply cannot admit that you are wrong.
This exercise just proves to me how pointless GQ often is. No offense at many of these posters (Collie, Sam, etc.), but I’ve a million other things to do with my time. Upon reading your post for a second time, I’m left breathless. It is a masterpiece!
Yes, i know, it often does seem pointless in a debate when everyone else doesn’t just take everything you say at face value. :rolleyes:
It must be particularly unsettling for someone who actually has very little of any substance to say on the issue.
When people get offensive on this board and start making excuses about not having enough time to deal with the issues, it’s often a sign that they have little of any interest to contribute. If your time is so valuable, why put a whole post on GD which, when you winnow out the (considerable) chaff, says little more than “Yadda, Yadda, Yadda…you are wrong”? Nice debating technique! If you really didn’t have enough time, why not just ignore the post altogether?
To borrow on your phrase, your stupidity transcends all possible boundaries, but that’s grist for another day, another OP. (Do people smirk at you when you talk? I bet yes.)
No one denies civilian casualties, my starry eyed friend, but collateral damage/deaths are part of war. The U.S. government has done everything it can to minimize civilian casualties but, ultimately, war cannot be totally sanitized. Of course, you being a believer in radical, yet bloodless, transformation of the United States cannot imagine that.
Secondly, maybe i should have said that anyone who supports ‘indiscriminate’ bombings believes it’s OK to kill innocent civilians. But even without the qualifier, my argument still holds. You are certainly correct that many people are “conflicted” about the bombings (i love it when people use this sort of jargon to rationalise unsavoury beliefs). However, if someone is troubled by the bombings but still believes that civilian casualties are an acceptable cost, then they are still accepting, at a fundamental level, that it is "OK to kill innocent civilians."
Um, no, your argument holds nothing but my singular amazement. The real point is that civilian casualties are inherent in war. That said, the U.S. is taking every precaution to minimize such casualties. Unlike you, the military doesn’t possess a magic wand capable of painlessly transforming corrupt regimes it regards as a threat. (In our case, that would be the Taliban. In your case, we’re talking the United States.)
You assert that the aims of the bombing involve “terrorists” and “weapons of mass destruction”. Well, with respect to the first, even the US government concedes that the majority of Bin Laden’s supporters are nowhere near Afghanistan; and not a single one of the September 11 hijackers has been directly linked to the country.
Wrong–and this is getting embarrassing, my boy. Consider today’s news report:
And this is just the declassified/unclassified information. (Of course, you no doubt think this is yet another Amerikan lie.)
And with respect to the “weapons of mass destruction”, the only ones of those that we have seen in use over the past couple of months are commercial airliners and anthrax spores (the latter has not even been conclusively linked to the former). I don’t think the cure for either of these problems will be unearthed by a bomb dropped in the Afghani desert.
See above. Perhaps you can address the UN general assembly re: your plan for magically ridding the world of terrorism. In the meantime, international news reports detail bin Laden’s and al Queda’s feverish attempts to secure nuclear arms from Russian mafia/Pakistani sources, and have devoted considerable time/effort in weaponizing anthrax, smallpox, dengue fever, etc.
Wait–I forgot! You don’t believe the Amerikan media, do you? Which media and government do you believe?
And your last paragraph demonstrates a very narrow conception of what radical change might mean. I asserted my belief in non-violent civil disobedience in a previous post, and fully believe that institutions can be destroyed and rebuilt without a shot being fired if enough people in a nominally democratic country like the US can be mobilized in support of an ideal.
[/QUOTE]
No, we’re all idiots and war mongerers here in the U.S., just breathlessly awaiting your detailed plan of bloodless radical Utopianism. My, the radical destruction and rebuilding of American institutions without the shedding of one drop of blood. Amazing!! You are a brilliant, brilliant boy!
Re: America as “nominally democratic.”
As opposed to what other nation-state of past or present?
You’re right, Mhendo, I couldn’t resist returning. I do have better things to do, but this was fun.
