Sunday
I just do not understand it. When Spain capitulated to attacks from Islamic fascists and elected a socialist government who promptly pulled its troops out of coalition operations... a policy we have been told by many that the USA and UK should follow in order to stop provoking the Islamists... that should have been the end of Spain's non-Basque terrorist problems. Presumably the nice people from the Al Qaeda Global Franchise were utterly delighted by the developments in Spain and were certain to fulsomely reward this behaviour. After all, we are often assured by writers in both the mainstream media and paleo-conservative/paleo-libertarian circles that this is what governments in the West must do if we are ever to sooth Islamic sensibilities: we leave them alone and they will leave us alone, right?
Yet strangely, far from redirecting their efforts and assets to ply their 'trade' against the more active members of the coalition, Islamic militants continue to get arrested in ever so repentant Spain.
Gosh, one might almost think that leaving them alone is not enough! Surely some misunderstanding?
That's the idea: you stop wasting your time putting band-aids on the boo-boos of foreigners, and you use your resources, in your own country, to arrest those people who are actually close enough to do you some harm.
Now if you think Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Israel or South Korea or North Korea or some other country is more important that the United States, then I can see how you'd want us to keep wasting our money, leading with our chins, and tempting economic collapse. I can even see why the Brits might want to see us taken down a notch after the 'late unpleasantness'. But I cannot imagine why an American would think that keeping Sunnis from killing Shiites, or visa versa, is worth a single American life.
Posted by Rich Paul at January 20, 2008 04:22 AM
I am sure that all seemed coherent to you when you pressed the publish button but I have only the vaguest idea what the hell you are talking about.
If I understand you (a big if), you think I am objecting to Spain arresting Islamists in Spain? And maybe you think the already formidable Spanish anti-terrorist capability (ever heard of ETA?) had previously been deployed to Iraq? And the UK wants to 'take the USA down a notch?' Why exactly is unclear to me.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 20, 2008 04:33 AM
From what I glean, he thinks we should focus on arresting terror suspects domestically, rather than pursuing them abroad.
As for Britain still holding a grudge about the American Revolution, that is just silly.
Posted by Evan at January 20, 2008 04:45 AM
I have made this argument in an expanded form in other posts, so I will not elaborate the entire position again here.
The only people, culture, and religion seriously in danger of extinction in the current confrontation is Islam.
Until they come to their senses and realize that they are taunting a civilization, a cultural entity, which colonized most of the known world, and enthusiastically slaughtered both their internal and external enemies by the dozens of millions over the last few centuries, they will dance ever closer to the abyss.
Western culture, in myriad variations and permutations around the globe, is now the de facto world culture.
If they go far enough to actually generate a fear of societal danger, such as the use of nuclear or other catastrophic weapons, the last follower of islam will die desperately claiming he never was, but no one will care any more.
Those protesting and defending him will already be dead, as will be anyone attempting to regenerate his faith.
This grim future can only be avoided if those capable of reinterpreting islam away from its current lunacy gain preeminence in their world. How this might happen I do not know.
What I do know is that nothing less can save them, and us, from a nightmare that will last for a long, long time.
Posted by veryretired at January 20, 2008 05:01 AM
Evan - that may be so, but the (rather obvious) point has still gone over Rich Paul's head. I take this post to be a rebuttal of all those insisting we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan because "if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone - problem solved."
Posted by James Waterton at January 20, 2008 05:04 AM
I take this post to be a rebuttal of all those insisting we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan because "if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone - problem solved."
Indeed. If only it was that simple.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 20, 2008 05:13 AM
Why does any country issue visas to Pakistanis? Have our rulers no sense? Well, we know the answer to that ,don't we?
Posted by renminbi at January 20, 2008 05:15 AM
Withdrawal from the Middle East is only half the equation in preventing Islamic terrorist acts. The other half would be exclusion of all Moslems from the West.
While Western military intervention on Arab land is the primary motivation for al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, extremely lax immigration laws provide Islamic terrorists with the perfect opportunity to commit violent acts.
Until the West completely disengages itself from the Arab world - (militarily, financially, and otherwise) - we will continue to be threatened by Islam.
Posted by Raskolnikov at January 20, 2008 05:39 AM
It's not so much that withdrawing from the middle east will make them stop wanting to attack us, it's that it will reduce their ability to act on those wants.
Posted by Stormy Dragon at January 20, 2008 06:58 AM
They attacked Spain not just because Aznar was an enthusiastic buddy of W on the great crusade but because they want Al Andalus back. Yes they do. Oh, I know, long time ago and lots of water under the bridge and all that but these people have long memories. Shia v Sunni violence is rife and that goes back to some geezer called Ali getting offed 1300 years ago.
Posted by Nick M at January 20, 2008 08:51 AM
very,
they are taunting a civilization, a cultural entity, which colonized most of the known world, and enthusiastically slaughtered both their internal and external enemies
The civilization you speak about changed. What you say was true a century ago. The Islamists now think the West is a paper tiger. I'm not sure they are wrong.
Posted by Jacob at January 20, 2008 09:59 AM
Danegeld.
Correct.
A dhimi must pay tribute to the Islamist Masters. Then, maybe, if they so please, they will leave him alone.
Posted by Jacob at January 20, 2008 10:03 AM
Then, maybe, if they so please, they will leave him alone.
No,
By their own laws, they must then protect him from harm.
Whether they then obey their own laws is a different issue, given that a non muslim may not testify against a muslim, and a muslim may not testify, against a muslim, in favour of a kafir. Under those circumstances enforcement of this much admired sharia is moot.
Posted by CountingCats at January 20, 2008 11:56 AM
Jacob,
I'm sure you already know this, but of course the tribute can constitute not being left alone in itself. The taxes were designed to be crippling, and if that wasn't enough there was always that ultimate form of taxation, the devshirme. (Which is not in that extreme a requirement of Islamic law, but not forbidden either.)
The culture of the West still has the potential to roll right over Islam, but we have to actually use it, not just talk about how we're capable of doing it.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at January 20, 2008 12:24 PM
The Spanish socialists (and many others) forget to factor in that western countries are damned if they do and damned if they don't regarding Islamic terrorism: stand aside and pursue non-interventionist policies - as in the first phase of the Yugoslav war - and bin Laden and his ilk will accuse you of condoning the slaughter of Muslims; intervene - as in Somalia and East Timor - and your nation will be accused of "Christian land grab" and "imperialism" by the fruitier elements of the Islamic world. Ron Paul, Rich Paul, and the paleocons need to realise we're not dealing with people susceptible to logic.
Posted by James at January 20, 2008 12:30 PM
So it's a 100% agreed upon that Jose got the boot purely because the Spanish are yellow? If this is so then sorry but I don't agree. The Spanish had several reasons for disliking the wee man. His handling of the train bombings was the last straw.
Posted by WalterBoswell at January 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Good post, Perry; this activity undermines Ron Paul's idiotic idea that 9/11 etc was created out of a "blowback" for the real or perceived activities of the USA. It wasn't.
Maybe al-Q is still cheesed off about the suppression of Barbary piracy, the explulsion of the Moors from Spain and various other slights. The trouble is, is that even if the USA/others were to remove much of their military presences from the supposed pristine soil of the Islamic world, we still live in a global trading world, where the West will continue to come into contact with the Muslim world, and this will piss some of the latter off. We cannot build a massive wall around the Middle East and continue in our merry way. (If only).
That is not to say, of course, that states, such as Spain should not try to avoid unecessarily annoying Islamic nations or groups; to coin a phrase by the libertarian blogger - who made a bit of an ass of himself recently, admittedly - the first intelligent step by any government is "to stop borrowing trouble". Pre-emptive wars to overthrow tyrants may be admirable, but classical liberals/conservatives, of all people, should never forget the old rule of unintended consequences, particularly when the reasons given for such wars, such as WMD, turn out to be less than rock-solid. And while I don't buy the rigid notion that war is always the health of the state - there are exceptions - one needs to retain a healthy skepticism about the wisdom of intervention in the affairs of other nations when intervention in one's own national affairs often proves to be a mistake. The insights of Hayek or Milton Friedman don't just apply to domestic policy, after all.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at January 20, 2008 01:44 PM
Ooops, the blogger I referred to in the above post was Jim Henley.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at January 20, 2008 01:47 PM
Absolutely James!
