Live from the Middle East

[Preechr]

October 30, 2006
]The Dark Ages
Live from the Middle East
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

The most frightening aspect of the present war is how easily our pre-modern enemies from the Middle East have brought a stunned postmodern world back into the Dark Ages.

Students of history are sickened when they read of the long-ago, gruesome practice of beheading. How brutal were those societies that chopped off the heads of Cicero, Sir Thomas More and Marie Antoinette. And how lucky we thought we were to have evolved from such elemental barbarity.

Twenty-four hundred years ago, Socrates was executed for unpopular speech. The 18th-century European Enlightenment gave people freedom to express views formerly censored by clerics and the state. Just imagine what life was like once upon a time when no one could write music, compose fiction or paint without court or church approval?

Over 400 years before the birth of Christ, ancient Greek literary characters, from Lysistrata to Antigone, reflected the struggle for sexual equality. The subsequent notion that women could vote, divorce, dress or marry as they pleased was a millennia-long struggle.

It is almost surreal now to read about the elemental hatred of Jews in the Spanish Inquisition, 19th-century Russian pogroms or the Holocaust. Yet here we are revisiting the old horrors of the savage past.

Beheading? As we saw with Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, our Neanderthal enemies in the Middle East have resurrected that ancient barbarity — and married it with 21st-century technology to beam the resulting gore instantaneously onto our computer screens. Xerxes and Attila, who stuck their victims' heads on poles for public display, would've been thrilled by such a gruesome show.

Who would have thought centuries after the Enlightenment that sophisticated Europeans — in fear of radical Islamists — would be afraid to write a novel, put on an opera, draw a cartoon, film a documentary or have their pope discuss comparative theology?

The astonishing fact is not just that millions of women worldwide in 2006 are still veiled from head-to-toe, trapped in arranged marriages, subject to polygamy, honor killings and forced circumcision, or are without the right to vote or appear alone in public. What is more baffling is that in the West, liberal Europeans are often wary of protecting female citizens from the excesses of Sharia law — sometimes even fearful of asking women to unveil their faces for purposes of simple identification and official conversation.

Who these days is shocked that Israel is hated by Arab nations and threatened with annihilation by radical Iran? Instead, the surprise is that even in places like Paris or Seattle, Jews are singled out and killed for the apparent crime of being Jewish.

Since Sept. 11, the West has fought enemies who are determined to bring back the nightmarish world that we thought was long past. And there are lessons Westerners can learn from radical Islamists' ghastly efforts.

First, the Western liberal tradition is fragile and can still disappear. Just because we have sophisticated cell phones, CAT scanners and jets does not ensure that we are permanently civilized or safe. Technology used by the civilized for positive purposes can easily be manipulated by barbarians for destruction.

Second, the Enlightenment is not always lost on the battlefield. It can be surrendered through either fear or indifference as well. Westerners fearful of terrorist reprisals themselves shut down a production of a Mozart opera in Berlin deemed offensive to Muslims. Few came to the aid of a Salman Rushdie or Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh when their unpopular expression earned death threats from Islamists. Van Gogh, of course, was ultimately killed.

The Goths and Vandals did not sack Rome solely through the power of their hordes; they also relied on the paralysis of Roman elites who no longer knew what it was to be Roman — much less whether it was any better than the alternative.

Third, civilization is forfeited with a whimper, not a bang. Insidiously, we have allowed radical Islamists to redefine the primordial into the not-so-bad. Perhaps women in head-to-toe burkas in Europe prefer them? Maybe that crass German opera was just too over the top after all? Aren't both parties equally to blame in the Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan wars?

To grasp the flavor of our own Civil War, impersonators now don period dress and reconstruct the battles of Shiloh or Gettysburg. But we need not show such historical reenactment of the Dark Ages. You see, they are back with us — live almost daily from the Middle East.

©2006 Tribune Media Services

[Sethomas]

I'd take beheading over torture any day. Funny how that aspect isn't really mentioned, that the American strategy is to beat them at their own game of brutality.

[Preechr]

Well, what about waterboarding?

[mburbank]

I find the basic premiss of the article faulty. It is a common modern fallacy that we (by which we always mean whatever group we personally belong to) gave 'evolved' and 'civilized'.

IF the author were talking about sanitation and modern medicine, I might agree. But he's talking about behavior.

To my mind, there is nothing in the 'Dark Age' lexicon of horrors that keen even begin to compare to the Holocaust, and the dropping on two atmic bombs on populated cities, both of which were events that, at very least in scope, could never have been carried out in the pre-modern world, and certainly match beheadings for callous, casual, normal horror.

I am not here making any sort of case about why either of these things were done. I'm quite certain beheaders think they are doing it for a reason.

I am saying that I see no serious evidence that we have matured away from barbarity as a species. In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it. Like the consumption of meat (something I do almost daily) we no longer need to personally engage in slaughter, it's done for us by proxy. We pat ourselves on the back and claim to be more civilizaed than folks who beat each other to death with sticks and rocks.

[mburbank]

Oh, PS. for the sake of argument.

The Goths and Vandals didn't do a lot of things. They lacked the sophistication to, for instance, crucify hundreds of people every few feet along a really, really, really long road. AND I bet they thought they were highly civilized while they punded the nails in.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I am saying that I see no serious evidence that we have matured away from barbarity as a species. In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it.

Men who engage in beheadings, and then transmit it via the internet all around the world, aren't lacking in the resources to be clean killers. They can buy a camera, you think they can't buy a gun or a crude bomb?

Hezbollah terrorists used high tech British gadgets like night vision goggles during the war with Israel. A comfortable, well-educated radical will soon have access to nuclear weaponry if we sit back and watch.

They don't behead other humans because they don't have our resources. I'm sure they have, at the very least, an old Russian AK-47 laying around. Their barbarism isn't a means, it is an end. Incidentally, what was Mohammed's take on beheading infidels?

