<< WAYNE NO LONGER UNCOMFORTABLE ~ MAIN ~ MEETING RECALLED >>
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WHYING
The Age’s Hugh MacKay joins the revivalist why-ner movement:
No doubt the core values of many terrorists would seem familiar and even praiseworthy if differently expressed, but they have been perverted and distorted by hatred. We have become the enemy.
Our greatest challenge is to understand why.
No, our greatest challenge is to win this war. MacKay’s greatest challenge is to write something that doesn’t make people sick.
No doubt the core values of many terrorists would seem familiar and even praiseworthy if differently expressed, but they have been perverted and distorted by hatred.
I wonder how much he’s looked into the “core values” of terrorists? I sometimes wonder if these values “have been perverted and distorted by hatred”, or if hatred is the core value.
Hugh McKay sounds like he hates himself as well as everyone else. I hope he shaves with an electric razor, or has a beard. Otherwise, he might cut his own head off.
Which would be an improvement, I must note.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 06 at 01:04 PM • permalinkPeople like McKay are the very same people who have no problem pointing the finger at people in western countries who don’t share their beliefs (for example, christian fundos).
There seems to be this idea that people in developing/third world/whatever you want to call them countries are not capable of being boofheads just because they are. There has to be a reason apparently.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 10 06 at 02:15 PM • permalinkYeah, if only those “core values” were expressed differently. “We cordially invite all Jews to hit the beach and start swimming west”. “Perhaps you Christians could remove those crosses prominently displayed on the steeples of your churches”. “Would you like anaesthesia with that decapitation?”. “That’s no battered woman; that’s my wife!”
#5 Mike: I vote for gambling and whoring in the south of France.
At its core, this article is yet another refrain of that old favorite tune, “Ask yourself why they hate you.”
I thought that record had been completely worn out by now.
Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 10 06 at 03:19 PM • permalinkAccording to Dr Muriel Dumont, a social psychologist at Belgium’s Catholic University of Louvain, both reactions are equally indicative of people’s fear.
Well, that may be the way you live your live in Belgium missy but I live my life by the creed of they Sydney Motorist(tm):
Fear is not an option
Signing off with the obligitory….
“You’re terrible, Muriel.”Why?
Because Hugh McKay touches himself at night.
It’s all his fault…
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 10 06 at 04:48 PM • permalinkAn Israeli Jew, in trying to understand the Arab mentality, believed that conflict arose from Arabs’ fundamental disagreement with what they know of the Jews;
.....I no longer believe this is true. My journey into the faiths of my neighbors was part of a much broader attempt among Israelis, begun during the first intifada, to understand your narrative, how the conflict looks through your eyes.Your society, on the other hand, has made virtually no effort to understand our narrative.
Instead, you have developed what can be called a “culture of denial,” that denies the most basic truths of the Jewish story. According to this culture of denial, which is widespread not only among your people but throughout the Arab world, there was no Temple in Jerusalem, no ancient Jewish presence in the land, no Holocaust.
Nowhere is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as popular as in the Arab world, which has also become the international center for Holocaust denial.
The real problem, then, is not terrorism, which is only a symptom for a deeper affront: your assault on my history and identity, your refusal to allow me to define myself, which is a form of intellectual terror….....
Go to Melanie Phillips and click on Yossi Klein Halevi for full story (Jeruaslem Post link wont work)
it is nonsense to say that suicide attacks are alien to our culture. The Roman poet Horace, not a Muslim, wrote that “it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country”.
It’s true that suicide attacks are not completely unknown in western culture (although I defy anyone to prove they were ever common), but what in that Horace quote indicates it refers to suicide attacks? In Mackay’s world, is that the only thing that “to die for one’s country” could possibly mean?
“Your society, on the other hand, has made virtually no effort to understand our narrative.”
#13 - Unlike our strident efforts to understand the arab or muslim narrative?
The link (I haven’t read it all) quotes a Pali general, “The next step, continued the general, was that the two states would merge. “And then we’ll invite Jordan to join our federation. And Iraq and Syria. Why not? We’ll show the whole world what a beautiful country Jews and Arabs can create together.”
This is of course “shocking” right? I mean who would agree that this is a just outcome and go against what apparently is written in the bible where Israel is only for Jews? - I am sure that is exactly what God intended. (I think I’ll give GWB a call see if he can bring it up in his next discussion with HIM. - Wait a minute, maybe he doesn’t talk to THAT him…)
If your core values become distorted or perverted, they aren’t your core values anymore. Whatever you allowed to do the distorting and perverting is clearly more important to you.
Besides that, I fail to see how there is no doubt that many terrorists had admirable core values even before they became terrorists. What are these values? If they’re so well known, you’de think MacKay could mention one.
“... terrorism works as a weapon of propaganda only if we respond to it”.
Hugh is in some sort of denial, as are many others in the media. Weakness is recognised and feeds further attacks - or outrageously arrogant pig bannings!
#15 - Orang makes a reasonable stab at a talking point (thanks), but is clutching at straws if he thinks that a policy of co-existence has enough traction to proceed; certainly not on the strength of one possibly mis-quoted or opportunistic (disposable PR du jour) spokesperson.
