Causes and Responsibilities

The Great Enemy -- or at least one Great Enemy -- is the human appetite for reductionism. Reductionism used to be the province of the mad, the autodidact, and the dull, but the horde in power are stricken with it and through their media outlets have spread it around like typhoid. [The great Saul Bellow's Mr. Sammler's Planet caught the tone and the source of it -- our need to explain, man to man, the soul to itself. And he offered a funny antidote: short views!]

Anyway, to the matter at hand. The current reductionism du jour concerns Islam. 1.5 billion of us, it seems, are blood thirsty moral vipers and the only adult and rational solution for the rest of is is to exterminate them. Anything else is romanticism, fantasy, and co-equal evil. All these calibrations that Yglesias hints of are footdragging. Impediments.

And after we kill them, make more babies.

Most understand it. It's just besides the point. You think these are real policy debates?

Amen, Brother Matt!

And the domination of western politics by people who don't understand that is going, one day, to get an awful lot of Americans killed.

Hell, the domination of politics by these people is getting a lot of Americans killed right now.

Hey, Tony: Big Sister Is Watching You.

I don't follow the transition from Idea I--the (dis)connection between causation and culpability (the lack of a duress defense for jihadism)--and Idea II, the idea that we need to worrying about placating the placable, rather than deceptively lumping their (legitimate) concerns over American policy together with the obsessions of the implacable.

I think what needs to be spelled out is a legal argument: the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims don't consider terror a legitimate, moral response to American/Western policy indicates that terror is not a response that evades culpability. Only where a reasonable person would respond with terror would the law find the terrorist had a defene of duress. The more people we push into the terrorists' camp, the less terror begins to look unreaonable.

None of these people care about terrorism - they know it's unlikely to harm them or their families, and they know that further terrorist attacks would benefit them politically. Why do we assume that they care?

I find it odd that the most politically realist people are incapable of acknowledging that for Incumbents, particularly the Republicans, terrorism is a political win-win. So, they don't have any incentive to actually act. This is one of the major problems with the historical "rally around the president" effect. The difference between terrorism and other wars being that terrorism doesn't threaten our nation fundamentally - the politicians know they'll remain in charge and unharmed - so the politicians have none of the incentives they have in other wars to actually get things right.

"This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it."

I take it, then, that you believe that terrorism IS our fault, and we DO cause it?

"To be sure, there are some implacable opponents out there who we'll have to do our best to kill."

Uhm, so you DO agree with Tony then?

" But there are also lots of other people out there -- placable opponents, young kids with unformed views, fence-sitters, whatever -- and our actions do, indeed, play a role in whether or not they become implacable opponents."

And since they are different from the people currently engaging in terrorism, Tony wasn't referring to them, right? And if he wasn't referring to them, he's neither right nor wrong about them?

I'm confused. You seem to thing we should kill the same people that Tony thinks we should kill, and you accuse him of being misguided towards the fence-sitters, in spite of the fact that he didn't even address them.

Steve

Excellent post. I suggest the first goal of any leader in the West is to figure out how to minimize the number of recruits to the terrorist organization.

What we face is a world where a certain tiny minority of Islamic believers has brought much of the Western world to it knees. The European nations cravenly attempt to appease the Muslims by allowing them to live under different rules from the others because they fear this violent few. Israel, under threat having staked a place in center of a Muslim land, responds over and over by force believing that it the only way to confront its problem. The USA has whirled about in vicious circles thrashing its army here and there because it was attacked on 9/11 by 19 of that minority.

How many people were part of the Al Qaeda network that attacked the USA? It was not a nation of millions; it was probably a group of less than a thousand. Look at the great victory they have achieved. The USA has thrown out the doctrine of habeas corpus for people the president may label as ‘enemy combatants,’ has engaged in and accepts that it will torture people, engages in a war without end reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, and has violated the privacy rights of many. Britain has lost a fine prime minister. The other EU countries have lost their nerve.

Astonishingly, less than 1000 people, mostly backwards tribesmen, combined together. They have caused the majority of Americans to live in fear. The Bush Administration abets them. The Democrats remain silent. Bin Laden, who may have died years ago, is either twirling with delight in his grave or in a cave. He could have asked for nothing more than what happened. All our actions to date have done is add to his minions and taken away from our rights and freedoms.

This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy. It's an attack on our way of life.