Max, I know you don't see any difference between them and us, that has sort of been the debate here, no? Perhaps it stems from a fundamental difference on what the root of terrorism is. I feel it is an extreme interpretation of a particular religious document, one with systemic, pervasive, and problematic roots all throughout the muslim world. This is why I see the difference between us and them, and believe that this is a distinction between liberal society and closed society. There's a whole lotta gray in the middle there, but the black and the white are still quite apparent, IMO.

[mburbank]

Kev; you just argued that the 'dark ages' premiss of the peice is faulty since they used tech to disseminate terror.

I think the argument is self congratulatory and doesn't help anyone come to a better understanding of anything.

"Max, I know you don't see any difference between them and us."
-Kevin the Soul Gazer

I'm always intrigued when you 'know' things about me I don't. At the risk of disagreeing with you about me, I agree there are major differences between 'liberal' and 'closed' societies, if that's what you mean by 'them' and 'us'. I vastly prefer liberal societies, as you well know when you aren't posturing, else why would my main axe to grind be about our society becoming less 'liberal'? I generallly anjoy democracy, think our constitution and bnill of rights are amazing documents, and loathe religous extremism of every stripe. I think making women live in bags is reppelent and cutting off heads is worse. I don't think any of that means that I need to find our own use of weapons of mass destruction, and weapons likes land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorus, all of which were designed to induce terror, is acceptable. I find it upsetting when open, liberal societies that pride themselves on how civilzed they are engage in barbarity, because I want the differences between 'us' and 'them' to be crystal clear.

I also think it's worth concidering the amount of extremely brutal killing our liberal open society has engaged in during the modern era. Jesus, perhaps my favorite political philosipher, once spoke of motes, beams and eyes. I do not think the way to peace lies along the road which is all about good (us) and evil (them).

[Abcdxxxx]

There are loads of Jesus freaks with their what would jesus do schtick, and yet none of them are on a crusade to recreate the period of his reign. There's not a single Christian nation forcing biblical era laws such as stonings.

The article is speaking towards a mentality which goes far beyond beheadings, and it's certainly idealism to roll back the clock irregardless if the dark ages is the most apt period. The progress their fighting isn't democracy, or modern evolution or sophistication - it's about human rights, coerced conversions, mandatory submission to their religious dogma, and pure racism. They haven't dropped their Atomic bomb or succeeded in a Holocaust ... unless you're paying attention to what's happening in Darfur.... but do we really have to wait until they pull off one of the greatest crimes against humanity before we can say "beheadings are barbaric and challenge our civilization" ?

DO you really think people who talk about Islamicists are really saying "Hey man, the holocaust was a-ok, and the Atomic bomb was cool too - after all look at what Muslims are doing in the world."? That's the reverse of your logic, and both are pretty child like.

[mburbank]

"There's not a single Christian nation forcing biblical era laws such as stonings."

And yet, our nation has the death penalty, when many other modern nations don't.

"Hey man, the holocaust was a-ok, and the Atomic bomb was cool too - after all look at what Muslims are doing in the world."?

No, but I think we are talking about a lot of people who would say that Americas use of the atomic bomb on two cities was something we had to do, that we had no choice about, and that it is morally defensible and is in no way at all like what those heathen, uncivilized beheaders do. And who would say the same thing about the many civillians who've died in Iarq (the ones we accidentlly kill, not all the others). It's arguable that we are on the side of the angles when we do things like this, and that either, secularly we are civilzed and they or not' or religously, this is what God wants us to do. I think the article falls in this line of reasoning.

I have no doubt at all that Ilsamofacists or whatever you want to call them share our certainty that when they use brutality it's what has to be done.

I think we are both wrong.

If you (like Kev) think that means that I see no difference whatever between the USA and disparate bands of loathesome militant extremists thats a shame. It's just that in addition to differnces, I also see some (not complete, just some) similarities. And since we believe the other side to be wholly evil (and they may well be) I think any similarities we find should concern us.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Kev; you just argued that the 'dark ages' premiss of the peice is faulty since they used tech to disseminate terror.

Um...no. You are finding the equivalence between bombs and swords. You are saying one would use the latter due to a lack of access to resources and money. I'm telling you that this is untrue. The brutality of the act isn't a coincidence, it's intentional.

The author's argument isn't that radical muslims really want to ride around on horses again and wield swords. It's a psychological state of mind, and a particular way of life. Beheading with the sword is a symbol of that regressive thought, and to call it regressive and evil (compared to ourselves) is perfectly alright in my book. So self-congratulation to me!

"Max, I know you don't see any difference between them and us."
-Kevin the Soul Gazer

I'm always intrigued when you 'know' things about me I don't.

Excuse me, but weren't you the one who said "In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it"?

Are you not equating us with them? Perhaps I'm wrong and you could clarify things for me.

I think making women live in bags is reppelent and cutting off heads is worse. I don't think any of that means that I need to find our own use of weapons of mass destruction, and weapons likes land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorus, all of which were designed to induce terror, is acceptable. I find it upsetting when open, liberal societies that pride themselves on how civilzed they are engage in barbarity, because I want the differences between 'us' and 'them' to be crystal clear.

It never will be crystal clear. it never has, and it never will. That doesn't mean there isn't a great big gap between what we do and what they do. Again, from the tone of this paragraph, you seem to disagree with that. Perhaps you can clarify.

I also think it's worth concidering the amount of extremely brutal killing our liberal open society has engaged in during the modern era. Jesus, perhaps my favorite political philosipher, once spoke of motes, beams and eyes. I do not think the way to peace lies along the road which is all about good (us) and evil (them).

Ok, let's concider. What relevance does (insert bad thing America did that's like terrorism) have in comparison to beheading journalists, executing those who pray differently, and enslaving women? If what we've done is just as horrible, what steps do we take now? Do we sit in paralysis over what terrible people we are, or do we stop the enemy?

Is there an enemy, Max?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

And yet, our nation has the death penalty, when many other modern nations don't.