The Palestinians are still playing out their own internal contradictions, and are still failing to present any convincing consensus. The track record over many years tells a very different story. Most Islamic states are still overwhelmingly hostile to Israel.
Funny. That’s despite UN approval of the creation of the state.One thing these terrorist atrocities achieve is to strenghten the Fifth Columns in the target countries.
When the Taliban occupation of Australia happens, the traitors will be ready for the jobs.
Hugh is in line to be a Kapo in a re-education camp for Conservatives.Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2005 10 06 at 07:15 PM • permalinkMr Mackay might direct himself to their videos.
1st establish a grievance, preferably out of context. Eg East Timor, a secular and democratic Iraq with rule of law ect.
2nd State your intention to bring in shiarah law, theocratic rule, and expansion of both religion and territory at the expense of ANY neighboring countys.
Thats it.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 10 06 at 07:29 PM • permalinkSeveral interesting points in all this.
As usual, too much Leftist thought comes down to stupid semantics. There’s a huge difference between the ‘dirty dozen / volunteer for an impossible mission / hero throws self on the grenade’ style suicide mission and a society that consumes its indoctrinated young by sending them off as walking bombs.
Only by stupidly fixating on the word ‘suicide’ in common with the two scenarios can such a false comparison be made. (Leftists do this all the time, though. They deal in words, not realities.)
They are different because the lone hero situation is noble, but the Kamikaze bomber situation is diabolical - although neither of those terms means anything to a Leftist.
As for the ‘we need to know why’ point. Really, we don’t. Every tyrant or psychopath has a rationalisation for what they do. To avoid a Hitler reference: the Spanish Empire wanted to spread the Word of God—a noble enterprise—but they were still murdering, brutalising thugs led by a meglomanic gangster.
The problem the Left has, is that all of their heroes (Mao, Che, Castro, Ho Chi Min, Arafat - I can’t keep track of who’s in or out of fashion) are or were the most horrible criminals, so the de facto Leftist viewpoint has to be that the end must justify the means. Otherwise they would go mad.
Not to be confused with the fact that the ends occasionally do justify the means, because in an imperfect world there are few perfect choices. Once again, Leftist thought can’t encompass the difference between those two completely different situation. One a (hopefully) noble sacrifice (of principles to pragmatism), the other diabolical.
(...orang really is trolling with the completely OT Israel remarks, so I won’t be tempted there)
Unlike our strident efforts to understand the arab or muslim narrative?
OK, orang, I’ll bite. Fill us in. ‘Cuz all I’ve heard is a bunch of stuff about the evil Crusades of a thousand years ago (in which the Crusaders evilly attempted to eject Moslems from the lands the Moslems virtuously conquered), the evil ejection of Moslems from the parts of Spain they virtuously conquered, the evil independence of East Timor from its virtuous Moslem rule, and a whole bunch of stuff about us tolerating evil homosexuals and pornography and whatnot.
Given that just about every hot war on the planet now is Moslem vs Somebody Else (Moslem vs Christian, Moslem vs Western, Moslim vs Black, Moslem vs Hindu, etc etc etc), the Moslem narrative seems to be, “We can’t get along with goddamn anybody.”
Having read the article, I’m not in a lather about it, and I think most people are missing the point.
...McAllister’s research among captured terrorists finds little evidence of psychopathology or sociopathology in on-the-ground operatives, but only in their leaders. His conclusion: “Terrorism and suicide terrorism are simply rational strategies employed by otherwise normal individuals.”
I’d substitute “irrational” for “rational”, but otherwise I agree.
Had things been even slightly different, I can easily imagine myself in the BDM - (girl’s equivalent of the HitlerJugend). Or the Komsomolsk.
The tragedy is that Saudi-Billionaire-funded Madrassas are turning what could have been, and should have been, normal boys throughout the world into intolerant fanatical monsters.
If all your life you’ve been brainwashed into believing that Jews eat Muslim babies, that Christians are all perverts out to rape or kill you, and all that is good is contained in the Koran… then blowing yourself up along with as many of these subhuman monsters becomes not just understandable, but praiseworthy.
As long as you don’t look too closely, and see that those inhuman monsters you’re killing are actually decent, normal human beings, much like yourself. And that your sister is a lot like you too, and doesn’t deserve to be married off at the family patriarch’s convenience.
But such observations require some time, some maturity, and exposure to a culture not insanely macho and patriarchal.
The real point is that the suicide bombers are not by their nature irredeemable from birth. Shut down the Madrassas, change the sick culture these grow up in, and they’ll be normal human beings, not self-detonating robots.
We can do the first, provided we give up being overly-sensitive to Muslim feelings. The second will take much longer, but is inevitable, given enough time. To reduce the number of (dis)Honour Killings, de-facto female slavery, and numerous other ills, we should speed the process if we can. But I don’t know how you go about changing a culture.
#26 - When a writer who advocates a “let’s try and understand them” angle towards terrorist bombers (in Bali?) he is mercilessly mocked. I presume he/she is not advocating “let’s excuse them, love them…...”. Instead we get the kill all of them meme. “Them”, it turns out are not just the group of lunatics who cite their religiousness as a legitimate reason for killing, but to all muslims in general. Because as you “point out” in your last paragraph, and paraphrased from Mr Steyn’s latest rendition of anti muslim crap, it is in their religion - they hate us and they won’t rest until.. (everyone’s a muslim, armageddon…....)