The big beef ObL had with the USA was infidel boots (some of them on female feet. The horror!) in the holy land. Yet what were they doing there? Oh yes, defending the land of the two holy mosques from a secular dictator. And for that the USA got 9/11.
If you talk to Muslims in Europe they will tell you our politics and media is biased towards "The Zionists". Clearly they don't read the Independent. Does anybody? This despite the fact we bankroll the Palis with mucho moolah. I assume, if there is a reason for this willfully poor judgement from the muslims it's that mainstream European politics and media doesn't continually witter on about "wiping Israel from the page of time".
As an aside yet a serious question. The above quote from Mahmoud Asmadasahatta is generally trotted out to deny he said anything about wiping Israel off the map. I can't help but feel this "page of time" stuff is even nastier. Am I alone in thinking this?
Short version is that they hate us and that they will use any pretext however flimsy (indeed sometimes imaginary) to attack us. It is frequently forgotten that the video "will" of Mohammed Siddique Khan (leader of the 7/7 bombers) isn't just the five minute version they show on the telly where he's on about Iraq and stuff, most of his comments are rambling on about how imams in the UK have lost touch with "real Islam" and care more about having a detached house with a Merc in the drive... etc.
Quite how that is a beef with London commuters is beyond me. My only explanation is that he felt inchoate rage against the West and everything it stood for (including the "corruption of imams") although quite how aspiring to own a nice house and car is betraying anything is, I must admit, beyond me.
It is rage, pure and simple. It is the hatred of being a true-believer and seeing your utopia go down the tubes while the despised unbelievers progress.
Pa,
So how exactly do you plan to use the steam-roller of Western Culture against Islam? I have previously outlined my ideas on Samizdata but basically I just think we need to hit 'em with both barrels, with the full glory of it*, and if that means the murky world of black propaganda and flooding Iran and Saudi with Big Jugs Monthly and Victory Gin then so be it. I'd much rather phwoar, phwoar than war, war.
Of course, we have to get rid of idiotarians like Jacqui Smith who's recent redefinition of Islamic Terrorism as "Anti-Islamic Acts" must be giving Abu Hamster et al great amusement. Google it. It appeared in the Mail and the Telegraph.
Apologies to Mr Churchill.
*In the Humpty Dumpty sense of the word.
Posted by Nick M at January 20, 2008 01:48 PM
Pa annoyed says:
The culture of the West still has the potential to roll right over Islam, but we have to actually use it, not just talk about how we're capable of doing it..........How true.
Regrettably, our democratic system ensures that the testicularly deprived have equal but much shriller voices.
In The Septic Isle, a long-standing policy of promoting unrestricted immigration of cultural & religious primitives who have absolutely nothing in common with the indigenes means that if draconian repatriation measures are not taken, 'rolling right over' would mean civil war. The outcome of such a tragedy is not in doubt.
Islam may well be a problem in the hands of radicals but there is a far greater problem, in my opinion. The real problem is "us" and the sooner we decide whether we wish to survive or not the better. Time is short. "Res non verba"
Posted by permanentexpat at January 20, 2008 02:06 PM
The success of police operations in Spain, of which this is an example, in arresting the progress of militant Islam is a vindication of the paleocon approach to dealing with terrorism. True, there exists irrational violent radicals willing to committ suicide in the furtherance of their ideology. Since the attacks in 2004, 300 such extremists have been arrested by the Spanish police in raids such as this one, and there has since been no further loss of life, so far as I am aware, as a result of Islamist activity in Spain. But 300 extremists (I'm sure there are more, yet undiscovered) pales into comparison with the size of Spain's Islamic population: 1.3 million. The successful arrest and detention of the criminals has not required military action and proves that a proportionate response to this threat is the use of targeted resources to tackle specific individuals, rather than the indiscriminate conquest and occupation of foreign nations.
It seems to me, however, to be deliberately myopic to insist that the effects of Western intervention in Iraq are negligible as a source of terrorism, particularly that terrorism which takes place in Iraq. The paleoconservative contention is that the appeal of radical Islamic groups to the victims of Western foreign policy is exacerbated when that policy has substantial 'collateral damage,' or when it is employed to the defence of favoured reprssive governments, like those of the Shah of Iran, the Saud family and Pervez Musharraf. The result of this action is to affiliate hitherto disparate groups along a common anti-Western thread.
The best approach to minimising the number of radicals targeted against the West is to cease our affiliation with provocative governments, like Israel and Saudi Arabia; their continued existence ought to be their own concern. It is not from cowardice that we should pursue this, but from self-interest - we mustn't, as in Iraq, become stubborn defenders of 'honour,' suffering massive casualties merely to save face. Embroiling ourselves in middle-Eastern border disputes and the maintenance of military regimes is not sensible if we act out of a desire to be left alone - that is, left in peace; if, to the contrary, we desire either some beneficient role as international stewards or a financially rewarding empire, we must accept that we will sacrifice the freedom to be left in peace.
This, to me, is the ultimate end of libertarianism, to allow individuals to live their lives without compulsion from forces inside or outside of the state: the present policy merely exacerbates the external threat by creating more enemies of the West ripe for indoctrination - the sons and widows of the civilian dead - which justifies ever greater internal intrusion into our lives, and hence increases the growth of state power.
Posted by Andrew Roocroft at January 20, 2008 02:10 PM
So it's a 100% agreed upon that Jose got the boot purely because the Spanish are yellow?
No, but that was a major plank on which the socialists ran.
The success of police operations in Spain, of which this is an example, in arresting the progress of militant Islam is a vindication of the paleocon approach to dealing with terrorism.
Except it is nothing of the sort. Are you suggesting a more interventionist approach predicates less effort at internal security? There have been similar arrests in the UK, USA and Australia. Hell, there have been arrests of Islamists in Switzerland and Kenya and there are insurgencies in the Philippines and Thailand, not places known for their extravagant foreign policies.
This, to me, is the ultimate end of libertarianism, to allow individuals to live their lives without compulsion from forces inside or outside of the state
For sure. I doubt Osama bin Laden agrees however.
the present policy merely exacerbates the external threat by creating more enemies of the West ripe for indoctrination - the sons and widows of the civilian dead
And that is why the ongoing events in Spain go a long way to falsifying the whole paleo conservative/paleo-libertarian theory of foreign affairs. Spain withdrew from the fight but the fight did not withdraw from Spain.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 20, 2008 02:28 PM
permanentexpat:
Islam may well be a problem in the hands of radicals but there is a far greater problem, in my opinion. The real problem is "us" and the sooner we decide whether we wish to survive or not the better.
There is no such thing as "us" - or, as Ayn Rand might have put it, "we." Collectivism of all shades, including that that you propound, which seems to be one of outright racism ('indigenes', 'repatriation' &c), is flawed because it blames an individual for actions that he didn't choose to perform, for vague cultural, racial or religious reasons.
Nick M:
The big beef ObL had with the USA was infidel boots (some of them on female feet. The horror!) in the holy land. Yet what were they doing there? Oh yes, defending the land of the two holy mosques from a secular dictator. And for that the USA got 9/11.
Do you think the US should have defended Saudi Arabia, then? It seems to me that there was no reason whatsoever to justify supporting a tyrannical theocracy over a tyrannical secular dictatorship, and that, even if there were such a justification (eg defending democratic Israel from say, Egypt, for democratic solidarity) to follow it would not be in the interest of America or Britain, assuming, as Barry Goldwater said, that "if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty."
Posted by Andrew Roocroft at January 20, 2008 02:34 PM
Jacob - the fact is that the uniquely Western combination of inquisitive free thought and the free market is incredibly productive - intellectually and economically - and this has allowed us to outwit and outproduce our more numerous opponents on the battlefield and in the market. Certainly, a lot of people in the West are living in an ignorance afforded by the prosperity that comes as a result of our cultural model. I think these folk lack historical perspective, but I am not surprised by their (often apparently wilful) insouciance to clear and present danger because we are living in a golden age and they are the fortunate, blinkered children of that age. I think (and hope) that a proper existential shock to these peoples' systems would snap them out of their blissful ignorance.