This is nonsense. Show me a state with the death penalty that quotes the Bible as justification for this practice. The fact that Catholic governors are attacked for their stance on capital punishment throws your argument entirely on its head.

If you (like Kev) think that means that I see no difference whatever between the USA and disparate bands of loathesome militant extremists thats a shame. It's just that in addition to differnces, I also see some (not complete, just some) similarities. And since we believe the other side to be wholly evil (and they may well be) I think any similarities we find should concern us.

Perhaps you could compare them as i asked. Death penalty for murderers=beheading journalists, am I correct?

[mburbank]

"Excuse me, but weren't you the one who said "In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it"?

Are you not equating us with them? Perhaps I'm wrong and you could clarify things for me. "
-Kevin the Definer

I love to clarify.

If you think that any time 'Us' do anything 'them' do, it is an equation, fine. Many of them have hair on their heads, as do we. Obviously I 'see no difference between them'. In the sentence you quote, I not similarities and differences, which you may agree with or not as you like. I say we share barbarity, but use different methodology. You say 'they' choose this. Maybe, to some degree. But then, we often 'choose' to use weapons that kill civillians after the fact, and weapon like Napalm and white phosphorus, whose aim is to be terrifying. I believe, strategically, we like the viceral nature of such weapons. When we employ 'shock and awe'. The brutality of the words isn't coincidental, it's intentional. A simililarity, NOT an equation. They believe God gives them the right to do to anyone not practicing their brand of Islam whatever we choose. We are far more retrospect in wether our rights to engage in pre-emptive war comes from God we are demure, less convinced. Most of our citizens even believe that everyone, everyone on earth has certain inallienable rights, and that has to be a HUGE difference.

If you want to adopt as personal philosiphy "You're with us or against us" you should feel free to do so, but I have more respect for your intelligence. I think when you do that, you don't really believe it, it's just a convenient place to argue from.

Would you... whatever the opposite of equate is? Would you say that there are NO similarities between 'us' and 'them', that our behavior on the global stage is without reproach, unimprovable, as 'good' as they are 'evil'? I doubt it. It would be a far easier place to argue with you from, but it would also be beneath me to pretend I thought that's what you'd said.

" That doesn't mean there isn't a great big gap between what we do and what they do. Again, from the tone of this paragraph, you seem to disagree with that. Perhaps you can clarify. "

I don't think I need to. You infer more than I imply. You quoted two paragraphs from me, one in which I talk about the similarities between us and one in which I talk about the differnces, going so far as to say I loathe some of their... cultural differences. You make the choice to see those two paragraphs as an equation. I doubt any mathematician would do the same.

You say the difference between us has never been crystal clear and never will be. I think if we obeyed our own laws, the differnces between us would be a LOT clearer. I think we have the capacity to make the differnces a LOT clearer. You don't. I think it's something we should strive for with every fiber of our national being. That 'never will be' line sounds to my ear more equivative than anything I've said.

I think I'm quite clear. I think it is your rhetorical habit to take things you disagree with and treat them as muddy and bizare or boil them down to the p;oint of meaninglessness.

"What relevance does (insert bad thing America did that's like terrorism) have in comparison to beheading journalists, executing those who pray differently, and enslaving women?"

Okay, how about for my insert, I choose 'cynically funding the religous/paramilitary groups that believe all those things as a hedge against the soviets and other gulf oil interests?' That seems relevant to me. or 'supporting and arming brutal, repressive military strongmen and regimes." Now, is that as bad as personally sawing someones head off? No. I do not equate those two things. But is one relevant to the other? Do you think there's NO relevance? Is that all the choices to you, total equation or irrelivance?

"Do we sit in paralysis over what terrible people we are, or do we stop the enemy? "
-Kevin the Bush

Do we establish a peaceful, democratic middle east, or cut and run and allow the terrorists to kill us all?

Thank goodness those aren't the choices.

What if I said to you

"Do we abandon every single thing America has ever stood for, or do we achieve peace?"

It's a meaningless question, a rhetorical sham. So was yours. Are we 'stopping the enemy'? That's a desired conclusion, not to be confused with a plan. Do you, like Rick Santorum, think this is "The Lord of the Rings"?

I don't think we are the same. And I do think there is an enemy. But that enemy is hidden amongst lots of people who are not the enemy yet. And more complicated still, the 'enemy' is not a defined group of people you can kill, it's a spectrum of belief, attitude, and emoitional response of at very least a third of the world. I don't believe what we are doing has any chance of 'stopping' them. I do believe we are making more of them. And, while I don't find us equivical, I think demonizing the enemy, while perhaps apt, is useful. I think it is counterproductive. Beliefs like that have a way of spreading. I think it's the poisonous nature of that way of thinking that allows them to kill with such abandon. After all, we're the enemy, we're all evil and an affront to God, so it's okay, it's GOOD to butcher us. I don't want us to be like that. I don't think we need to be, and I don't think we should get any closer to that mindset.

I am arguing for us to be as different from the enemy as we can be. AND I think we can do a better job of 'stopping' the enemy by being MORE different. I think spending a lot of time thinking about how much better, more civilized, more human we are than the enemy and how whatever 'dark side' we go to it will never be as bad as those 'evil doers' only makes us more equivalent. And I want to be less equivalent. I hope I've clarified things.

Now you can say "So your for the terrorists." because quite obviously, I am.

[Abcdxxxx]

We're talking about people who desire to live and conquer as Muhammed did, even going so far as to duplicate his execution of methods.

The American death penalty doesn't have any relevance...and there's nothing going on in any other religions ultra devout communities which compares.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I say we share barbarity, but use different methodology. You say 'they' choose this. Maybe, to some degree. But then, we often 'choose' to use weapons that kill civillians after the fact, and weapon like Napalm and white phosphorus, whose aim is to be terrifying. I believe, strategically, we like the viceral nature of such weapons. When we employ 'shock and awe'. The brutality of the words isn't coincidental, it's intentional. A simililarity, NOT an equation.