To start understanding them, perhaps go back less than a hundred years to the term WOG, which is not originally a Greek or Italian as described in Oz, but an Arab. (Western Oriental Gentleman….Ha ha ...that’s funny)
Or how about the lament of the Arab after the Holocaust…wait a minute, why are we getting punished for what the christians did.
And add, Dave S. for orang’s education, the Western wars to end the persecution of Kuwait, the Kurds, and the genocide of Iraqi Marsh Shi-ites. Also the Moslems in Kosovo, after admittedly belatedly saving similar minority groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Funny how the Left [and Moslems] seem to have forgotten the evil detritus of old Tito communist favourites in those places.I guess the West is just too insular and partisan!
#27 - is a revealing perspective, particularly the last paragraph.
How would you go about convincing a conservative Muslim neighbour family that “western” values are good? By shouting the Koran sucks and fuck you! By throwing pigs heads over the fence? By inviting for dinner? (now I know that’s a radical thought)
I know, ....who cares about convincing them.
what to do about the fisks and fuckwits of this world? With a bloke like MacKay, for instance, who’s obviously got a hollow skull, maybe the thing to do is to fill it with explosives and leave him outside one of those madas thingos and when the islamists go to cut his throat we could detonate him. Bingo - 2 birds with one stone.
Irwin J. Mansdorf
“Palestinian Arab spokespersons have often used the approach…. the notion of personal psychological suffering as the force behind the group political act of confrontation through suicide attacks. The attack is thus transformed from one of political violence intentionally perpetrated on others, to one where the attacker is also a victim, driven by a combination of psychological variables such as humiliation, depression, and hopelessness.”
Aided and abetted by the likes of McKay.
Understand them, the psychopaths in charge and their the acolytes. They are cults, death cults. The individuals are separated from their families and societies, brainwashed with the dogma and controlled by peer pressure until they complete their monstrous deed. I assume that as we never get to read The Diaries of an Ex Terrorist that these are the sort of cults from which there is only one way to leave.
So how do we respond to cults. To start with we do not approve of them. We do not sympathise with their distorted rationales.
And we listen to a mob who have not surrendered to the sods.
Major General Doron Almog, Israel Defense ForcesIn early 2003 an Israeli agent in the Gaza Strip telephoned Mustafa, a wealthy Palestinian merchant in Gaza, to inform him that over the previous three months his son Ahmad had been preparing for a suicide bombing mission in Israel. Mustafa was told that if his son followed through with his plans, he and his family would suffer severe consequences: their home would be demolished, and Israel would cut off all commercial ties with Mustafa’s company. Neither he nor the members of his family would ever be permitted to enter Israel again.1 Faced with this ultimatum, Mustafa confronted his son and convinced him that the cost to his family would far outweigh any possible benefits his sacrifice might have for the Palestinian people.
Suicide bombing is a really fraught subject.
The Japanese Kamikazes really believed they were dying to save their country and its people, so despite being betrayed by their leadership and having their noble impulses so horribly misdirected, there is a sad honour in those pilots—although not in their cause.
Of course their targets were genuinely and exclusively military, whereas the Islamikazes attack mainly civilian targets. This must take a far higher degree of indoctrination and/or a much more morally debased character.
Noteworthy that the Japanese had no problem finding thousands upon thousands of willing volunteers to be Kamikazes (not just the airborne variety - they had infantry and seaborne versions too ready for the expected invasion), but the Islamofascists have to go to ever greater lengths to find enough ‘volunteers’ in Iraq and the Arab territories.
If we really believed our people and culture were at risk of being exterminated, I think we would use the suicide bomber strategy too—the military version anyway—with probable justification, although few Arabs or Muslims can honestly believe that Israel or the West represent anything remotely like a genuine existential threat.
But only a sick mind or a vast amount of brainwashing can cause someone to detonate themselves in a crowd of families and children.
To sum up: the problem is not that they use suicide tactics, the problem is that they are demented, hate-filled, murderous savages.
I think orang is either brainwashed or devious, but -heck- if the Greeks and Italians have survived ‘WOG’ abuse, can’t our Moslems do it without actually defeating the West?
Does orang even know that Israel is, and always has been, a UN state where ‘Palestinian’ Arabs and many others live together on equal terms in a full democracy?
Does he realize just how good the Arabs are at punishing *themselves*?Close the Madrassas, in Gaza, in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc..? Why don’t we just use some of that fine French diplomacy?
As for Hugh Mackay, he is the kind of social commentator who says: ‘I am your wise intellectual leader - tell me where you want to go and I will just point the way there’.
Kill them, right on orang, at least the leaders and if the acolytes (familiars) won’t play ball, them too.
Again the Israeli’s have faced these monsters for a long time now and the fact that despite the Arab nations avowed policy, they are not yet in the sea, so maybe they are worth listening to. Psychologist Scott Antran, (who looks at terror) certainly agrees.
“and this I’m all for—go after the guys who operate the cells. Take them out. Get rid of them. Jail them or kill them, because they are not willing to compromise. What do you do with somebody who says, “All Americans and Jews have got to die”? The point of talking to such people has passed. Whatever the grievances were that caused such people to have such ideas, if they show that they’re willing to implement them, then you’ve just got to make a decision whether you want to see this guy survive or you and your people survive.”