Veryretired is right. The West in total war mode is the most terrifying force ever known to humankind. And let's not lose sight of the fact that part of the reason why the Western model is so great is because we don't shift into total war mode very often.
Posted by James Waterton at January 20, 2008 02:57 PM
Are you suggesting a more interventionist approach predicates less effort at internal security?
Of course not; as I said at the end of the paragraph, this is an indication that "the successful arrest and detention of the criminals has not required military action and proves that a proportionate response to this threat is the use of targeted resources to tackle specific individuals," in contrast to an indiscriminately interventionist foreign policy, which creates more enemies than it defeats.
Spain withdrew from the fight but the fight did not withdraw from Spain.
But the probability of success of Spain winning "the fight" has been much increased by the fact that it now has to face fewer people radicalised by seeing their co-religionists and family killed by the actions of Spanish troops. Suppose Russia or China were to invade the Vatican; Catholics internationally would not be irrational in their rush to the defence of their co-religionists. Similarly, rational Muslims - the vast majority, as the figures I pointed out proved (300 extremists so far arrested out of 1.3 million Spanish Muslim population) - are unlikely to sympathise with a fringe religious interpretation unless they feel that that sect is a vanguard in a wider confrontation between Islam and the West, to which it seems some comments here are belligerently looking forward. The ideological overthrow of the government of Iraq is an irrelevancy in radicalising Iraqi Muslims - it is the cost of doing so in Iraqi lives that causes formerly mainstream Muslims to sympathise with Jihadist elements.
Posted by Andrew Roocroft at January 20, 2008 03:03 PM
And how have the police known who to arrest except by wiretaps and "coercive " interrogation ? War and coercion are not good but sometimes they are necessary,but some of our libertarian brothers mean to be pure as the driven snow.
Posted by renminbi at January 20, 2008 03:18 PM
NickM,
"So how exactly do you plan to use the steam-roller of Western Culture against Islam?"
Refuse in absolute terms to compromise our own values on liberty and free speech, expose the orthodox roots of Jihad, Shariah, and the truth of Islamic history to the daylight of critical scrutiny, systematically challenge apologists and propagandists in public debate, root them out of our prison system, apply the full weight of international law and human rights enforcement to the Palestinians and other Muslim grievance theatres, publicise the treatment of minorities and women in Islamic countries much more, and apply significant pressure on Muslims to seriously and unambiguously acknowledge and then reform the intolerant parts of Islam rather than just ignoring or hiding them.
And yes, ensure that Muslims get access to all the fun things a Western lifestyle can bring, and provide the technological tools by which they can bypass and hide what they're doing from the censors and theocrats and muttaween. (Speaking of which, did you ever read the Religious Policeman's blog? That's just one example of the sort of thing I'd be thinking about.)
Permanentexpat,
When I said to use the culture of the West, I meant it. The aim is not to keep them out, but to convert them to our way of thinking. The carrot and stick in this case are freedom and prosperity versus embarrassment and social exposure. (They can of course keep their ritual and belief in Allah and the five pillars and such. We can incorporate that stuff easily along with everything else we do.) But we can carry out this conversion process far more easily over here, where we control the rules and are in a majority. Then, when we have a few million adherents to a reformed and pacified Islam, we can export it back.
It was, I think, the original intention behind multiculturalism, but rather than accept the OK superficialities that add life and colour to culture and apply pressure to drop only the parts that conflicted with our core values, we ended up accepting everything and corrupting our core values. Rather than converting, we wound up being converted. That has to stop, but that doesn't mean that the only alternative is ethnic isolationism or a hot war. We can do it, and given how much better our way of life is than theirs, rather easily I would think, but we have to recognise the need (and the right) to make the effort.
And at the same time, we have to stop knocking our own culture and technological way of life so much, when we have got so much to be grateful for. Not blind patriotism, or complacency, but a respectful acknowledgement of just how much we do have and how far we have come. A little bit of Western pride is in order.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at January 20, 2008 03:42 PM
it is the cost of doing so in Iraqi lives that causes formerly mainstream Muslims to sympathise with Jihadist elements.
Where did you get that info ? In the MSM ?
I think that a very great majority of Iraqis are very grateful toward the US that it has deposed the murderous tyrant, and feel deep friendship toward it, as contrasted to deep animosity engendered by the relentless anti US propaganda of Saddam and the Islamist - before 2003.
Sure, a good number of Iraqi Islamo-nuts still fight agains the US, but the number is decreasing. It is the terrorists that kill most of the Iraqi victims, and Iraqis know this, and their response is - more oposition to the Islamo-nuts.
So, your whole mantra "the more we fight them the more they hate us and more terrorists are born" is totally false. You just parrot the leftie MSM out of ignorance, becuase it fits your ideology, which, in this case, you share with the MSM.
The war in Iraq does cost the US money and blood, and it's final results are unknown, but the claim that it creates more terror is absolute nonsense.
Posted by Jacob at January 20, 2008 04:06 PM
There are many people (Pournelle comes to mind) who think the whole dust-up is ultimately a reaction to the cultural influences of the West. That our "cultural weapons of mass destruction" have forced the adherents of the 7th century version of Islam to attack us or risk seeing their children listening to Britney Spears and questioning the power structure.
Posted by Eric at January 20, 2008 04:07 PM
it is the cost of doing so in Iraqi lives that causes formerly mainstream Muslims to sympathise with Jihadist elements.
Sorry, no sale. This started well before Iraq and it will continue long after Iraq is a footnote in history. I am probably not going to convince you or visa versa. I regard pretty much your entire thesis as based on fairly profound misreadings of history but I see little point in arguing it as the disagreement is as complete as that of believers in God and non-believers.
An argument can be made that Iraq was not a good place to get into a war (I disagree but the argument to the contrary does have merit), however even if I did agree that does not lead to the conclusion that interventionist wars are therefore a bad idea in principle purely because they are not defensive at one causal step. It does not take two people to start a fight, just one. And also this is an ideologically based war, not a police matter, and wars are rarely won simply by defending yourself on your own turf.
The only argument I buy to the (sort of) contrary is that as our cultural and military superiority is so overwhelming, all we have to do is contain them (a la Cold War) and attack them culturally until they become us. That said I am still not sure that negates well chosen interventions and it begs the question of our own suicidal multicultural 'fifth column'.
But the disagreement is possibly at the axiomatic level so it might be a pointless discussion.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 20, 2008 04:15 PM
Andrew Roocroft,
Regarding that "vast majority"...
It is a little publicised fact that under Sharia, the aggressive form of Jihad is fard al kifaya, a communal obligation. This means that so long as a sufficient number of the community carry it out, the rest are absolved of the responsibility, but if nobody carries it out, the sin lays on every individual. The defensive form of Jihad is on the other hand is fard al :ayn, an individual obligation, and something every Muslim is obliged to do.
Thus, you cannot deduce from the fact that only a small number engage in aggressive Jihad, that therefore only a small number support it. And of course there are other means of supporting Jihad that are allowed for in Sharia; in particular, the zakat or charity every Muslim is obliged to offer may be to raise weapons or resources for Jihad. Many of the Islamic charities set up for zakat funnel money through to the terrorists, and many of the givers know it.
We don't really know how many really support what you might call the "extremist" positions, although technically they're actually the traditional orthodox ones. But surveys indicate that in the UK about 5% support violent Jihad in at least some circumstances, 15% directly support the Islamist cause (as in the Taliban and Osama), and around 40% support the implementation of Sharia in Western countries. I think under-reporting of such opinions to be more likely than over-reporting, but if we take those figures as the best estimate we've got, that means that while it is true that it is only a minority posing a problem, it is by no means a tiny minority. What's more, the situation seems to be getting worse, with more and more mosques being taken over by the haters.
Foreign policy does not make them like us, and it does act as a focus for the resentment, but it does have significant tactical advantages too. We don't like their foreign policy, but for some reason this argument is only ever applied one way. We should not let them get away with the idea that if they don't like a policy they can legitimately use violence to try to make us change it. What if we all did that? About policies like multiculturalism, for example? It's a convenient excuse - as is shown in the current post, they can always find some reason.