Right, they have hair, and eat food and stuff. This is really substantive.

I think there is an obvious distinction between the way liberal democratic societies and repressive, totalitarian ones that we face. If you wish to talk about our similarities that's great, but you do a serious disservice to the discussin I think.

You have said that it is presumptuous to assume that liberal democracy is the best form of government, and that some other people ma yet devise something better (if you think I'm speaking for you again let me know, and I'll go dig the quote up). Maybe you're right, maybe on day we'll achieve this. But today, right now, observe the Westernized, liberal socities, and then observe the muslim world. on average, how is that working out for them? How often do democracies go to war with each other?

I think if we obeyed our own laws, the differnces between us would be a LOT clearer. I think we have the capacity to make the differnces a LOT clearer. You don't. I think it's something we should strive for with every fiber of our national being. That 'never will be' line sounds to my ear more equivative than anything I've said.

And I think it's still amazing that you have so much to say of the supposed ills of your own country, and yet so little of theirs. Perhaps a sense of perspective is too much to ask from you while in your Bush Rage, but it's never the less appropriate.

We have a foundation in secular law that allows us to question whether the actions of our president or our elected oficials stand up to legal boundaries. They, quite frequently, do not.

Okay, how about for my insert, I choose 'cynically funding the religous/paramilitary groups that believe all those things as a hedge against the soviets and other gulf oil interests?' That seems relevant to me. or 'supporting and arming brutal, repressive military strongmen and regimes."

Ok, good. This is going somewhere. So take this into account. Do we thus take no global action against rotten regimes at all, out of the fear of appearing hypcritical? Do we not make up for supporting these groups by drawing a distinction between right and wrong?

Do we establish a peaceful, democratic middle east, or cut and run and allow the terrorists to kill us all?

Thank goodness those aren't the choices.

Really? Well then, in the spirit of offering up ideas, what would you say are the alternatives?

I don't believe what we are doing has any chance of 'stopping' them. I do believe we are making more of them.

Ok, good. So America leaves Iraq= less terrorism in the world. America stops confonting regimes that support terrorism=less terrorism i the world. Is that accurate? Are we the only ones mass producing these terrorists, or do they have guilty liberal mass distribution elsewhere?

Beliefs like that have a way of spreading. I think it's the poisonous nature of that way of thinking that allows them to kill with such abandon. After all, we're the enemy, we're all evil and an affront to God, so it's okay, it's GOOD to butcher us. I don't want us to be like that. I don't think we need to be, and I don't think we should get any closer to that mindset.

We're nowhere near it, so don't worry so much.

I am arguing for us to be as different from the enemy as we can be. AND I think we can do a better job of 'stopping' the enemy by being MORE different. I think spending a lot of time thinking about how much better, more civilized, more human we are than the enemy and how whatever 'dark side' we go to it will never be as bad as those 'evil doers' only makes us more equivalent. And I want to be less equivalent. I hope I've clarified things.

Hmm....so if we be less and less like them we will suffer less terrorism, right?

[Ant10708]

but but christians blow up abortion clinics. 9/11 justified.

[mburbank]

"If you wish to talk about our similarities that's great, but you do a serious disservice to the discussin I think."
-Kevin the Contradictory

Oh, boo hoo. You don't think it's great at all, you instead either pretend to think it's equivication, which is a convenient method of false marginilization that does 'serious disservice to the discussion' or you actually think it IS equivication which does serious disservice to your ability to discuss.

"But today, right now, observe the Westernized, liberal socities, and then observe the muslim world. on average, how is that working out for them?"

Today, right now, observe the body count of trying to enlighten them through invasion and occupation. I totally agree that westernized liberal government is better than any form of totalitarianism. I would suggest A.) That does not give us the right to try to force it through violence B.) so far the success of this tactic is debatable at very best and C.) The very idea that this is what we are doing is highly debatable. The administration is antagonistic to the results of several democratically elected regimes and very cozy with several totalitarian regimes. Should we arrive at a coherent, honest foreign policy, I would be more inclined to discuss the merits of using our army to encourage the adoption of our admittedly superior form of government.

"And I think it's still amazing that you have so much to say of the supposed ills of your own country, and yet so little of theirs. Perhaps a sense of perspective is too much to ask from you while in your Bush Rage, but it's never the less appropriate. "
-Kevin, his Keviness

Here we differ. As an American citizen in a democracy with the privilidge of the vote and free speech, I find being focused on holding our country to standards we profess to believe,( such as the rule of law) a perfectly appropriatte focus. I am aware you concider the state of your own country and feel no need to require you to balance your writtings with what you think we are doing wrong. I don't even think it stems from your obvious terror of the massive power liberal blogging boogeymen, which I think you suffer from, but hardly to the point of blindness.

How about this. You write about your concerns, I'll write about mine, and we can be critical about each other. You go on thinking that the reason I write about hat I want to write about instead of what you want to write about is due to Bush rage blindness. I'll assume that you write about what you write about because they are the subjects you find most compelling. You wield your ability to gaze into my soul and I'll continue to asssume that your beliefs are the product of a reasoned, intelligent thought process that I happen to disagree with, and a dash of hippiephobia.

[Abcdxxxx]

...but Burbank, where is your sense of humanity. Hell, where's youre sense of Universalism? If you think behavior in the mid-east (which didn't start with our invasion of Iraq) is a mirror reflection of our own sins, doesn't that still obscure the reality on the ground there? Life in Iran, and Sudan along with many other countries where the US isn't on the ground really isn't all that humane. Nothing going on in the US truly compares beyond some symbolic gesturing attempt to say "we're all bad".