In the Long War of Terror there is no room for McKay’s utopian holier than thou claptrap. Rational strategies! And our soldiers are persuaded to target civilians, is that what the dipstick is suggesting. These attitudes add to our danger.
Another thought orang, the British in the Palestine Mandate days wrapped the corpses (or the bits) of bombers in pig skin before burying them. It worked, they stopped.
I think orang, and the Left in general as well as a few on the right, is making a huge mistake, in assuming that the fascists speak for a majority of their co-religionists.
True, the majority of Arabs are anti semitic and the majority of Muslims are bigots, but that’s their right. What’s not true is that they would necessarily do anything violent to act on their prejudices.
In successive wars against Israel, the individual soldiers of the Arab armies showed remarkably little commitment to their cause, and the extreme violence of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs is a product of the stupid policy of allowing Arafat and the ‘Tunisian Mafia’ to return. Prior to that, conditions in these territories were almost acceptable (by the standards of today).
Likewise, the elite of Indonesia are obnoxious, corrupt, ignorant, racist bigots. But, hey, that’s their problem. It’s a heck of a stretch between that and being a terrorist.
Everyone has a God-given right to be an a$$hole—a lot of Germans still hate Jews, a lot of Japanese still think they are a superior race, as do a lot of Anglo Saxons! We don’t need to cure Islamic intolerance, we just need to stamp out the terrorists.
The challenge is to win this “war” (Note: Sneer quotes inserted in cold blood, with malice aforethought).
But it’s right of course. Of course we need to win. I suppose the point is that until we understand the why, we’ll continue to have no hope of winning it. Tim, you and your ilk have spent years now, not understanding why. Aren’t you tired of it yet?
Tell me, do you think your attitude is making things better?
No - we’re going backwards, mate - and you, in your small way, are part of the problem. Start with the why, and you may even find some clues to the who, where, when and how.
At the moment all you seem to offer (with apparent relish) is a blind lashing out. Tabloid fodder. An emotional response is understandable, but facile and ineffective. A rational, effective strategy eludes us, and will continue to until we understand.
This is not pacificist, it’s not appeasement, and it’s not left-wing. It’s just obvious.
What worries me is that Islamic extremists are completely clear and candid about what they want. The Australian people have declared in the last federal election that they do understand that and utterly reject it. The people of Bali who are Hindu utterly reject it. In fact the case is made. It is done and dusted.
Then yet another idiot like H. Mackay says..“why?” He is an idiot and the “left” should be the first to disown him as they have enough troubles as it is.
I’d like orang to visit THIS website and report back here.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 10 07 at 12:55 AM • permalinkNemesis,
Wrong on both counts.
1) Why do you suppose we* need to understand them in order to beat them?
I don’t think we understood the nature of Japanese Fascism at all, I don’t think most who know WWII history even understand it now. But what did it matter? They fought, we fought back, they lost, we won. The details of their ideology and organisation were largely irrelevant.
2) Nevertheless, we understand the Islamofascists perfectly. An old enemy we know all too well, in fact. Their tactics are one part Fascist, two parts Commie, and their ideology is one part modern cult and two parts 8th Century savage. What more is there to understand…?
(*that’s a rhetorical ‘we’, I assume)
#40 - read #39.
Also, you state “The people of Bali who are Hindu utterly reject it”.
Does this mean Hindu’s reject suicide attacks , or Balinese?
Someone pointed out recently that the people who have commited the largest number of suicide attacks are in fact…..(drum roll please) Sri Lankans!!...Hindus!!!
http://www.spur.asn.au/chronology_of_suicide_bomb_attacks_by_Tamil_Tigers_in_sri_Lanka.htm
You may not accept that the great majority of Indonesians who are Muslim utterly reject it also.
However, in our reactions to these bombings we tend to lump the whole of Indonesian society in with terrorists. - Is this smart?and Greek and Italian descendents of migrant families now enjoy reviews like “wogs are us”.
Does that mean as occidentals they have misappropriated the term.
The Khumars have fun sending up their Indian culture,the Brits have sent themselves up for years.SBS shows Pizza to its multi culti audience,the U.S. sends itself up too.Australia in the past did countless satires on itself,Bazza Humphries being a prime example.Kingswood (you’re not takin the Kingswood)Country and Kath n’ Kim are examples.The Irish and Scots send themselves up,African Americans too.
Don’t be so inward Orang.Any culture which is prepared to share and mingle with the mainstream and love the country they choose to live in will be happy.#41 - yeah Deo I looked at it, saw the name of a contributor D. Pipes, the general theme and figured it’s a “progressive” right wing muslim bashing site. Great, love it, great contribution.
If you want we can swap sites. You send me the “Islamofascist” ones and I’ll send you the others. See my post above.
The challenge is to win this “war” (Note: Sneer quotes inserted in cold blood, with malice aforethought).
But it’s right of course. Of course we need to win. I suppose the point is that until we understand the why, we’ll continue to have no hope of winning it. Tim, you and your ilk have spent years now, not understanding why. Aren’t you tired of it yet?
