Saturday, 6 August 2005 - 7:19 PM CDT

The strategy is to convince the West to roll back all the policies which Muslims perceive to be attacks upon their faith, their co-religionists, their native soil. That at least is what bin Laden and al Zawahiri have consistently announced from day one. I can't think of any reason to doubt them on that score nor to argue the point. When you are in a stick-up, the man with the gun has the effing floor, for one thing.

He doesn't seem to me to be defending an ideology at all. He seems quite frustrated in being unable to convince Blair that the strategy is what al Qaeda says it is (above) and that it is precisely not about ideology, nor about our to-them decadent way of life, nor about our freedom, nor anything of the kind. It's the policies.

A person who sits in a democratic, multicultural parliament should do exactly what Galloway is doing: speak up. Blair's and Bush's idiotic insistence that terrorism is about ideological differences or hatred of democracy, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is leaving both countries open to further attack. It's the policies.

The Hebrew Bible is full of such metaphors comparing cities to women, btw, "the Virgin Daughter of Zion," etc.

Sunday, 7 August 2005 - 11:10 AM CDT

Rider:

The strategy is to convince the West to roll back all the policies which Muslims perceive to be attacks upon their faith, their co-religionists, their native soil.

Okay. So that's war as a political strategy. Which, by all rights, should be put to the fullest test.

That at least is what bin Laden and al Zawahiri have consistently announced from day one.

But their coreligionists insist on all sorts of barbaric solutions to local problems where we in the West have no involvement. Thus, al-Qaedist/Wahhabist barbarities are directed at the whole world ---far beyond any possible responsibility the West might have.

I can't think of any reason to doubt them on that score nor to argue the point. When you are in a stick-up, the man with the gun has the effing floor, for one thing.

You're just being an apologist. Modernization (which these people equate to Westernization) is an inevitability the world over. These wretched Submitters don't have any right to turn back the clock or deny the logic of human rights and modern communications and medicine.

He doesn't seem to me to be defending an ideology at all. He seems quite frustrated in being unable to convince Blair that the strategy is what al Qaeda says it is (above) and that it is precisely not about ideology, nor about our to-them decadent way of life, nor about our freedom, nor anything of the kind. It's the policies.

"The policies" being our support of Israel, no doubt.

A person who sits in a democratic, multicultural parliament should do exactly what Galloway is doing: speak up.

And the corollary obligation is to speak out against him because he is wrong.

Blair's and Bush's idiotic insistence that terrorism is about ideological differences or hatred of democracy, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is leaving both countries open to further attack. It's the policies.

Islamist terrorism is being perpetrated in the name of Allah. It is an ideology of hatred and anti-modernist movements, inherently. You wouldn't defend Wahhabism if you knew what it entailed, but if you defend it knowing what it is, then you are guilty of a lot of terrible things and deserve to be rebutted and ridiculed.

The Hebrew Bible is full of such metaphors comparing cities to women, btw, "the Virgin Daughter of Zion," etc.

That doesn't make Galloway's little code words any less inflammatory.

Sunday, 7 August 2005 - 2:14 PM CDT

Nonsense. These people are resorting to terrorist acts because they cannot compete with the power of the US and Europe on an equal basis. The disparity of power is overwhelming. We, on the other hand, have other options, namely making adjustments to our policy and to our own inflammatory rhetoric. If our own objectives are not really to attack Islam, Muslims, and Muslim territories, then fortheloveofgod let's stop doing and saying things that are perceived that way. It's a lot simpler and more effective than war and the billions we are spending on security while tossing our Constitutional rights under the bus.

As far as I know, there is no policy they have objected to over which we have no control. One of their big beefs is our support for totalitarian Arab oligarchies: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, etc. Another is our pressure on Arabs to keep the price of oil cheap. We need to quit propping up these un-democratic regimes and move seriously toward energy independence from the ME. Neither of those would bother me a bit.

Sure, it cuts both ways. That's the nature of democracy. But a difference of opinion does not make the other guy a traitor. He's doing what he's supposed to be doing.

Every nation that has ever existed has projected its military in the name of its national god(s). One of the major targets in ancient warfare was the temple of the enemy gods which would be carted back to the capitol of the attacker. We are no different in that respect than the radical Islamists. Have you heard any of the righteous rhetoric from WW II that accompanied our dropping the bomb on Hiroshima? The Battle Hymn of the Republic? My God, talk about hijacking a great religion. But WW II and the Civil War were not about religion, and the current Islamist terror attacks are not about religion.