So why don't you care for the people living under Shar'ia laws who are victims themselves? If you don't care about Daniel Pearl because hey, he was American, and the Americans nuked Japan - then fine. Do you see how that does a disservice to human kind though? Because Americans are bad and have killed many Iraqi's you argue that it's suitable for beheadings and stonings to become culturally expainable in the mid-east? I don't think that's what you're intending to say at all...the problem is most of what you're saying sounds like "we're bad, we do bad things, I don't have the right to judge or worry about their badness, we're responsible too". In which case, you're not addressing the problems or issues themselves, you're just assuming guilt, and in this case self guilt is so far off the radar of reality it really doesn't add much to the discussion.

Do you truly in your heart believe that radical Muslims commit crimes solely as a responsive backlash to the policies of foriegn governments like the US?

[mburbank]

Man, you read what you want to see.

It isn't a mirror image. It isn't equation. We aren't the same people. Many of us are better than many of them. Our system of government is better than anything theirs has to offer. The vast majority of their evil doers are more evil in their doings than ours are. Would you and Kev be satisfied if I stopped writting about bad things we do entirely and only wrote about bad stuff they do? Or would you just go on pretending that I don't see any difference between the U.S.of A and Al Quaeda?

But saying we aren't mirrors of each other doesn't mean that things we did and do play into and support things they do. If I beat the crap out of you and left you bleeding on the street, is the important thing that Mike Tyson is worse than me cuase I didn't rape you or bite off your ear?

Beyond that, I don't see what your opening salvo is even about, unless you honestly have no understanding of causality. Just because we didn't have anything to do with why some places are shitty doesn't mean we don't have anything to do with anyplace that's shitty.

I think you're all tied up in knots in an attempt to be sarcastic. You are a lot easier to understand when you're just trying to be understood and not getting all tied up in the funny stuff.

"So why don't you care for the people living under Shar'ia laws who are victims themselves?"

I'm sorry, did I say I didn't care? I guess you don't care about sweat shop labor, since you don't write about it. I demnd you write about all suffering everywhere if you want me to take what you have to say seriously. If you don't cover my concerns, yours aren't valid. See, now, that was sarcastic, and I think also followable.

I'm sorry, did not speciffically writing about how horrible it is to saw Daniel Pearls head off means I don't care. See, now, I thought we were all in agreement on that, I didn't even realize it was subject to debate. If I mislead you into believeing that I think it was okay, I'm sure it has to do with me, and not you pretending I think anything of the sort because that makes me easier to argue with.

If I'm off the mark on what you were doing, why don't you just try saying what you think? I find your implications muddy and convenient. I'll state again, I believe you don't just come out and say what you think because you're afraid it would expose you as a tool.

"Do you see how that does a disservice to human kind though"

No. I don't. Because I didn't do that. I don't think I mentioned Daniel Pearl at all, or said anything complimentary about beheading. In fact I said it was bad. It's okay to think that beheading is bad and nuking people is also bad. Is your argument that nuking people is nice? Is tat what your implying? We both know it isn't, so stop playing sophist games. Your entire style of argument is what's wrong american discourse right now. Suppose I define your argument as "They are evil over there, so we can do anything we want to anybody pretty much anyhwere, anytime and it's not just okay, it's great." Well, I think anyone can see your argument is pretty stupid, plus it shows you are a very bad person and you want America to rule the world. It's an easy, stupid, childish way to argue, and since you're obviously reasonably intelligent, it's pretty cynical as well.

""we're bad, we do bad things, I don't have the right to judge or worry about their badness, we're responsible too"

think that's exactly what the parable of the mote and the beam and the eye means. Jesus was saying everybody does bad things so nobody should judge. (Sarcasm).

I'll try to be clearer. The evil that other countries do does not absolve us of the right and responsability to question our actions and our leaders. As a country we tend to believe it does, or perhaps that we are incapable of evil, or that our evils are so paltry in comparison to others that we'd better sepnd all our time tending to theirs and none tending to ours. In fact, it's been vogue for several years now to suggest that evenmentioning the fact the we do and have done bad things is the same as siding with terrorists. In no way does any of that say in any way that it was okay to cut off Daniel Pearls head, or institute Sharia, or any of your other nonsense. You wish it did, because then it would be the stupid concern you want it to be. You take it that way not because I say anything of the kind, but becuase it makes you more comfortable, superior and dismissive.

Oh, by the way, that guy that got caught circumcising his daughter in the USA? I thought that was very wrong, I'm glad he got caught, and I think he should go to jail. I know I didn't write about it, and you've got me afraid you'll think I was in favor of it. PLUS, lest I forget, I think female circumcision is truly nasty, and while I think it would be illegitimate to invade a country to get people to stop doing it, I want to forcefully state that DOES NOT MEAN I AM PRO FEMALE CIRCUMCISION or that the SECRET BOMBING OF CAMBODI JUSTIFIES FEMALE CIRCUMCISION. It's an abomination, and while I do not think we should overthrow any regimes to make it stop, I think it's horrible. See how I did that? I used sarcasm in the way I delivered that message even though the message itself is valid.

"Do you truly in your heart believe that radical Muslims commit crimes solely as a responsive backlash to the policies of foriegn governments like the US?"

Of course I don't! Have you stopped beating your wife? It's really easy to know I don't believe that. All you have to do is read and you'll see I never said anything of the kind. 'Soley' is your word choice, not mine.

Do you truly believe in your heart that nothing we have ever done has impacted in any way whatsoever to the rise of Radical Muslim power?

I bet you don't. Know how I know that. 'Cause you never said it! See how easy this is?

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by mburbank

It isn't a mirror image. It isn't equation. We aren't the same people. Many of us are better than many of them. Our system of government is better than anything theirs has to offer. The vast majority of their evil doers are more evil in their doings than ours are.

Then please explain why it's even relevant to talk about Hiroshima? Why is it that when someone wants to talk about the bad things (in simple terms) that other people do, your response is always to talk about the bad things we do. As if we're not aware, or all the things you admit above in your quote don't apply? We're pretty aware of our nations own dirty laundry, and if we're not, you make about a half dozen posts reminding us. I'm afraid it doesn't really resolve the issue of Islamic world insanity. Your criticisms of the US do not address this particular topic in full, as it goes far beyond our own nations acitivity. Really! The article you're responding to addresses issues and concerns which have absolutely nothing to do with the United States. Care to tie the Theo Van Gogh incident into US policy, Mr. Chomsky?