But in general we gain far more from the disruption of their activities than we lose from the publicity. And there is nothing that helps their recruitment more than letting them think they're winning, or that puts a crimp in it like seeing us comprehensively smash their organisation somewhere like Iraq without them gaining a thing. Everybody always wants to be on the winning side.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at January 20, 2008 04:20 PM
Pa,
You are behind the times.
And at the same time, we have to stop knocking our own culture and technological way of life so much, when we have got so much to be grateful for.
Don't you know we are greedily overconsuming resources and destroying our planet and it's species, and therefore "our own culture and technological way of life" are a plague wich has to be stopped lest the earth turns burns?
This is now our new "own" culture - luddism and worship of the "noble" savage. As I said to "very" - Western culture and values have changed over the last century.
Posted by Jacob at January 20, 2008 04:21 PM
Pa Annoyed says, along with a raft of good argument:
Permanentexpat,
When I said to use the culture of the West, I meant it. The aim is not to keep them out, but to convert them to our way of thinking.
It is our culture which they find so abhorrent (I confess to some sympathy there) and about which there's so much seething...and they are much more single-minded than we are in imposing their culture on us...by any means.
Whingeing Poms are very quickly made aware of the antipathy they cause & are cordially invited to take the next cattle-plane back to The Septic Isle; yet we welcome analphabetic throwbacks and bend over in all directions to accomodate their primitive prejudices. I repeat, it's not their fault, it's ours. Britain has been, over the years & much like the U.S., a melting pot. Those whom we took in wanted to integrate with the indigenes and, while keeping their various religions & customs within their personal spheres, achieved their aims & became an integral part of a great nation. That is not the present situation.
Posted by permanentexpat at January 20, 2008 04:27 PM
Yes, the traditionalists find our culture abhorrent, but they aren't the only sort of Muslim. (And indeed, those sort are less likely to have emigrated here.) And we have a good shot at their children, too. Kids get a lot of their views from their peers at school, rather more than their parents. Unfortunately, the nutballs got to the kids first, and are running a deliberate campaign to radicalise them. We need to do the same.
There are some we'll never get. But most Muslims, like most Christians, are profoundly ignorant of the rules and details of their own religion. And many are happy to ignore large chunks of it if it proves convenient. (For example, it's forbidden under Sharia to live permanently among the kuffar and follow their ways, so they're pretty much all in violation, anyway.) It's a start we need to build on.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at January 20, 2008 04:40 PM
Don't you know we are greedily overconsuming resources and destroying our planet and it's species, and therefore "our own culture and technological way of life" are a plague wich has to be stopped lest the earth turns burns?Of course we can find many espousing this point of view, however it's an incredibly indulgent one. Only the most privileged of humanity - surrounded and succoured by the largesse of what they claim to despise - are able to concern themselves over such things. Also, the propagation of such views are subject to a willing popular market, which would be rather less so if there was a legitimate, visceral threat to their wellbeing (such as a WMD going off in a major Western city).
The a large number of the Western people have become rather complacent and even deeply confused; on that point I agree with you. However, I don't think the underlying strength of the Western model has dissipated. Perhaps we are in appeasement mode now. We've been there before, but Chamberlain's reign didn't last forever. At that time, it took a nasty and painful shock to remind us of our core values. Unfortunately, it may be necessary to go through that again.
Posted by James Waterton at January 20, 2008 04:47 PM
The belief that keeping to oneself,minding ones own business,avoiding eye contact or giving affront to others will keep one out of trouble is very touching but does not resemble any reality either now or historically.
The appeasers and multiculties have given the impression the West is up for grabs. The application of violence,noisy outrage and political pressure seems to be guaranteeing submission.What better goal for those from poor dysfunctional countries than to take over lands where the work has been done? Worked on the entire Middle East.
Posted by Ron Brick at January 20, 2008 04:58 PM
Pa.........right again!
Kids get a lot of their views from their peers at school, rather more than their parents.
Ah yes, our very own Anglo-Saxon feral yoof. Congratulations to all you blinkered baby-boomers for your outstanding parenting skills...and gleeful acceptance of hundreds of thousands of mediaeval aliens to complement your arrogant stupidity. Your parents should have made more use of condoms.
Posted by permanentexpat at January 20, 2008 05:14 PM
That's the idea: you stop wasting your time putting band-aids on the boo-boos of foreigners, and you use your resources, in your own country, to arrest those people who are actually close enough to do you some harm.
This is all, of course, hypocritical bullshit because the second you do anything of the sort Rich Paul and his mates will throw a thousand fits about the civil liberties of the terrorist in question whilst hysterically screaming about fascism to anyone foolish enough to listen.
Such disinegenousness is despicable, but ubiquitous among the "tough" anti-war crowd.
Posted by Gabriel at January 20, 2008 05:44 PM
Jacob:
I think that a very great majority of Iraqis are very grateful toward the US that it has deposed the murderous tyrant, and feel deep friendship toward it, as contrasted to deep animosity engendered by the relentless anti US propaganda of Saddam and the Islamist - before 2003.
Why the United States should especially be concerned with the opinions of Iraqis towards it prior to 2003 is beyond my understanding, though I would venture that those 500,000 children that died between 1991 and 1996 because of US embargoes on medicine to Iraq felt something other than gratitude. Nonetheless, I think that you're missing the point when you talk about tyranny. My contention is that there is two forms of anti-Americanism, one of which is justified, the other unjustified. I would agree with you that the unjustified, irrational Islamist ideology is largely irreconcilable, and that police action should be taken to capture or, if resisting capture, to kill terrorists who plan or engage in attacks against the United States.
The justified anti-Americanism is, however, the more important. Let me give you two examples, taken from the last week at the Iraq Body Count:
Jalawla: US and Iraqi forces kill 7 during overnight raid -5 of them a family of Kurds living in Shaykh Bawa village. When the family did not open their door out of fear, the forces broke down the door and opened fire.
Kut: US forces open fire at intersection killing 4 (a bus driver and 3 construction workers).
If either of these things were to occur in Britain, there would be national fury and understandable rage by the family and friends of the dead. Why are we so surprised, then, when the family and friends of Iraqi victims choose to retaliate against the United States with violence? The cavalier attitude that is taken by the United States towards civilian casualties - and here, for instance, by the description of the Iraq War as a mere "footnote in history" - would never be tolerated at home, and yet it is asserted that Iraqi civilians console themselves with the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. I just can't buy that many people care enough about the form of government under which they live to be willing, on balance, to lose a member of their family for it.
Perry:
This is an ideologically based war, not a police matter, and wars are rarely won simply by defending yourself on your own turf.
You hit on the problem: they don't have any turf on which to attack them. It doesn't therefore follow that it is justified to aggress against a third party's property - namely, the property owned by Iraqis unconnected to terrorism - which is precisely the instrument employed by the US government in its waging of war and occupation. If ultimately private property and self-ownership are the libertarian axioms, then the problem of Islamist ideology, much as with all other attacks on freedom, are ultimately a product of a lack of respect for property rights. Frankly, I think statements like these - "our suicidal multicultural 'fifth column'," "ideologically based war," "the steam-roller of Western Culture," "the West is up for grabs" - are depressing precisely because of their collectivist implications, their 'for us, or for the Islamists' mentality, and their obsession with 'the West' or 'the free world'.
Defending the cause of individualism by compelling all individuals to participate in its defence is inconsistent, and making no distinction between an enemy and a neutral, disinterested party shows a blatant disregard for property. If this is the culture you wish to preserve, feel free to do so - on, and funded by, your own property.
Posted by Andrew Roocroft at January 20, 2008 05:59 PM
"I would venture that those 500,000 children that died between 1991 and 1996 because of US embargoes on medicine to Iraq felt something other than gratitude."
UN embargo and the beginning of the Oil For Food scam
Individualism has no meaning in Islam.
Posted by Ron Brick at January 20, 2008 06:10 PM
Defending the cause of individualism by compelling all individuals to participate in its defence is inconsistent
This is where the wheels come off the whole Rothbardian world view in a spectacular and ultimately fatal manner.