I'm not carrying water for Wahabism or Salafism or even Islam in general. I am not interested in correcting their religion. I want to get to a point where we leave each other alone to practice our own religion. But you must understand that Muslims believe that they are under attack, that the attacks of 9/11 were defensive operations, that America is out to destroy their religion, their people, their land. They do not hate our freedom or our way of life. They don't like our way of life and our secularism, but that's not what this is all about. It's about policies.

All three religions have maniacal bastards who do not shrink at killing innocents. They may have gotten to the point where they no longer see the Other as a human, but the basis of it is always policy, not religious differences or hate built into the DNA of the religion.

Galloway was speaking to Middle Easterners using Middle Eastern speechways. Metaphors are notoriously non-transferable across cultures. Good for him.

Monday, 8 August 2005 - 3:46 AM CDT

Rider:

But you must understand that Muslims believe that they are under attack, that the attacks of 9/11 were defensive operations, that America is out to destroy their religion, their people, their land.

For my own part, I hope it's true that we are out to destroy them. Islama delenda est. But, since you are so adept at putting yourselves in their shoes, it must be that you can appreciate the pre-emptive nature of such a "defensive operation" and can abide it ---at least for their sake, if not your own country's.

They do not hate our freedom or our way of life. They don't like our way of life and our secularism, but that's not what this is all about.

Muslims don't hate our freedom or our way of life, they just don't like them. Is that your argument? That these savages' violence against our civilization may be excused because they only dislike our culture and not actually hate it? Horseshit.

It's about policies.

You know, you've said that so many times now that I'm starting to believe that you mean something particular by it.

Monday, 8 August 2005 - 7:11 AM CDT

"Is that your argument? That these savages' violence against our civilization may be excused because they only dislike our culture and not actually hate it?"

I'm sorry to take away your strawman here, but this is not my argument. And you should know better than that. What I am saying is that they may not like our way of life and they may think it is morally-decadent, but THAT is not the reason they are attacking us.

Yes, I can be quite specific about policies. I mentioned two of them, our support for undemocratic Arab oligarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, etc; and our oil-on-the-cheap policies. Others are listed in Scheuer's book and in every pronouncement that comes from al Qaeda.

You want to make it about hating and killing Muslims. Are you prepared to take that to the point of genocide? If we are not willing to make some major policy changes, that's where Scheuer says we must be prepared to go. If you want to eliminate Islam from the face of the planet, you are going to have to kill every Muslim man, woman, and child. I take it that would make you perfectly happy, in which case maybe there's something wrong with your own religion. I'd prefer to find a different way. Hopefully, you do too, in which case I look forward to your retracting your "Islama delenda est" statement. It's beneath you.

Monday, 8 August 2005 - 7:11 AM CDT

"Is that your argument? That these savages' violence against our civilization may be excused because they only dislike our culture and not actually hate it?"

I'm sorry to take away your strawman here, but this is not my argument. And you should know better than that. What I am saying is that they may not like our way of life and they may think it is morally-decadent, but THAT is not the reason they are attacking us.

Yes, I can be quite specific about policies. I mentioned two of them, our support for undemocratic Arab oligarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, etc; and our oil-on-the-cheap policies. Others are listed in Scheuer's book and in every pronouncement that comes from al Qaeda.

You want to make it about hating and killing Muslims. Are you prepared to take that to the point of genocide? If we are not willing to make some major policy changes, that's where Scheuer says we must be prepared to go. If you want to eliminate Islam from the face of the planet, you are going to have to kill every Muslim man, woman, and child. I take it that would make you perfectly happy, in which case maybe there's something wrong with your own religion. I'd prefer to find a different way. Hopefully, you do too, in which case I look forward to your retracting your "Islama delenda est" statement. It's beneath you.

Monday, 8 August 2005 - 7:16 AM CDT

From their perspective, the attacks were anything but pre-emptive. I don't share their perspective. I just want to do what is necessary in terms of policy to prevent further attacks. That means stepping into their shoes at least long enough to figure out what it is they are so enraged about. To refuse to do that and to claim that the attacks are based on ideology or a hateful core in their religion or their hatred of progress or their hatred of freedom is extremely stupid.

Monday, 8 August 2005 - 12:58 PM CDT

How about Islama mutanda est?

Monday, 8 August 2005 - 5:34 PM CDT

Non est necesse.