But saying we aren't mirrors of each other doesn't mean that things we did and do play into and support things they do. If I beat the crap out of you and left you bleeding on the street, is the important thing that Mike Tyson is worse than me cuase I didn't rape you or bite off your ear?

The cause and effect argument doesn't address the issues when you're talking about the Atomic Bomb, or using Mike Tyson analogies. The Islamicist situation is 300 years in the making and it's muddy enough that taking some obtuse, sanitized approach isn't going to help us. Don't you think it's ridiculous that we can't discuss cliterectomies in Somalia without downplaying the religious element, or naming the religious parties in question...or that every topic has to come back to the bloated self obssessed Americans who think everything they do and say spins the world ? Even in the case of Darfur, finally being addressed on a large scale, nobody has the balls to admit this is yet another issue of Islamic supremacy in a genocidal context. I'm being very clear here. There are Islamic guerillas picking swords over guns and that speaks towards a certain insanity they possess...and it's not one which the United States or any of our policies ever created. In other words, our insanity?.....It's another topic altogether and where the two cross is not the root source to the problem or where the solution lies. What this and many articles is suggesting is that the first step towards a solution is having honest discourse to recognize what is in fact happening today. Can you do that?

Just because we didn't have anything to do with why some places are shitty doesn't mean we don't have anything to do with anyplace that's shitty.

They have no problems making places shitty on their own. Short of enforcing Shari'a laws and mass converting to Islam, there is nothing American's can do right. In their bizarro world, killing millions of Iraqis is about on par with producing hot pink boots and tempting them to sin when we distribute Whitney Houston cd's. Remember, your values and value of human life do not define theirs. That means you could list every bad thing our government is up to right now, figure out a way to magically erase it, and it still will not be enough. It's also why there isn't a country on our planet where these particular Muslims are content - not Switzerland, not their own, not a single one.

Your entire style of argument is what's wrong american discourse right now. Suppose I define your argument as "They are evil over there, so we can do anything we want to anybody pretty much anyhwere, anytime and it's not just okay, it's great." Well, I think anyone can see your argument is pretty stupid, plus it shows you are a very bad person and you want America to rule the world. It's an easy, stupid, childish way to argue, and since you're obviously reasonably intelligent, it's pretty cynical as well.

I'm sorry, but I believe our values are a little more grounded in humanity then there's, and that it's our duty as compassionate people to interject. I also believe that any true Muslim who follows the sane parts of the Koran and loves their own people would side with this argument rather then take a defensive approach where they feel their own beliefs are being attacked. There are plenty of opportunities for us Americans to evaluate ourselves, and how we conduct our politics, but that is neither here nor there. I don't believe anything we have done is responsible for a six year old being stoned to death in 2006, but even if I could wrap my head around your logic it would only fuel my passion to put an end to it.

In fact, it's been vogue for several years now to suggest that evenmentioning the fact the we do and have done bad things is the same as siding with terrorists.

Actually no. What's happening is people are condemning inhumane behavior, and people like yourself have decided they need to form a rebutal or at the very least create a response towards the accusations. Why? So of course the topic turns to wether you're defending the terrorists or what your point is. Really, I don't think your intention is to defend anyone - you just have an agenda, and you enjoy being a contrarian. Unfortunately, you shift the topic away from something others like myself consider as very important. As I've said, you can change the terms of the conversation, but the original problem still remains. In other words, if we want to talk about mid-east insanity, and you want to talk about American insanity - they're both valid topics, but they're not one in the same. We might both think the other is being superior, and dissmissive, but what is the topic here? Does it make you so uncomfortable that you need to change it to one which you can defend? So what's the flip....bringing Shari'a laws to the workplace in the US? Allowing women to appear in Burkas on their DMV license ? I don't believe you're saying we've created a monster that needs to be appeased before it eats us all...but what exactly are you saying? I'm afraid you're the one who needs to be clear here, because you're the one claiming your opinions are being missrepresented time and time again. Maybe it makes you feel better to purposely missrepresent mine in defense, but it doesn't clarify your point - especially when you've argued that moral equivalency is a-ok.

Do you truly believe in your heart that nothing we have ever done has impacted in any way whatsoever to the rise of Radical Muslim power?

Sure in the big scheme of things, our interaction as both allies, and enemy have played a role. Now do you want to talk about how an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization, or what?

[Big Papa Goat]

I just like how the article implies something about the problem with radical Islamists is that they are stuck in some kind of brutal pre-modern past. Almost as if the author thinks that to be 'modern' is to not be brutal or barborous. Almost as if the author thinks that brutality disappears with the progress of history.

And those primative bastards that killed Marie-Antoinette, aren't we lucky we're nothing like them anymore. Aren't we lucky to have evolved from that 'elemental barbarity'. I guess it really is a bit ironic that the Enlightened Europeans would be afriad in fear of radical Islamists, in spite of the sophistication their modern history has brought them. I mean, just look at how sophisticated modern Europe's history has been, since they evolved from those brutal elemental barbarians that chopped off Marie-Antoinette's head.

[mburbank]

"Then please explain why it's even relevant to talk about Hiroshima?"
-Alphabits

Forgive me if I pull a you here. If you cannot any relevance that we, the people waging a war based on the moral authority of getting rid of WMD that didn't exist, are the same people who have killed more civillians with WMD than anyone on earth, then I can't help you see it. There is a spetrum in play here. You choose to see it as bipolar, either it's direct equation, or it's irrelevant. I obviously disagree and think there's a lot of ground in between those two polls.

"Why is it that when someone wants to talk about the bad things (in simple terms) that other people do, your response is always to talk about the bad things we do."