War is a collective threat, much like bubonic plague and city/forest fires. It does not respect individuals or property lines. The world just ain't that nice and clear cut, not because of flawed epistemology or incorrect metaphysics, but the very nature of reality itself.
If an enemy fires a mortar at you from within a crowd of non- combatant, neutrals if you will in your terminology, the ONLY response conducive to survival and simple common sense is to return fire regardless. The results will not be pretty or something any sane person would want as an optimal outcome, but that really is the way anyone who wishes to prevail in a war must act because you can be damn sure the other side will not be so squeamish.
Yes, of course the decent thing to do is to minimise non-combatant causalities, but only to the extent it does not materially undermine one's ability to win a conflict and that logics needs to apply from the tactical all the way up to the strategic when conflict becomes a reality.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 20, 2008 06:35 PM
Pretty sure that Mr. Roocroft's half a million childrens' parents had no association with the Baath party....Sanctions?....with Baathist Syria next door?...and other non-friends of the US happy to fill the gap.
As for the Jalawla & Kut examples of American barbarity it is not just a question of 'stuff happens'. It's easy to quote the incident and leave out the cause thereof. I don't give a damn who he might be but if a man with a gun tells me to stop, that's what I do. Callow maybe but good common sense.
As for what Iraq was, I attach the following for Mr. Roocroft's benefit:
http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn
Posted by permanentexpat at January 20, 2008 06:58 PM
Rich Paul and Andrew Roocroft.
Ron Paul (or rather Lew Rockwell and the other Rothbardians who put the words into his mouth) has said REPEATEDLY that the cause of attacks on the United States (including 9/11) was American forces being in the Middle East and that pulling out would end attacks.
Spain pulled out of the Middle East - and yet the Islamic extremists continue to operate against Spain.
You can twist and turn as much as you like - but your thesis is refuted.
As for your talk of the deaths of Muslim civilians.
The vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan were killed by the enemy - not by American forces. Accepting the al-Quada position that Americans are the ones killing the women and children shows a very odd state of mind indeed - have you considered getting a job with the New York Times?
I would remind you that while death-to-America may be the founding principle of Rothbardianism it is not the founding principle of libertariansism.
Posted by Paul Marks at January 20, 2008 07:23 PM
Saddam had plenty of oil money for food and medical supplies and there was no bar on people in the world selling these things to Iraq.
We have been here before.
The "left and right join hands" movement pushed by Murry Rothbard and Karl Hess back in the 1960's.
This amounted to some "libertarians" accepting every bit of anti American propaganda going - so they could seem "hip" and "with it", just like the S.D.S. and the Weathermen.
"Far out" Andrew Roocroft. But I think you will find that al-Qaeda is not very "groovy".
At least Karl Hess had an excuse.
When questioned about his writings in the 1960s his reply was as follows:
"You should take account of the fact that I was on drugs at the time".
Posted by Paul Marks at January 20, 2008 07:31 PM
Those who are so eager to pronounce the culture of the west exhausted and without the will to act are making a serious error. I spent my adult life with men and women who are never quoted in the media, never invited to give lectures on the "multi-cultural paradigm" at prestigious universities, whose views were often self-censored at the inevitable "sensitivity" or "diversity" seminars because it was too much trouble to argue with the idiot running the thing.
The phrase "more rubble, less trouble" pretty much sums up their general view of any threat to the US and their families, and those are the milder ones.
When you speak of the views of the west changing somehow over the last century, are you remembering that the worst excesses of political and cultural repression and mass murder are every bit as much a part of "the west" as all the nice things we like to think about, perhaps even more so?
Perhaps the "talking heads" and intellectual/cultural elites you hear dominating this subject in the media and academia have convinced you that those are the true representatives of our culture, and that the rough, nasty types that do things like burn Tokyo or Dresden, or invade Iwo Jima, are gone with the wind.
You need to get out more.
Believe me when I say, if you spent some time in a bar with some construction workers, military people, cops and fire fighters, or any number of other blue collar, no bullshit, we don't have to censor ourselves here types, you would be under no such illusion.
I do not welcome this tragic course of events. If there was one thing I could somehow do, even if it meant my life to do it, it would be to awaken the deluded followers of radical, violent islam to the terrible danger they are in, and the precipice they approach with every violent fantasy they attempt to carry out, or do perform.
Visit Auschwitz, speak to the survivors of the famine in Ukraine, speak to some of the old men who went from island to island in the Pacific, and were expecting to die invading China and the Japanese home islands, until a mysterious force saved them, and ended the war. Ask the Vietnamese what it was like to face the full array of our military power on the field, and get the numbers it cost them to do it.
You have been gulled. What you mistake as acquiesence and a lack of resolve is the quiet mutter of those who know it's all crap, but can't argue with the articulate elites, as Shannon Love has so piercingly described them, and get arrested if they punch their lights out, as they would seriously love to do.
Right now, we seem like the tiger in the zoo compound, caged and unable to act like a tiger anymore. But taunt the sleeping cat enough, as some recent fools did, and he will awaken, climb the "insurmountable" barriers, tear you apart, and eat a few bites just to see what you taste like.
If you have never seen the look of the predatory cat in another humans' eyes, you cannot understand the kind of danger I am talking about. I have. Islam lives until it awakens, and then all there will be is blood and death, and regrets to last a hundred years.
But by then it will be much too late.
Posted by veryretired at January 20, 2008 08:56 PM
Defending the cause of individualism by compelling all individuals to participate in its defence is inconsistentThis is where the wheels come off the whole Rothbardian world view in a spectacular and ultimately fatal manner.
What is the purpose of waging the war on terrorism? You have described it, thus far, as "ideologically based war," without defining for what ideology you think the West should be fighting. Is it, as President Bush says, "to defend the homeland... [because] our government's greatest responsibility is to protect the American people"? Or is it to defend an ideology, that men are self-owners and cannot be justly compelled to follow the commands of others without their consent?
The reason I enquire in this regard is because you earlier noted,
But the disagreement is possibly at the axiomatic level so it might be a pointless discussion.
So I spelled out the axioms upon which my argument was based - self-ownership and private property. With which of these is there a "disagreement... at the axiomatic level"?
War is a collective threat, much like bubonic plague and city/forest fires. It does not respect individuals or property lines.
As to the second point, it's moot - nor does criminal activity or environmental conditions, but they don't cause us to abandon private property.
Dealing with the first is more tricky, because of the assumed premise of your argument. The idea that 'war' is something other than aggression against property is, I think, the cause of our disagreement. In its essential components, it consists solely of the use of violence against person and property in order to coerce an individual, or several individuals, to obey the commands of the aggressor. In this respect, it may be considered a 'collective' threat only insofar as it the aggression of one party against several separate individuals who choose to identify themselves as a voluntary collective. I see no substantial difference, for instance, between a government extorting 'its own' citizens and a foreign government doing precisely the same thing, just because you call one 'war' and the other 'taxation.' The act is precisely the same; the actor is the only difference.
So the legitimate basis for responding 'in war' is the same as the legitimate basis for responding to crime - self defence. However, this is universal, and in the defence of one's property, if one knowingly aggresses against a neutral party's property, then you are liable for the consequences - that is, they are legitimately entitled to defend their own property against your aggression, regardless of the justification for your aggression. For this reason, people whose husbands and wives are killed in the 'collateral damage' of war are not 'terrorists' for seeking retribution from the killer. They are, in fact, the terrorised. When the culpable party is a soldier representing the United States (which is perceived, albeit inaccurately, as a voluntary collective of the type I mentioned above), then his action against an innocent makes the citizens of the United States less safe. If a government is to have any end at all, then it must be the prosecution of those who attack the property of its citizens, and no further. Helping to protect other people's property from attack - which is, essentially, what it has done since 2003 (since, after all, Saddam wasn't incriminated in 9/11) - entangles the citizens of the US in further disputes with the casualties of this military action, and makes them more susceptible to being attacked.
permanentexpat:
I don't give a damn who he might be but if a man with a gun tells me to stop, that's what I do. Callow maybe but good common sense.