Excuse me? The discussion here is about clueless twits in the west asking “Why?” Who said anything about not understanding the cause of terrorism? Nemesis, in case you haven’t noticed, most of Tim and his ilk disagree with the leftie definition of “root causes of terrorism”.
Pay attention in class, there will be a test tomorrow.
True, the majority of Arabs are anti semitic and the majority of Muslims are bigots, but that’s their right. What’s not true is that they would necessarily do anything violent to act on their prejudices.
They may not do anything violent over their prejudices, Nemesis, but certainly the majority of Muslims act on their prejudices at one time or another. They are only human, after all, and the laws and customs of most Muslim nations certainly permit it. Why they get a free pass on this, and the West gets kicked in the arse for being more open, is a better question to ask.
Tell me, do you think your attitude is making things better?
What, I’m supposed to bend over on the demand of terrorists? You want to reward violent behavior? Talk about negative reinforcements!
Tell me, do you think that maintaining an attitude of prejudice and arrogance is a good idea? I won’t say that all of the west is tolerant in their beliefs and attitudes, but can you say that most Muslim nations are tolerant to any degree?
Tolerance is the litmus test that I’ve always heard from the left. Or should we worry about who is more intolerant?
Do consider that.
No - we’re going backwards, mate - and you, in your small way, are part of the problem. Start with the why, and you may even find some clues to the who, where, when and how.
Again, you assume that the west is at fault for terrorism. You absolve the terrorists of any blame. At least, you leave them out of the equation. Why do you give them a free pass? Do you consider them as little children, unable to make adult decisions, even as they meticulously plan and execute sophisticated attacks?
Because they are fighting for freedom by blowing up people at random? The irony of this blindness is that the left won’t hesitate to scream in outrage when innocent civilians are accidentally killed by Coalition forces…...and the silence is thunderous when the terrorists set off a car bomb next to a mosque.
Your hypocrisy is more than a little odious, Nemesis.
At the moment all you seem to offer (with apparent relish) is a blind lashing out. Tabloid fodder. An emotional response is understandable, but facile and ineffective. A rational, effective strategy eludes us, and will continue to until we understand.
I agree that a rational and effective strategy is elusive. But it’s elusive of the left, who continues to play the change the blame game, like Hugh McKay tries, and as you try.
I won’t argue that the current strategy is 100% effective in the near term, but this is not a short term problem And it’s a lot more effective than the earlier strategies that were used and failed. I’d rather have a chance of success in the long term than fail in the short term.
This is not pacificist, it’s not appeasement, and it’s not left-wing. It’s just obvious.
I really think that you miss one key point: Many people do understand why the terrorists are terrorists. It’s just that some fools reject that understanding, and opt to blame the west for all of the world’s problems (not that the west is pure and innocent, but we have a better track record than a lot of the world). Most of those fools are on the left. Not all of them. But most.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 01:47 AM • permalinkorang,
OK, good call on those Tamil Tigers. I had a workmate several years ago who was being intimidated by them. All gangsters are terrorists and all terrorists are gangsters. Burn the lot of them (with their lawyers) I reckon.
As for your other point, well, yes, not every Indonesian is a terrorist, but so what? If they’re too busy monstering Australian tourists to hunt terrorists, should we send over Special Forces to do the job (assuming we have any for this task, and the guts to do it)?
I like W’s subtle approach - those who harbour terrorists support terrorists, and if you’re not with us you’re against us. If the Indons are too corrupt and stupid to do anything about, then we ought to do something—preferably a pretty blunt exercise in brute force*.
And if they hate us for it, that’s perfectly OK. As long as the problem is fixed, what’s a little hate between neighbours.
(*assuming we ever could or would, which unfortunately is pretty unlikely)
That’s our real problem, we lack the deterrent and the guts to use it, so we’re reduced to asking nicely to a bunch of corrupt and racist kleptocrats.
Now kip (may I call you kip?) yours is obviously not the diplomatic road. Even John H. and Lexy Downer are talking nice and have forsaken talk of pre-emptive strikes in the region.
Let’s start again:
There’s 250,000,000 people next door.
They believe we’re a bunch of racist cunts who hate them. (that’s not the royal “we”, that’s we)
When you get to talk to them individually, most of them are quite OK really. Although language is often a problem….
Jeff_S,
You mixed in one of my remarks with your takedown of Nemesis.
The point I was trying to make is that it’s true that Arabs and Muslims are bigots, but on the whole they’re also lazy layabouts who just want to drink tea, smoke cigarettes and the occasional joint, whinge a bit and otherwise have an easy life—if you substitute ‘beer’ for ‘tea’, exactly like New Zealanders!
The average Arab or Muslim is not a terrorist. He may scream he wants to kill you, but when the shooting starts, he’ll run for home—ask the Jews.
So who cares how they feel? It’s irrelevant. It’s a wild goose chase. They’ll never love us but it doesn’t matter. I doubt we’ll ever love them. Forget trying to understand them—life is too short. If they’re not killing us, we can get on just fine.
#51 - the place to start would be to send a team to kill that Bashir, preferrably in a messy way with some of his colleagues and lawyers. Then get Alexander Downer to say “nah, mate, wasn’t us”.
However I will concede that John Howard and team do a much better job of running the country than I ever could! I voted for them to do as much…
In fact, I’ll go further and say, doesn’t this prove what a sensitive and intelligent bunch John Howard, George Bush etc are.