Perspective. I think the White Hat, Lord of the Rings, Football team, We're #1 belief sytem we fight with is actively detrimental to our success, as it was for the British Empire. I answered. Here's my question. Why is it you think an awareness of the bad things we've done is utterly irrelevant to the discussion? I think our arrogance has a lot to do with how issolated we are becoming, how far we have moved from the rest of the world since the days of near unanimous support we had in the immediatte aftermath of 9/11. I think the deterioration of support will have a serious impact on the future. I think a little less hubris, a little less pride, and a lot less bi-polar "Yer with us or agin' us" might actually makes us better terror warriors.

"We're pretty aware of our nations own dirty laundry, and if we're not, you make about a half dozen posts reminding us."
-Alphashoulderchip

I don't think we are. I think for the most part we believe our dirty laundry smells like roses, or that the fact that they never do their laundry means the fact we only do ours once a month is irrelevant. And lots of otherwise lovely people who might help us are getting tired of us trying to force our laundry tips on the rest of the world from atop our on piles of unwashed clothes. I think if we did our laundry better, we'd have more laundry authority. And when I make any posts, you and whine and holler as if I were oout there killing soldiers, proving my point.

"Your criticisms of the US do not address this particular topic in full, as it goes far beyond our own nations acitivity"
-AlphaZed and nothing in between

Oh dear, I am sorry. I wish I could adress every aspect of the WOT the way you do. I don't claim to be adressing it in full. I am adressing a speciffic aspect of it which is of key concern to me. I am motivated by a love of country to protest strongly when I believe it gives in to it's worst instincts in manners which I believe contribute to it's danger. If I ever said anywhere that if we were perfect we wouldn't have any problems, I'm sorry. You go dig up where I said that as opposed to where you had a spax attackk because I dared suggest we might have something to do with the problem or didn't write about only the things you think are important.

Oh, and as far as Chomsky goes, I find his writting to dense to follow a great deal of the time, so I don't rad him much. We can't all have your towering intellect.

"The Islamicist situation is 300 years in the making and it's muddy enough that taking some obtuse, sanitized approach isn't going to help us. "

Again, bi-polar. For you there are only obtuse sanitzed appproaches and what we have, (I assume, feel free to correct me) ie. forcible regime change. Cut and run or stay the course. I hope their is a richer picture here, because the one we have isn't working out very well. What obtuse, sanitized approachg are you referring to? Because I wasn't aware I'd posed one. Of course, I haven't read your five point plan for winning the war on terror either.

"Don't you think it's ridiculous that we can't discuss cliterectomies in Somalia without downplaying the religious element, or naming the religious parties in question...or that every topic has to come back to the bloated self obssessed Americans who think everything they do and say spins the world ?"
-Alphabatradation

I would think it was absurd if I felt that way. I don't. Their is a strong religous component to cliterectomy, and a strong cultural one, and I think they are both invalid and horrible and if that seems chauvanistic, I suppose it may be. I don't think it comes back to any of the things you mentioned. When we invade a country because we think it's the best, only way to erradicate cliterectomy and then lots of people die, get back to me about what role, at that point, I may think American arrognce is playing. There are all sorts of topics to discuss in which American arrogance plays little or no role. I don't think the WOT is one of them. I DO NOT THINK IT IS THE SOLE CAUSE OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM. I put that in caps, so maybe you'll see it. I reject your argument that the only way I could prove tht is to only write the same posts you do. But you're already doing that, so I don't see the point.

"Even in the case of Darfur, finally being addressed on a large scale, nobody has the balls to admit this is yet another issue of Islamic supremacy in a genocidal context."

I agree. As I've said before, though I am very leery of armed intervention, if there is any place on earth right now we ought to be doing it, it's Darfur. I think it is very unfortunate that the world community including the USA has let it get to such a chaotic point that boots on the ground has less chance of changing things than it did. Unfortunately, even if America had the will for such an intervention (and I'd wager we don't) our army and our credability are currently at low points. I think Khartoum crossed several lines in the sand that Iraq never even came remotely close to crossing. To me it isn't 'another issue of Islamic supremacy' it's THE issue. I think getting killed in the midst of 300 year old inter arab islamic conflict in Iraq is a farcical distraction which actively works against any leadership we might show in actually standing up to Islamic Supremacy.

"It's another topic altogether and where the two cross is not the root source to the problem or where the solution lies."
Alphaallknowing.

I'm glad you know where the solution lies. You should really try to get in touch with the government and let them know. I agree, it is almost certainly not the root source of the problem. What do you think the root source of the problem is, and what do you think we can do about it? Because I think it's a contributting source that we can totally do something about, and I think our continuing arrogance and the public face we put forth every day that our dirty laundry is white, white, white and everybody needs to do what we say so they can be as angelically clean as us is actively lessening our chances of success.

"What this and many articles is suggesting is that the first step towards a solution is having honest discourse to recognize what is in fact happening today. Can you do that? "

I could, but since you have predifined 'honest discourse' to exclude anything you disagree with and have already come to an ironclad vsion of 'what is in fact happening today' I doubt it will happen. The very terms you've chosen imply that whoever you're talking to doesn't know what 'is in fact happening today' and that they won't until they agree with you. I think that pretty much precludes honest discourse. Oh, also? I think it's arrogant.

Tell you what, instead of playing round and round here, why don't you start a thread solely about how you think we should deal with the dangers posed by Islamic extremism. Maybe, if you allow for the idea that you are laying out your opinions, as opposed to 'what is in fact happening today', some honest discourse might take place.

I found your next paraghraph impenatrable. Since you can see the degree to which I've replied to everything else, you'll have to take my word that I couldn't parse what you were getting at until:

"Sure in the big scheme of things, our interaction as both allies, and enemy have played a role. Now do you want to talk about how an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization, or what?"
-Alphaboy

Absolutely. Start a thread on it, and I'll see you there. I'll do my very best to stay on topic. This thread spun off an article Preech posted, and I think everything I had to say was justifiabley related to the conversation that followed. I encourage you to start a thread speciffically and soleley devoted to 'an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization'.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by mburbank

This thread spun off an article Preech posted, and I think everything I had to say was justifiabley related to the conversation that followed. I encourage you to start a thread speciffically and soleley devoted to 'an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization'.

