Letters to the Editor
-
Berkman and Golden Boy
The debate between Berkman and Golden Boy reveals the perils of labeling people rather than their actions. IRA militants killed both soldiers and civilians. You can make a case for their attacks on British soldiers being guerilla activity, but their targeting of other Northern Irish was nothing but terrorism.
Iraq is very similar - only viciousness and the multiplicity of parties distinguishes it. As in Ireland, the "guerillas" in Iraq aren't merely targeting American serviceperons, they are also targeting other Iraquis, largely civilian (or civilians standing in line to enlist or train as Iraqi police or soldiers . . .).
It is certainly true that President Feeb's ayudministrashun has obfuscated the nature of terrorists to a point where the term has little meaning for citizens interested in policy. But I think it's also true that it is pernicious to use the term "guerilla" to dignify civilians who murder other civilians to make some sort of psycopathic political point, targeting them merely because they aren't the **right kind** of Muslim.
And if terrorism consists of targeting civilians to motivate them to make political change, doesn't that make the United States' Eight Air Force a terrorist organization? Seems to me that a lot of German civilians who lived through 1944-45 might answer, "Yes." Surely that's not what we mean when we say "terrorist."
-
CJGClark
CJGClark,
No one is going to argue that there is no non-Muslim violence in the world. The question at issue is whether or not Bush's neo-con policies have created Muslim violence. Kamiya argues that they have; I point out that Muslim terrorism long predates neoconservatism, thus dealing (in my opinion anyway!) Kamiya's thesis a fatal blow. I further point to the fact that the country that has probably suffered the most from Muslim terrorism, India, is not a supporter of Israel either, so that canard would not seem to tell the whole story either.
Now it is perfectly valid to say that you think Bush has aggravated the problem of Muslim terrorism, and that he has mishandled it; I would agree with you about that. However that still leaves the question of why Muslims practice terrorism in the first place.
I brought up the fact that Muslims are in general conflict all over the world with those of other faiths in a way that those other faiths are not. It is no good to point to the Congo, probably the worst and bloodiest of those conflicts, and hold that out as an excuse for Muslims. Tribes are hacking each other to bits all over the world, unfortunately; the conflict in the North of Ireland is the most benign and restrained example of that which lingers still even in the Western world. Belfast, however, is no worse off than Oakland (I've been to both places), and for much the same reasons.
But here's the rub, CJGClark, and there's no getting around it: none of this gets Muslims off the hook. There has been directed, organized, and vicious violence targeted at non-Muslim civilians all over the world, and saying that it's Bush's fault is 1) wrong and 2) stupid. Bush didn't cause it and the worst you can say about it is that he isn't solving it. That's a long way off from the utterly simply minded "thinking" of too many progressives.
Muslim doctors attempt to murder Scots; middle-class Muslims fly jetliners into skyscrapers; rebel Muslims behead Phillippine schoolgirls; Muslim housewives dance in the street with joy after 9/11; Muslim imams in the UK preach open murder; Muslim activists threaten Danish journalists; - come on CGJClark, there is a thread holding this all together. It's not poverty, it's not the oppression of the Palestinians or even the existence of Israel, it's not the policies of the 43rd president of the United States.
It is I*LAM. And you know it.
Golden Boy
Hey Professor, take a shot at my two questions if you want.
-
CJGClark doesn't always know her history
In the Balkans the violence was started by Serbia, brought in Croatia and was directed AGAINST the local Muslims who are known as Bosnians.
That is a patently false representation of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Check out UN document (GENERAL A/48/299 S/26261) for starters if you want to read about Muslim attacks AGAINST Serbs. Only the NATO-countries’ media felt the need to take a complex, three-way civil war and make it into a simple good vs. evil morality tale. I am not saying the Serbs did not commit atrocities, etc. but all forces involved did, including NATO whose bombing knowingly targeted civilians and caused the greatest refugee crisis in the conflict (Serbs fleeing their homeland in what is now Croatia). The fact that more Serbs than Muslims and Croats (and in turn more Croats than Muslims) have been brought before the court in the Hague is merely a case of voctor’s justice if there ever was one in my opinion.
The Serbian anger at Muslims dates back to 1389 when the Serbs were defeated by the Ottomans.
Not just defeated, try brutally occupied a Christian land by force for five hundred years. Anyone that waves about colonialism to justify Muslim grievances hands the Serbs a ready excuse for their anger. The mass murder of Serbs by the Croatian Ustashe (Catholic fascist) allies (not collaborators, but allies) of Nazi Germany during WWII also fed more recent grievances.
Of course, the bloodbath of WWII had nothing to do with Muslims.
"Nothing?" Also not true. Muslims in Bosnia collaborated with the Nazis and on a larger scale the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a relative of Yassar Arafat, visited Hitler, reviewed Muslim Nazi troops as captured in an infamous photo, encouraged the genocide of the Jews in Europe and expressed his hope to see the same in Palestine. There are other minor incidents of Muslism aiding Nazi efforts to round up Jews in North Africa.
-
for Victoria L
The Croats collaborated with the Nazis. The Serbs were called "partisans" and fought against the Nazis. I doubt the Muslims played a big role one way or the other, but I'll check it out.
It's quite apparent from your posts (and I looked at some earlier ones too) that you are very anti-Muslim. I doubt there's much common ground. If I say that the Rustem Pasha Camii in Istanbul is a gem I'd expect you to come up with some story about how it was built out of the bones of slaughtered Christians or something.
I'm going to get some sources for the 1980's Balkan wars. Do you defend Slobodan Milosevic too?