By the way (and in defence of the strident nature of my posts), did anyone see the Indonesian elites on SBS the other night*?
What a sickening bunch of ne’er-do-wells.
An obnoxious, pompous, self aggrandising, preachy, racist, smarmy, slimey, arrogant, stupid, ignorant, backward, whiney, self-righteous, weak-minded, gutless, sleazy, corrupt bunch of twerps.
They made Labor supporters seem like solid, stand-up guys.
And that revolting obsequious SBS presenter was worse!
Twenty minutes was all I could stomach, I was fit to kick the dog!
(* I forget the name of the show. I never seem to catch the start and never seem to make it to the end.)
Orang we used to enjoy mixing and matching cultures and we still do.
Our culture does not instruct us to separate ourselves from society but to all join in and have a good time.
If a culture is intrinsically witholding and stigmatises all others,refuses offers of friendship and won’t play with us then THEY are the ones who need to change.Honestly orang, you’re so simplistic.
I don’t hate Muslims. And I don’t think of them all as terrorists—far from it. And as long as they keep it ‘zipped up’ (so to speak) I can even get over the fact that with few exceptions they’re bigots. In fact Anglo Saxons are one of the few cultural groups in the world who are not extreme bigots, so the Arabs and Muslims are hardly alone in that respect.
I regard them so highly I believe that one day they’ll catch up with where we are now. And in that spirit I fully support what George W has been doing over in Iraq.
And I have enormous respect for the long-suffering Iraqi people. With such a fine example before them I feel sure that the Muslim world is headed for far better things.
I don’t hate Indonesians either, since I don’t equate their immoral and corrupt ruling class (for whom I have no respect) with the average Indon. That would be like equating the victim with the gangster.
I should add the ruling classes of most Muslim countries are little more than gangsters, too, which is the root of the problem.
But I also don’t hate my own country, and I certainly don’t think we have anything to feel shy or embarrassed about, or that we should keep our wise and sensible views* to ourselves. No one else in the world does!
(*those of us who hold wise and sensible views, that is)
Meanwhile:
Minority Muslims targeted in Pakistan attack
Gunmen riding motorcycles have opened fire on worshippers from a minority Muslim sect at a mosque in Pakistan, killing at least eight people and wounding 12.Three attackers sprayed the dawn prayer session marking the second day of Ramadan in Mong village, part of Mandi Bahauddin town, 100 kilometres south of the capital Islamabad.
“Eight people were killed and 12 were injured in the attack,” a security official said on condition of anonymity.
Local police say the shootings targeted members of the Ahmadi community, who were declared a non-Muslim minority in 1974 by Pakistan for their belief that Mohammed may not be the last prophet.
The sect, which is also known as Qadiani and has several thousand members in Pakistan, has remained a regular target of religious extremists.
I blame Chimpy W HurricaneMcHitler.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 10 07 at 03:16 AM • permalinkThere’s 250,000,000 people next door.
They believe we’re a bunch of racist cunts who hate them. (that’s not the royal “we”, that’s we)
Cool, orang! You’ve actually spoken to every single person living in Indonesia! Wow, you must be a professional pollster, to get the personal opinion of a quarter billion people.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 03:40 AM • permalinkkip—sorry, dude, I was distracted. PIMF :(
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 03:43 AM • permalinkkip, I agree, orang is very simplistic. Just look at how he/she/it classifies all of Australia as racist cunts. At least from the perspective of a quarter billion people.
You just can’t get any simpler than this:
They all hate us!!!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 03:55 AM • permalinkGoodonya orangatang. You didnt scroll down to see the list of people killed by ‘the military wing of the peace movement’? bummer,who cares eh?
As for you and me swapping websites to prove a point, jeff ‘rense’ isnt gonna make the grade. Why dont you send me links to Joe Vialls or Richard Neville? They seem like more your style, ie oblivious to the truth and mad, bad and dangerous.Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 10 07 at 04:42 AM • permalinkEssential steps to winning the war on terror:
1. freeze all Saudi assets held outside Saudi Arabia
2. occupy the Saudi oilfields to separate the Saudi’s from their oil and send them back to riding camels
3. take down the Saudi regime
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 10 07 at 04:45 AM • permalinkIncidentally, I read the other day that Hugh Hackay, who so loves telling us Australians how insular, fearful and paranoid we are, has never travelled outside Australia.
Maybe he should check out places like Indonesia, Pakistan and the Middle East for himself, and take their psychosocial pulses.
With reference to #61 above, a number of years ago, I spent a few weeks working in Karachi, Pakistan. We’ll just leave repression of the Christian minority aside for a moment - that almost paled into insignificance compared to what elements of the Sunni Muslim majority were doing to the Shiite minority.
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 10 07 at 04:52 AM • permalinkHey, I’m not the only one who thinks the Saudis are lottery-winning camel jockeys.
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 10 07 at 05:08 AM • permalinkThere’s one word missing from the headline here . Can you guess what it is? (hint - the word starts with the letter M and ends with the word Slum).
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 10 07 at 05:48 AM • permalinkSigh,
orang and nemesis, pay attention, I shall say this only once.Islamic terrorists (as well as the vast majority of muslims) want the whole world to be Islamic.