It doesn't seem like you followed the point of that article if you think we need a new thread. See, this is just one of many op-eds trying to spell it out for people like yourself who can't seem to grasp (or refuse to acknowledge) what's even going on in the bigger picture. You prefer to believe the United States is more of a threat and danger. I can't reprogram you. I can't force you to grasp why this topic reaches beyond the United States policy past and present or why your reflexive mindset actually panders to the whole America as Florence Nightengale running the world idea that you despise.

Anyway, if your response is any indication, articles like these will just fall on deaf ears. If you'd like to have an honest discussion about the root cause of everything mentioned in this article, along with the political, cultural and ideological causes, then I think you personally would have to remove the United States from the equation temporarily. There's no tow the line here, Max. This article calls on you to give a basic response and just call a spade a spade.... and don't cheapen it by trying to bring the topic back around to Bush and bad America.

[mburbank]

"See, this is just one of many op-eds trying to spell it out for people like yourself who can't seem to grasp (or refuse to acknowledge) what's even going on in the bigger picture."
-Alphabestboy

How could I have ever doubted for an instant that you were interested in honest discourse? The desire shines through in every word.

"I can't reprogram you. I can't force you to grasp why this topic reaches beyond the United States policy past and present "
-Alphabully

Don't you wish you could, though? Because honest discourse begins with reprogramming and ends with forcing.

Who are you going to have discourse, honest or otherwise with? I made a reasonable suggestion that you start a thread that you could define as being focused on a single, self selected topic, and instead you insist this thread, which you did not start is already about your single self selected topic. You're an e-solopsist.

"If you'd like to have an honest discussion about the root cause of everything mentioned in this article, along with the political, cultural and ideological causes, then I think you personally would have to remove the United States from the equation temporarily. There's no tow the line here, Max. This article calls on you to give a basic response and just call a spade a spade.... and don't cheapen it by trying to bring the topic back around to Bush and bad America."
-Alphasnob

By 'just call a spade a spade' you mean agree with you, which is A.) not much bassis for discussion and B.) I don't. But since you seem unable to do it, I'll do it for you. Or I will, if you tell me what 'everything mentioned in this article' is, since you've already told me I had to remove the United States from the equation. You need to help me with tat part, but I'll go wherever you want me to go on it. See you there.

[Abcdxxxx]

instead you insist this thread, which you did not start is already about your single self selected topic.

My "self selected topic"? No, I read the essay. Did you?

You haven't provided a rebutal to prove this article is really about Iraq and US policy which is where you keep trying to take this conversation.... so I'm suggesting you stay within the scope of the editorial above if you'd like to discuss it. That way we don't have to go in circles in every thread - and while we're at it, we really don't need one more.

I can't recall ever starting one of these mid-east conversations, and I'm not here to give lectures. I'm not asking for a safe zone thread where you play by my rules....are you that idiotic to think you're disagreeing? We'd have to be having the same fucking conversation before we could conclude that we disagree. You readily admit you agree on most every point which is relevant, so don't cop out and claim this is about your differing opinion, this is about you trying to have a different conversation! It's hard to have any relative discussion with you when each posts of yours reflexively points towards others instead of addressing the issues being raised raised and it appears you're attempting to avoid any critical discussion of Islam. Now THAT - that is the biggest issue. If someone goes off about the beheading trend, and you're embracing the tiny bit of murky ethical grey area left all because you hate the idea of an us vs. them scenario - then you're missing the boat.

[mburbank]

"No, I read the essay. Did you? "
-Alphaboy

Uh-huh. I reacted to it differently than you did. I know that's almost beyond comrpehension. That's why I made you a thread where I promise to abide by your rules. I just can't see doing that here, because this conversation was already in full swing when you showed up.

"so I'm suggesting you stay within the scope of the editorial above if you'd like to discuss it."
-Alphababy

Suggest away. It's a free country. I suggest you go to the thread I set up for you and I promise I'll take your suggestions there. I think you are being very rude in this thread, with your 'suggestions'. In this thread, I will adress the issues I see raised by the editorial, and not the ones you insist are the only ones in it. There were people already talking here. Don't be such a bully.

"and while we're at it, we really don't need one more. "
-Alphabachoo.

I agree. I think we only need one, with special rules, beause it seems to upset you when you can't isnist on the shape of the cpversation. I have already agree to let you be sole arbitor in the thread I set up. I don't see myself letting you do that anywhere else.

"I'm not here to give lectures."
-Alphaboffthedeepend

You know when I said you can't do comedy? I was wrong.

"I'm not asking for a safe zone thread where you play by my rules....are you that idiotic to think you're disagreeing?"
-alphabasolopsist

Funnier, even. You don't have to play by my rules, you just have to say that if you think your disagreeing with me you're an idiot! You don't have to play by my rules! Just admit that when you say you are disagrfeeing with me you aren't!

"You readily admit you agree on most every point which is relevant,"
Alphabanuts

And I don't need you to play by my rules, you just have to let me decide what's relevant and you can't have any say about that at all! YOU JUST HAVE TO LET ME DEFFINE THE TERMS!!

"this is about you trying to have a different conversation!"
Alphabingbong.

I was having a conversation when you showed up, Rudey McRude Rude. You showed up insisting the conversation wasn't about what it has to be about. Forgive e for thinking you need a thread where you make the rules. Are you uncomfortbale with the idea of my hewing to your deffinitions?

"it appears you're attempting to avoid any critical discussion of Islam."
-Aphabahooboy
Do you want me to go retitle your thread "A critical discussion of Islam in which nothing is brought up Abcdxx doesn't agree bears on the issue?" You seem to need this, and I'll do it, but I won't do it in a thread that already had a perfectly good discussion going.