I see. What about the right to self defence?
Paul Marks:
You can twist and turn as much as you like - but your thesis is refuted.
As I have endeavoured to explain, my 'thesis,' as it were, is that some people have legitimate grievances with America - namely those who are the innocent victims of American military action. Now, being on 'holy soil,' as it were, is a matter for the owner of the soil and his possible guest only. So, were it the case that the US were a voluntary collective and its militia invited by the just owner of a mosque to station troops there, then there would be no rational basis for attacking American citizens. I've repeatedly dissassociated myself with this view, that all attacks on America are legitimate:-
I would agree with you that the unjustified, irrational Islamist ideology is largely irreconcilable, and that police action should be taken to capture or, if resisting capture, to kill terrorists who plan or engage in attacks against the United States.
And, as for your assertion that "death-to-America may be the founding principle of Rothbardianism," I would strongly dissent. The founding principle of anarcho-capitalism is self-ownership and property. If 'America' violates these principles, in dealing with 'its own' citizens or with those outside of its claimed jurisdiction, then there is a legitimate right of self defence against America, which can be exercised by the dispossessed. This isn't "death to America" - it's death to statism, collectivism and democracy, of which America is merely one prominent example.
Oh, and though I didn't intend it to be central to my point (it was included parenthetically, after all), this issue of sanctions on Iraq being neglible, as suggested by Paul Marks, permanentexpat and Ron Brick, I would refer you to Madeleine Albright's answer, when questioned on this figure (from a UN report, incidentally, on the effect of sanctions):
Interviewer:- "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”Albright:- “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
Far from being false, it was openly endorsed as the direct effect of US policy by none other than the Secretary of State.
(Apologies for length, but I'm surprised - given that samizdata proclaims itself to be made up of "recovering neo-conservatives" that withdrawal symptoms are so prominent.)
Posted by Andrew Roocroft at January 20, 2008 09:02 PM
Andrew,
The issue of the purpose of the WoT is a non-entity. It wasn't a choice that Dubya or Blair entered into. We were attacked. We defended ourselves. End of. I would have thought that you would understand that principle of self-defence.
Your reply to permanentexpat is odd to say the least. I don't think pe was waiving his right to self-defense merely pointing out that against overwhelming odds discretion is sometimes the better part of valour. Sheesh.
I don't really understand your point about the US not being a voluntary collective. I really don't know where you are going with that but the folk at the sharp-end (the military) volunteered for the job.
Finally, what would you have done about Saddam. Sanctions to keep him in his cage? It would appear not. An invasion to remove him? Or what's the alternative? Leaving him to his own devices - with his track record? There was no good alternative but presumably one of them was least worst...
Posted by Nick M at January 20, 2008 10:07 PM
What you mistake as acquiesence and a lack of resolve is the quiet mutter of those who know it's all crap, but can't argue with the articulate elites,
very, I'd like to agree with you, but I cannot. You are describing, very eloquently, the older generation. Even Vietnam ended 35 years ago, and that's a generation ago. I'm afraid the younger generation isn't the way you describe the older one. As I said, times changed.
There is a test case before us. All Western leaders have said in very explicit and bold words that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire the Bomb. All have spoken: Bush, Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel. They could issue an ultimatum and act in conjunction, inviting China, Japan, India and Russia to join (fat chance).
They could do something. They are THE WEST.
Well, empty words. They'll do nothing, Iran will get the Bomb. Israel too has no leadership, and will not do anything. Not to mention the next US president, a subject that already depresses me quite some.
Iran isn't afraid of the Western leaders' rhetoric. They are right, you are wrong. The belligerent words you hear from old timers in bars aren't relevant any more...
The West is, maybe, still capable, theoretically, of doing something, but the will just isn't there. Not that Europe, the cradle of the West, has any military capability at all...
Posted by Jacob at January 20, 2008 10:09 PM
P.S.
Even Vietnam ended 35 years ago
Not that Vietnam was something to be proud of... some real victory, something to reminiscence about in bars and tell your children about...
(The irony isn't addressed against the soldiers, who, mostly fought well, but were in no position to change the outcome; it's against the leaders, what is in effect THE WEST).
Posted by Jacob at January 20, 2008 10:16 PM
Jacob,
Who exactly do you think mans our military? They're folks in their 20s and 30s not old timers swapping tales of Na Drang and the Pusan perimeter. I'm 34 years old and I'm no pacifist. And please don't call me a chickenhawk either. My eyesight wasn't up to the RAF standards otherwise I'd perhaps be bombing the fuckers right now. Perhaps I should've joined the Army or something but... Hell, when I left school there didn't seem to be a significant external threat and I went with Plan B - Physics.
Our leadership might be pussified but for every daft sod like Jacqui Smith we've got a Johnson Beharry VC. And ultimately that's what matters.
Posted by Nick M at January 20, 2008 10:46 PM
Nick M:
The issue of the purpose of the WoT is a non-entity. It wasn't a choice that Dubya or Blair entered into. We were attacked. We defended ourselves. End of. I would have thought that you would understand that principle of self-defence.
I wouldn't say that the issue is a non-entity, even if we view it from a purely technical perspective. The "War on Terror" is not a classic war like WW1 or WW2, in which the objective is to defeat the military forces commanded by some foreign government, so that this government could be violently deposed or forced into negotiations or surrender. In a classic war, there is at least a clear definition of what would constitute "victory". For example, in WW2, the victory objective was clear -- the Allied troops marching into Berlin and Tokyo; in this war, nothing like that exists. There is no clear definition of the enemy either, in the sense that in WW2 one could point at concrete Nazi and Japanese soldiers in the field as people who need to be attacked and defeated, and at the government leaderships in Berlin and Tokyo that need to be forced to surrender. And last but not least, there was a clear distinction between allies and enemies, whereas now there exists a complete confusion on this issue (need I say more than that the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are supposed to count as "allies" right now?).
Of course, some objectives pursued as a part of the "War on Terror" had the classic, well-defined form, namely the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam's regime, and these operations were indeed executed as brilliantly as things can ever be from a military point of view. However, these were only tactical objectives that were supposed to be a part of some larger strategic plan -- but this plan seems to be completely vague and undefined.
To put it differently, imagine if you had a magic ability to dictate the policy of the U.S. and other Western countries, and not just that, but also the ability to magically bring instant defeat to any enemies they encounter on the way. What concrete course of events would you use your magic powers to bring? Looking at the present situation, I can't think of a single logically possible course of events that would lead to anything that could be reasonably called a "victory". Therefore, I would say that the purpose of "WoT" is a "non-entity" only in the sense that its strategic vision is so confused that its purpose seems to be nonexistent if we demand anything more concrete than the most vague proclamations.
Posted by Ivan at January 20, 2008 11:06 PM
Ivan,
I agree. It's a total mess but I think we had to fight after 9/11. Sorry Andy Roocroft but 9/11 just meant we had to kill practioners of the religion of peace. No. Fucking. Choice. There was no alternative.
What's my magic solution? I think Islam is evil.
It's that simple.
Posted by Nick M at January 21, 2008 12:12 AM
Jacob---what you are ignoring is that I am not talking about "old timers" reminiscing about the past, but mature citizens of many ages talking about the present and the future.
One of my old friends came to visit me while I was ill. His grandson had just returned from two tours in Iraq as a Ranger. One of his sons is there as a combat officer, and other of his children have served in various capacities, two having attended military academies.
He was a lifer in the Army and Reserves, retiring as a colonel.
Three generations, down to a 25 year grandson. If anyone threatens this country, they will kill and keep killing until the threat is gone.
All in all I find them to be highly admirable men and women of absolute integrity and devotion to their duty.
The term honor was devised to describe this very person, no matter how much it has been perverted or devalued in the popular culture.
If, as ancient as well as modern history demonstrates, the elites get too far removed from the realities of what the common people believe and desire, it is the elites that are replaced, not the beliefs of the people.
I relentlessly drone on about individual rights and a restricted state because I fear the evils of men much more than the vissitudes of an independent life.