We don’t want a Caliphate
They hate us, they kill us.
That’s the reason why.
I hope that was clear enough for you.
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 10 07 at 05:52 AM • permalinkNora—I hope you like throwing rocks at a brick wall, ‘cuz Nemesis and orang are perpetually stoned.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 05:58 AM • permalinkThe girls at the Top Gun think we’re alright.
You’re partying with the hootchy hootch girls, eh?
Well, I trust you’re not a typical western elitist, exploiting underprivileged women in a third world nation through degrading sexual activities. That would be so…..oppressive, wouldn’t it?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 06:08 AM • permalinkHa ! Can anyone tell me why MacHalliburtonChimpster holds hands with the Camel Jockeys. (Ooops, do we talk about this?)
Oh, yes of course, they are going to build an empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia - I saw the reading on TV.-That’s why we’re staying in Iraq too, so they won’t start their empire there. Next they’ll be driving us into the sea - the US I mean, into the Atlantic. (Pacific?)
LOL JeffS,
If orang and nemesis were permanently stoned, I’d hate to see their munchies bill.I doubt they could event get the hootchy hootch girls give them a second look without money changing hands.
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 10 07 at 06:19 AM • permalinkPerhaps we need to remind ourselves that we too glorify death in war and that some of our most celebrated war heroes have willingly and deliberately sacrificed their lives to a cause. The present situation is utterly different from conventional warfare, but it is nonsense to say that suicide attacks are alien to our culture. The Roman poet Horace, not a Muslim, wrote that “it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country”.
Now let’s see if I can figure this. Those who died, for example, defending Australia from Japanese invasion in WWII are no different from butchers who walk into restaurants and blow innocent men and women to pieces.
This is moral obscenity not moral equivalence. It’s weird dissociation is gobsmackingly callous and obtuse.
But MacKay wants to raise consciousness, turn the gaze inward, startle us, make us question our complacent, self-righteous anger, help us understand- right down to the Horace he learnt when he studied Wilfred Owen at school.
Sure Hugh, these guys are heroes. What sinister, morally-unhinged nonsense.
Horace finally fled from the Battle of Philippi (42 BC) where he was serving with Brutus’ army. At least he was not self-deluded like MacKay and the terrorists he glorifies.
MacKay the researcher (as in ‘which yogurt flavour do you prefer’) sold himself to the advertising industry when Philip Adams was one letter of MDA.
He was purple-lipped and boring. He wanted capitalist money but didn’t make the grade and turned against it.
His background should be borne in mind when assessing his anti-west, anti-capitalist, anti-everything else utterances.
Get a thread going about apologia for terrorists, draw orang out of the woodworks. It’s getting a little predictable.
Why do I have the feeling orang would be the first to scream for the government to “do something” if he was ever kidnapped by Islamofascists? The only question is whether he’d start screaming before or after he got hit in the face a few times because he tried to reason with his kidnappers…
Ha ! Can anyone tell me why MacHalliburtonChimpster holds hands with the Camel Jockeys. (Ooops, do we talk about this?)
HA!! Answer deflection!!
Oh, yes of course, they are going to build an empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia - I saw the reading on TV.-That’s why we’re staying in Iraq too, so they won’t start their empire there. Next they’ll be driving us into the sea - the US I mean, into the Atlantic. (Pacific?)
YAY!! orang once again resorts to leftie talking points when confronted with a direct question that may undermine his/her/its firmly held beliefs.
But orang gets points for originality in answer format….usually, when one scratches a lefties, one gets a self-righteous screed. At least orang attempts to use sarcastic humor in response. I have to admit, this is a refreshing change from screeds that resemble something MoDo would write while on an acid trip.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 08:15 AM • permalinkBut I forget, orang’s such a naive little child that he actually thinks he wouldn’t end up dead if the Islamofascists ever got their way. It would be almost cute if it wasn’t so dangerously deluded.
Well, it would be naive, PW, if orang were a typical western anti-western leftie toeing the party line. From earlier posts, orang claims extensive experience in foreign affairs. I have to wonder about orang being naive for all of his/hers/its claimed experience.
But I fully concur with orang being a little child, and dangerously deluded. A nasty combination, given the company orang clearly keeps.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 07 at 08:28 AM • permalink...terrorism works as a weapon of propoganda only if we respond to it.
This is like saying your opponent’s magical judo powers only work if you’re still breathing, so you should nullify them by letting him shoot you in the head. Terrorism works as a weapon of bloodshed if we don’t respond to it. Besides, terrorism wouldn’t have a chance in hell as a propoganda tool if it weren’t for the help of leftist intellectuals inveiling the truth from their influencial ivory tower posts. Those who indiscriminantly kill civilians are evil and deserve to die. Most everyone understands this obvious fact until they go to university.
#27 is an excellent comment and could serve as a kernel for the column MacKay should have written. But it fails as a defense of the column he actually did write. Suicide bombers may not be irredeemable from birth, but neither are their present crimes redeemed by the innocence of their youth. The cataclysmic failure of civilization in the Islamic world is something for which the west cannot escape partial responsibility. But however culpable we are, the man who murders innocent civilians is more so. And whatever responsibility we bear should not paralyze us in confronting evil; on the contrary, it should be yet another impetus to set right what we had a hand in setting wrong.