Blair could not make the same simplistic claim about Irish terrorism; indeed his political party has been committed to rejecting that view for decades.

Judging from the picture, it's true what they say about British dentistry.

I agree with Matt that just because we are not the original cause of the resentment-fuled Islamist hatred does not mean that our actions have no effect on the situation. We can take actions that tend to decrease that hatred and we can take actions that tend to increase that hatred. And there is a direct relationship between the amount of hatred and the amount of terrorism. On the other side of the coin, trying to accomodate those that hate us and engage in terrorism will tend to encourage more terrorism by demonstrating that it works. Our policy makers need to balance those two competing considerations, which is not easy to do. But we can't close our eyes to the complexity of the situation.

But looking at it from a moral standpoint, just because the terrorists are wrong doesn't make everything we do right. And self-criticism does not necessarily suggest agreement with the terrorists. Any attempt to argue otherwise is a bad faith attempt to avoid the criticsm.

For heaven's sake, read what we've been given of the NIE. Most of the Muslims in the world are pretty much on the same path as we are.

But we can change all that, by becoming a rogue nation that kidnaps and tortures people in secret prisons, our famous 'rule of law' wadded up and tossed aside like a used tissue.

Why does the white man always have to think he's "placating" irresponsible radicals when it's prudent not to act like a rascist? When did not using derogatory language become an unbearably oppressive burden of "political correctness"? Didn't any of these people have parents who made them do things they didn't want to do, like saying "please" and "thank you"?

Let's get real- most Americans are, by foreign standards, somewhat crude people. But they cut us a lot of slack, because they were impressed by our democracy and Constitution. The more people start talking about this in the past tense, the less slack we're allowed.

But there are also lots of other people out there -- placable opponents, young kids with unformed views, fence-sitters, whatever -- and our actions do, indeed, play a role in whether or not they become implacable opponents.

Actually, as an empirical matter, we can say with some confidence that their view of America is very poorly correlated with America's actions. For example, the US spent the 1990s defending Muslims in Bosnia and brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. As it turned out, these were the years when Muslim anti-Americanism--and radical groups like Al Qaeda, in particular--flourished. Does everyone forget the mass pro-Al Qaeda marches that swept through the Muslim world almost immediately following 9/11?

Then again, even if it were true that certain American actions provoked some Muslims to become terrorists, that would be a terrible argument for altering or refraining from those actions. The clear message of such a change would be, "the way to get our attention and cooperation is to murder our civilians." Americans (or anybody else) should be less inclined, not more inclined, to cater to the wishes of people who are prepared to use the murder of American civilians as a means of persuasion.

In practice, though, I doubt that anybody really believes the "we should do such-and-such a thing because doing otherwise will alienate so-and-so, who may then become terrorists" argument. For example, I don't recall Matthew--or anyone else, for that matter--responding to pro-life terrorists by saying, "well, perhaps we'd better ban abortion, lest millions of angry fundamentalist Christian pro-lifers turn to terrorism." In reality, statements like, "we must do this in order to placate the angry moderates who might become terrorists" should be read as, "we must do this because I think it's the right thing to do anyway, and the existence of terrorists who support my position simply allows me to dodge the serious arguments against my preference, by invoking the prevention of terrorism as an overriding goal."

Causes and Responsibilities -- Well said. Thanks.

Dan Simon: I don't recall Matthew--or anyone else, for that matter--responding to pro-life terrorists by saying, "well, perhaps we'd better ban abortion, lest millions of angry fundamentalist Christian pro-lifers turn to terrorism."

We also don't say that we should just kill or lock up the pro-lifers, but rather should let them engage in the American political regime, so long as they do so without violence.

Similarly, you don't hear us arguing that we should institute Sharia law or help bin Laden restore the Caliphate. What we tend to say is that we're doing counterproductive things in the War on Terra, and we should stop.

Better arguments, please.

For example, the US spent the 1990s defending Muslims in Bosnia and brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians

The US spent the 1990s doing nothing in Bosnia until the European forced their hands by threatening to cut-and-run and enabling the Israelis installing 100,000s of Jewish settlers in racist settler colonies on the West Bank and around Jerusalem and then putting massive pressure on the Palestinians to agree to keep the settlers at Camp David and Taba. The US was attempting to broker a peace-with-settler-colonies deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

As it turned out, these were the years when Muslim anti-Americanism--and radical groups like Al Qaeda, in particular--flourished.