You are apparently committed to the belief that the west is finished, sapped of its vitality and energy, much less the ferocity I have been talking about in this thread, by the ravages of modern PC, multi-culti culture.
All I can say to that is, for well or ill, you, and the islamists who share this delusion, are very, very wrong.
Posted by veryretired at January 21, 2008 12:20 AM
Yes, as has been pointed out, we are engaged in something entirely different from the wars to which we have been accustomed and we have to go through a painful learning period to arrive at the correct strategy.
The nearest similarity is, in my opinion, the 'Cold War' when, despite unbelievable destructive power (still extant) on both sides, the West was able to win...because it was about neither territory, nor spoils. It was about (I have always considered Communism a perverted religion) an ideology, a way of life. A bankrupt ideology cannot, in the long term, survive...and 'fellow-travellers' reading this would do well to bear that in mind. The suave dialectic of those who are unable to put Mao, Stalin & Hitler in the correct order in the 'horror stakes' fools nobody but its progenitors.
Posted by permanentexpat at January 21, 2008 01:31 AM
You are apparently committed to the belief that the west is finished, sapped of its vitality and energy, much less the ferocity I have been talking about in this thread, by the ravages of modern PC, multi-culti culture.
veryretired -- you make some very good points.
What is the true face of old perfidious Albion today? Is it the Home Secretary who is afraid to walk around London after dark? Or is it the England football supporter in some foreign city, tanked up and strutting down a darkened street looking for trouble with the first Johnnie Foreigner who eyeballs him the wrong way?
Both faces are there. No question about which one rules in Britain today. But will it always be thus?
A reasonable guess at the future course of history is -- an external force (Islamism? Russia?) will push down the rotted tower of the multi-culti west; there will be violent internal confrontations between the ruling establishment of old guard 60s liberals and the more muscular elements of society, resulting in the death or expulsion of most of the liberals; followed by the reckoning with the external force whose action started the civil conflict.
Blood in the gutters. On one level, it is terribly unnecessary, but there really is no other way.
Posted by Alice at January 21, 2008 01:55 AM
Jacob, et al. There is a darker side to what VR is talking about. There is no violence like that of a jilted pacifist. A nuke in any city in NA or Europe and it will be us alleged hawks trying to restrain the leftists from turning the middle east to glass. The greatest violence of the 20th century was committed by collectivists.
Environmentalism will be forgotten. Greenism is a religion, not a product of reason. Like all religions, it's followers can have epiphanies also. The most bigoted people I know are on the left, the most vengeful people I know are on the left, the most overreactive people I know are on the left, the most prone to mob reactions are on the left.
And most importantly, the least likely to stand strong on their principles are on the left. They live in a relativist world and their response if something major, like nuclear, happens will not bear any resemblance to the 'principles' they are espousing today.
In an attack on America, there will be a synergy between greatly disparate factions that will result in the response that VR describes. I imagine something similar will happen if the same thing happened in Europe. 'Measured response' has never been the European way. More like nothing or unlimited.
Posted by Midwesterner at January 21, 2008 03:30 AM
Well, pulling out of Iraq was a good start, but they won't stop upsetting the Islamists until they pull out of Al-Andalus.
Posted by brendan at January 21, 2008 04:02 AM
Why the United States should especially be concerned with the opinions of Iraqis towards it prior to 2003 is beyond my understanding, though I would venture that those 500,000 children that died between 1991 and 1996 because of US embargoes on medicine to Iraq felt something other than gratitude.
It's very likely these numbers were purely propaganda with no basis in reality. Apparently the same Iraqi responsible for data collection for the discredited Lancet study on war casualties is responsible for the estimates that the Iraqi government promoted on deaths from sanctions.
Regardless, the notion that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone is fantasy. Did Islam leave Europe alone, or did it start invading Christian lands from the very beginning? Islam and Arabs are expansionist, and if we leave its adherents alone and unhindered, they will eventually acquire enough military power to think they have a chance at succeeding, which will bring a war orders of magnitude more deadly than the current ones waged in Iraq and Afghanistan and the terror attacks directed towards us on our soil.
I point to Nazi Germany and Hitler. Isolationists think that if the US did not provide aid to the UK and stayed out of European and Asian affairs, we would not be attacked by either Japan or Germany. But looking at Hitler's writings, particularly his second book, it is apparent that the US would have been attacked after the conquest of Europe even if it hadn't come to the aid of the UK, partly for resources and partly because of fear that the US would eventually become a threat. Islamists and Arabists undoubtedly will come to the same conclusions in the future. For now they are weak, but if allowed to become powerful, we should be prepared for them to follow the path of the totalitarian Axis powers.
In my view we have to rid the world of these totalitarian governments first. Only then is the world safe for US isolationism.
Posted by ATM at January 21, 2008 04:21 AM
People need to understand that when the war is over, it won't be over. I am talking about Iraq and the Terror War. The current conflict is just a sideline in Islam's global war on infidels.
They fight us because we exist. Period. Be aware that there is no such thing as 'moderate' Muslims, only Muslims that are ignorant or in denial. Sadly, you cannot count on any Muslim to stand up for our freedoms. I say this from experience. I have sought out the so-called good Muslims and they, too, love a respect a man that killed, tortured, raided, plundered, enslaved and raped. When you point out the hate and violence in the Quran and ahadith they make excuses and pretend that these things have nothing to do with their Islam. They are not honest. Figure out, if you can, what that means.
Of course the attacks will continue. As long as we give in they will only grow bolder. We need leaders that will stand up and tell Muslims the things they don't want to hear. Where is our Churchill?
For over three years I have tried to find honest, sincere Muslims that will honestly debate the issues. No luck. All I found in Islamdom was hate, censorship, excuses and lies.
The future will not be nice.
Kactuz
http://www.kactuzkid.com(Link)
PS: Muslims don't know or understand their own writings. They don't even understand simple words. Basic principles and standards (which they demand of others) of human decency do not apply to them or their dear prophet.
I am doing my part to fight this evil. I have probably the best studies on the Internet for Asma bint Marwan (murdered by Mohammad) and the events at Banu Al-Mustaliq (a village raided by you know who, with enslavement , plunder and rape). ...And there are the never ending shameless lies that Muslims tell....
(Link)
Posted by j. Kactuz at January 21, 2008 05:03 AM
ATM:
I point to Nazi Germany and Hitler. Isolationists think that if the US did not provide aid to the UK and stayed out of European and Asian affairs, we would not be attacked by either Japan or Germany. But looking at Hitler's writings, particularly his second book, it is apparent that the US would have been attacked after the conquest of Europe even if it hadn't come to the aid of the UK, partly for resources and partly because of fear that the US would eventually become a threat.
Yes, but as I wrote above, in the case of the Nazis one could point at a concrete Nazi army that needed to be attacked and defeated and a concrete group of people constituting the Nazi German government that needed to be overthrown. This required a lot of effort, as well as an alliance with a totalitarian power little (if at all) better than Hitler's, but at least the concrete and unambiguous objectives were there. But what are the strategic objectives in the present war? One gets nothing but silence or, at best, some entirely vague and evasive answers when this fundamental question is asked.
Posted by Ivan at January 21, 2008 07:41 AM
Ivan:
But what are the strategic objectives in the present war? One gets nothing but silence or, at best, some entirely vague and evasive answers when this fundamental question is asked.Why, it's bringing democracy to the ME! Really! It is already working in Gaza, BTW.
Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 08:56 AM
Paul, you miss the point.
Spain pulled out of the Middle East - and yet the Islamic extremists continue to operate against Spain.
You can twist and turn as much as you like - but your thesis is refuted.
Most of the Iberian Peninsula has been Islamic, therefore, for the islamists to stop attacking, Spain must withdraw from most of Spain. Only then is there a chance that they might be granted dhimmi status.
Posted by CountingCats at January 21, 2008 09:34 AM
Alisa:
Why, it's bringing democracy to the ME! Really! It is already working in Gaza, BTW.
Heh... if only more people were so irreverent as to be able to display an occasional sarcastic attitude like this! Across the modern political spectrum, from the nuttiest leftists to the most hawkish neocons, "bringing democracy" is the phrase whose mention is supposed to raise an aura of pious reverence, and the only line along which one is allowed to continue the discussion is what policy will be effective in bringing democracy to the ME, or whichever other part of the world is under discussion. Nuttier leftists will argue that the evil Western imperialism is the only thing preventing the oppressed peoples from developing a wonderful flourishing democracy, and the hawkish neocons will argue that the wonderful democracy will inevitably flourish once the way for it is cleared by the American guns, thus providing a pathetic excuse for a coherent strategy in the "War on Terror". The rest will be somewhere inbetween, but still uttering the d-word only with the most pious reverence.
Arguing that democracy is a very bad idea in certain times and places is a sure way to make oneself ostracized in polite company nowadays. This holds even for those who, like me, hail from places where 100% free democratic elections were followed by rivers of blood in very recent history -- and to avoid any confusion, those rivers were foreseeable from the agenda of the winners advertised loudly and clearly before the elections (oh, and the same people were also repeatedly reelected afterwards). It's really comforting to know that any and all strategic plans produced by the U.S. and other Western powers nowadays include implementing democracy as the ultimate endpoint, after which only the best course of events may be assumed.
Posted by Ivan at January 21, 2008 09:43 AM
permanentexpat:
How true. Regrettably, our democratic system ensures that the testicularly deprived have equal but much shriller voices.
Can anyone explain why, as a woman, I should not be offended by this statement?
Posted by Josie at January 21, 2008 09:55 AM
VR and Mid, my gut feeling is that you are right. (Not that it makes me any happier, as that dark side Mid mentioned is very dark indeed). But here is one thing that does not add up for me: was 9/11 not enough? Obviously in hindsight it was not, but it is not hindsight we are discussing here, but rather foresight. Let me ask both of you: if prior to 9/11 you were described an imaginary scenario similar to what happened on that day*, would you have predicted the same response by the West you are predicting now to a nuclear attack, and if not, why? Just because nuclear is so much worse?
*I heard that Tom Clancy has actually done that - I wonder if anyone here who read that book found it helpful on this matter.
Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 10:05 AM
Josie: do you consider yourself deprived just because you don't have them? You don't have a tail, yet this does not make you feel deprived, I hope?
Ivan: I am still debating whether D for ME thing was a real reason or an excuse. I think that in some circles it was a real reason, but ultimately when it came to making the decision, it was more of an excuse, or seen as a possible side benefit.
Arguing that democracy is a very bad idea in certain times and places is a sure way to make oneself ostracized in polite company nowadays.In Israel it doesn't, but you could guess that, I am sure:-)
Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 10:17 AM
Mid, very, Alice,
there will be violent internal confrontations between the ruling establishment of old guard 60s liberals and the more muscular elements of society,
The old guard 60ties hippies and peaceniks are now, as you say, the establishment, in politics, in the media, in the universities, in government.
They are the educators and inspiration of the new generation. Where are the "more muscular elements of society" ? Sure, Nick M, some young people are willing and capable of fighting, but many more are pacifist tree huggers or Lew-Rockwell-Ron-Paul-ANSWER-MoveOn.org, nuts.
And even much more so in Europe.
Mid,
Relying on reformed lefties to save us from debacle - what colosal wishful thinking, what delusion! Don't you sense the irony ? It's like relying on "reformed" criminals to clean up our cities of crime...
The most bigoted people I know are on the left, the most vengeful people I know are on the left
Correct... but - depending on them for our salvation ... what a desperate scheme!
As Alisa said... was 9/11 not enough of a wake-up call ?
If some city is blown up (god forbid) - won't the same suspects chant: "America had it comming, because she invaded Iraq - let's all hold hands and pray for peace!".
The muscular, determined, fight-ready elements are declining in numbers, they are an endangered species.
Posted by Jacob at January 21, 2008 10:42 AM
"The success of police operations in Spain, of which this is an example, in arresting the progress of militant Islam is a vindication of the paleocon approach to dealing with terrorism."
Haha! so March 11 didnt happened? The hundreds to thousand of bombs by ETA also didnt happened, i guess. The luck is that ETA doesnt have a bent to raze quarters and kill dozens everytime. Things would change fast with that...
Maybe you also check how that information arrived.Maybe you also should check Spanish privacy laws...
And finally you should answer how many more attacks would have been made if Al-Qaeda & friends werent being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq wasting their resources.
What information plus we get by engaging them in combat.
What was the perception for the Muslim world if Bin Laden would appear as victorious and its consequences In Muslim World and Western World.
Posted by lucklucky at January 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Alisa:
Josie: do you consider yourself deprived just because you don't have them? You don't have a tail, yet this does not make you feel deprived, I hope?
Of course not. Actually, having a tail would be cool (re: Venus on the Half Shell), but I have no desire for the body parts referred to in the original post I quoted. Penis envy is a crock made up by sex-obsessed men.
I don't, however, think that exactly defends the comment (which implies the lack somehow makes someone deficient). I doubt the original commenter felt it necessary that the objects of his scorn actually feel deprived.
Posted by Josie at January 21, 2008 11:17 AM
1. Western Culture - What is that?
Many countries in the "The West" have so bastardized the meaning of morals and standards that they are being gutted from within by their own rules.
2. As stated in some earlier comments, strict (notice I do not say radical) Islamists believe the Koran gives them the right, no obligation, to take back any land where the mulsims have ever been.
Posted by davod at January 21, 2008 11:21 AM
That's the idea: you stop wasting your time putting band-aids on the boo-boos of foreigners, and you use your resources, in your own country, to arrest those people who are actually close enough to do you some harm.This is all, of course, hypocritical bullshit because the second you do anything of the sort Rich Paul and his mates will throw a thousand fits about the civil liberties of the terrorist in question whilst hysterically screaming about fascism to anyone foolish enough to listen. Such disinegenousness is despicable, but ubiquitous among the "tough" anti-war crowd.
How about you tell met what you think, and I'll tell you what I think. That might be better than you telling me what I think, because what I think is that I know what I think.
As for civil liberties, there is no natural right to immigrate to, or even visit, the United States. That is one of the reasons that Ron Paul talks about immigration so much ... because since invasion of the United States is impossible for pathetic little third world countries, the next best thing to do is terrorism. But you have to get close to U.S. assets to attack them that way.
So the terrorists can hope that we will be so stupid as to put our assets (in the form of soldiers) close enough to them to be killed, but it is easy to avoid that ... don't station U.S. troops outside the U.S.. If we must go to war, go in quickly, with OVERWHELMING force, and leave just as quickly once the government is destroyed. They can clean up the mess themselves. If they establish another government which again acts in this way, repeat the process. Occupation is a fool's tactic, it never works. The only reason the Roman Empire got so big through conquest is that they made their former enemies into citizens. I have no interest in Iraq as a state, nor in Iraqis as citizens, so to hell with them.
Their other option is to send people here to attack us. But we don't particularly need more immigration here. The solution there is, as somebody pointed out above, to accept no immigrants from the middle east. This mostly solves that problem. You are left with a (presumably tiny) number of radicals who are already here. That number should suffer attrition pretty quickly, since our resources are not being wasted fighting foreign wars, and we can devote them to old fashioned police work in order to track down such people.
Are you suggesting a more interventionist approach predicates less effort at internal security?
Of course not; as I said at the end of the paragraph, this is an indication that "the successful arrest and detention of the criminals has not required military action and proves that a proportionate response to this threat is the use of targeted resources to tackle specific individuals," in contrast to an indiscriminately interventionist foreign policy, which creates more enemies than it defeats.
I am. A dollar can only be spent once. A person who is a soldier cannot be a policeman. Any resource, once spent, is no longer in possession of the spender. That is what spending means.
As we spend enough money to secure 20 countries like America in Iraq, we cannot do the work required to actually root out problems at home. So the powers that be decide that they can speed the process and reduce the manpower required by steamrolling our civil liberties. They want to give themselves shortcuts. But since we cannot afford to give them the shortcuts, as any power, once given to the government, becomes theirs forever, we must give them the resources instead. That means more spending on domestic protection, which is impossible if we are wasting the money trying to civilize Iraq.
Posted by Rich Paul at January 21, 2008 11:23 AM