No shit.

We also don't say that we should just kill or lock up the pro-lifers

Of course not--just the terrorists among them.

Similarly, you don't hear us arguing that we should institute Sharia law or help bin Laden restore the Caliphate. What we tend to say is that we're doing counterproductive things in the War on Terra, and we should stop.

Exactly--you don't think that the US should do everything the terrorists ask for--just the things you already want the US to do anyway. As I said, you've already decided on a political agenda, but rather than try to defend it on its own terms, you'd rather use the threat of terrorism as a pretext for advancing it.

The US spent the 1990s doing nothing in Bosnia until the European forced their hands by threatening to cut-and-run

Wow--explaining 9/11 as the result of America's insufficient alacrity in rescuing Bosnia from Serbian attack. I'm speechless.

and enabling the Israelis installing 100,000s of Jewish settlers in racist settler colonies on the West Bank and around Jerusalem and then putting massive pressure on the Palestinians to agree to keep the settlers at Camp David and Taba.

Massive pressure, you say? Please, tell me more. Military action? I don't remember any. Economic sanctions? As I recall, not only were there none, but the aid spigot kept flowing freely. Diplomatic snubs? No, Arafat was courted assiduously.

I think what you mean is, "the US didn't adopt Al Qaeda's position on Israel." Which you share, it appears.

As I said, you don't advocate changes in US policy to placate potential Muslim terrorists. You advocate changes in US policy because you want to see those changes anyway, and the stuff about how the current policy inflames Muslims and turns them into terrorists is just a red herring you use to avoid discussing the insanity of your proposed alternative.

Is it en vogue right now to deny historical causality?

Hasn't Bin Laden (to use the figurehead of the jihadi movement) been pretty specific about what's got his goat? Namely the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia propping up that regime and the decades of support for Israel's slow extermination of the Palestinians? Rather than martyrizing Bin Laden or other hardcore militants, many of whom are not willing to be the ones to strap on a dynaymite belt, wouldn't it be better to marginalize them by changing the course of our foreign policy a little in the Muslim world?

Rather than martyrizing Bin Laden or other hardcore militants, many of whom are not willing to be the ones to strap on a dynaymite belt, wouldn't it be better to marginalize them by changing the course of our foreign policy a little in the Muslim world?

Rather than martyrizing Eric Rudolph or other hardcore militants, many of whom are not willing to be the ones to blow up an abortion clinic, wouldn't it be better to marginalize them by changing the course of America's abortion policy a little?

Or is appeasing terrorists only reasonable when you already agree with them?

Prompted by Matthew's post, I looked up Blair's speech. And agreed with 99% of it.

I will be voting for the only socialist in Congress (Bernie Sanders), but I am dismayed to find, in our attitudes toward Islamic fundamentalism, that there is an asymmetry among some of my co-members of the left in their disbelief of what people say. They disbelieve Blair (and Bush, of course) because they believe his motives are always worse than he claims. They disbelieve Nasrallah, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad et al because they think that their motives are really better than they claim.

"britain has lost a fine prime minister"

Which PM was that ?

What people seem to forget is the WTC attacks almost certainly extended blairs run in office. I remember in 2001 after he had won the election blair appearing on "Question Time" on the BBC and saying "i'm a pretty honest sort of guy" and the audience bursting out laughing at him. Without 9/11 blair would almost certainly have left office in 2002-03 to give brown a fair run at the 2005 election.

Dan Simon: Unlike abortion, addressing our colonial practices in the middle east does not require changing anything at all about the way Americans live. Terrorism is showing that there is a higher price than we once might have thought to our foreign policy arrogance. Looking at the price, one might want to change the behavior, especially given that it is behavior that is completely peripheral and unnecessary to any of our domestic concerns or way of life. Hence your analogy is quite bogus.

Dan Simon: Sorry, are you advocating pre-emptive assassination of pro-lifers?

They disbelieve Nasrallah, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad et al because they think that their motives are really better than they claim.

Nasrallah's stated motive is to keep Israel from expanding into Lebanon and stealing its resources and kidnapping its citizens.

Bin Laden's stated motive is to force the United States out of the Middle East, at least in its transparently self-interested hegemonic incarnation, so as to allow for the rise of Islamic governments.

Ahmadinejad's stated motive is to develop nuclear power plants to provide reliable energy from a non-petroleum source.

All of these appear reasonable and even justifiable, and none of their actions call into question the truthfulness of said motives.

My distrust of Bush, meanwhile, is based on the fact that his stated motive is to rid the world of terrorists, and yet his actions have demonstrably exacerbated that very problem. His administration has also repeatedly demonstrated bad faith in its overtures to the international community and domestic opposition to its policies. Finally, I may be wrong, but I don't believe any of the three Muslim bogeymen mentioned above have earned the reputation for dishonesty that the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal has.

Unlike abortion, addressing our colonial practices in the middle east does not require changing anything at all about the way Americans live.

Of course you don't think changing America's Mideast policy changes anything about the way Americans live--you oppose that policy, calling it "colonial practices" and "foreign policy arrogance". But those who support it call it things like, "protecting Americans from disruption to their vital oil supplies, for example by stationing troops in Saudi Arabia that deterred Saddam Hussein from launching another Kuwait-style invasion and charging straight through into Saudi Arabia." In their view, changing that policy would have a profound impact indeed.

Looking at the price, one might want to change the behavior, especially given that it is behavior that is completely peripheral and unnecessary to any of our domestic concerns or way of life.

Exactly as I said--you support appeasing terrorists only when you already agree with them.

Sorry, are you advocating pre-emptive assassination of pro-lifers?

Of course not--but capturing and imprisoning or even executing the terrorists among them makes perfect sense to me.

This is the second time I've had to answer essentially the same bizarre question. Can't you read?

Tony Blair says, "This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy.

Tony Blair is a jackass. Terrorism may very well be the US's and Britain's fault, and they may very well have caused it. Apparently, Blair is too stupid to remember the 400 year (or so) Irish struggle against his own country's colonial occupation of Ireland. The American and British problems in the near- and middle-east can be traced to European and American colonialism, and is breeding virtually the same reaction as the Irish did against British colonialism.

Blair's comment is similar to that of Bart Simpson: It ain't my fault. I didn't do it. Of course he did do it. And, of course, it is his fault.

Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.
Bin Laden: Jews believe that all humans are created for their use, and they found that the Americans are the best-created beings for that use.
Nasrallah: If the Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.

Murph:All of these appear reasonable and even justifiable

Christopher, I wasn't discussing these mens' prejudices. I'm well aware they're not big Israel fans. Wonder why. The word however, which you were smart to omit, was "motives", as in, what are they after?

Brownie points though for your italicized hysteria.

Dan Simon: when you make an assinine comparison, expect to answer questions. Or be ignored. Next time I'll take the latter tact.

We don't need to guess their "motives", Murph; they make themselves pretty clear.

As do you.

Chris, first you you made a claim about liberals' assumptions of those mens' motives. Apparently you realized you used the wrong word, because now you're putting it in scare quotes, and offering up the same old tired hysterical misquotes (Israel wiped off the map, etc), clearly intended to divert attention from actual issues.

I guess for a simpleton like yourself, the whole Arab world operates solely on irrational Jew hatred. Things like land, water, oil, property, livelihood: irrelevant. I forgot, they aren't human like us Westerners. My mistake.

Far from being "hysterical", each of the quotes I cited is accurate and has been amply verified. And -- on the anniversary of Babi Yar -- one would think that it would not be necessary to remind you that "irrational Jew hatred" (as opposed to the "rational" kind?) is hardly an Arab/Iranian/Muslim invention. But some of them have learned well. Ahmadinejad is sponsoring a Holocaust-denying cartoon festival, Nasrallah's Al-Manar TV network broadcast a mini-series inspired by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Bin Laden believes that Jews are "descendants of pigs and apes".

As I said above, there is no need to wonder about their "motives"; they make themselves amply clear. As do you.

Surprising to learn Bin Laden is not a creationist.

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar

thanks

thanks

slm

Plaket
Seks Shop - Seks Shop - Penis Büyütücü
Plaket
Kostüm
Fotokopi
Matbaa
Fuar
Reklam Ajansı
Evden Eve Nakliyat

thanks...

thnnkkk baby.

thankkk cok.

thnkkkkkkk.

mirc

seks shop

Thank you very much for this information.
sohbet
sesli sohbet
chat
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
mirc
mirc
sohbet
kelebek
chat

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

penis büyütücü hap

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

sex shop