Just to go back to the news item I posted in #61. Islamic extremists are killing a Muslim minority in Pakistan. Why? Is it because they:
a) invaded Iraq?
b) stole the extremists’ oil?
c) oppressed the extremists using the capitalist military-industrial complex?
d) invaded Islamic countries a thousand years ago?
e) tempted them with debaucherous movies, fashion, fast food and music?The answer is ‘no’ to every one of these questions. So why are the extremists attacking this minority?
f) for their belief that Mohammed may not be the last prophet
Pretty simple really. So why are they attacking us?
Because we don’t believe Mohammed to be a prophet.
case closed
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 10 07 at 09:51 AM • permalinkMike Carlton is already at it in this Saturday’s herald:
‘But if we are to get anywhere in this war on terrorism it is useful to ask why they hate us so.’
Then goes on to say Indonesia didn’t back the US because it might cause tensions amongst extremist elements. As if Indonesia backed out because they are afraid. Maybe it is true - Indonesia is afraid, but if so, it doesn’t bring much credit on them.
Posted by Flying Giraffe on 2005 10 07 at 10:49 AM • permalinkWhat’s this about gambling and whoring in the South of France? Oh no, Karl Rove isn’t already planning the next Neocon Retreat is he? Oh gee whiz, I always get stuck with having to make the travel plans, arrange the hotels, book the black helicopters.
Gambling? Well, I can deal with that. I’ll call the Prince of Monoco, mention President Bush’s name, and he’ll reserve the posh rooms of the casino for us.
But whoring? I mean, where, what, how? I have no experience with that. Is there an escort service I can call? Oh please tell me I don’t have to cruise the seedy side of Paris for hookers.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 07 at 12:57 PM • permalinkI really don’t care about their “core values” or lack thereof. Not my problem. And I don’t mind the religion of Islam at all. It’s the jihadi’s methodology I object to, in the strongest possible terms.
People who act like mad dogs, for whatever reason (even, and perhaps especially because “gawd told ‘em to”) should be treated as such - just exterminated as quickly and cleanly as possible.
Islamic terrorists (as well as the vast majority of muslims) want the whole world to be Islamic.
We don’t want a Caliphate
They hate us, they kill us.
That’s the reason why.
I hope that was clear enough for you.
orang and nemmie are putting their hands over their ears and humming. No matter how clearly the Islamists state these demands, they will ignore them and continue to demand that we (meaning everyone but orang and nemmie and their friends, who are above this fray) engage in dialogue with these animals until the lefties hear what they want to hear. Which would be something along the lines of, “We hate Bush and Howard and all right-wingers and will stop killing you if you get rid of them. We like you.”
Ain’t gonna happen, boys. They hate you. If you’re not one of them, they hate you. Sorry it pains you so, since you did nothing to them, but them’s the breaks. Don’t worry, though - you can keep snidely carping while the adults do the unpleasant work of protecting your ungrateful, stupid asses.
I’m not so dismissive of attempts to identify the whys. I take others’ points that we didn’t need to understand Nazism or Japanese militarism to defeat them, but i’m sure it’d be acknowledged that they were cases of standard nation state warfare. To win we only (only!?!) had to defeat their military forces to the extent that they could no longer operate and their governments collapsed.
Terrorism is, as we all know, a different kettle of fish against which mere military strength may not be sufficient. Still, understanding the whys doesn’t mean we can do anything about them. I agree that its not simply “all about Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, oil (insert favourite hobby-horse here) and as far as many islamists are concerned “ain’t no appeasin’ you”.
The question is constantly split into “do they hate us for who we are or what we do”. The left say “what we do” the right says “who we are”. In my eternal fence sitting position I suppose i’d say it can be both. However, not to give too much comfort to the left, it should also be considered that who we are can dictate what we do and that this will almost certainly antagonise islamic totalitarianism. When someone can always find some insult (which can be long in the past) to justify their actions against you have to ask seriously if rational actions will work with them.
By all means look for whys and causes and all that, just don’t expect to do you much good in alleviating the threat. It could be like being in a bar with a thug who’ll take after you for the way you look, the way you talk or the way you look at him - no reasonable action beside total retreat will stop him coming after you.
#88 says
“The cataclysmic failure of civilization in the Islamic world is something for which the west cannot escape partial responsibility”.Let’s unpack this common bit of self-loathing, which is just what the Moslems want dhimmis like us to do. [Your post was otherwise OK, Nathan.]
1. I accept ‘partial reponsibility’ *only* because we all share the same planet and so interact. So what.
2. Since when can a ‘Civilisation’ be treated as a victim? They all rise and fall on their own merits - as abstractions that carry populations. Let’s get real.
3. When do you date this ‘failure’ from?
The Crusades? Hang on- we lost them! Maybe 1453, when Christian Constantinople was conquered by Islam?
You can date the ‘Rise of the West’ from about the same time, so we’ve been to ‘blame’ just for *rising* from the ashes of that huge invasive defeat [Moorish Spain too]? Turkey is scrambling to join us, but has a way to go yet for its *own* reasons, but it is succeeding, despite its unacknowledged, forgotten genocide of Arminians.4. Do you blame the West for ending Arab slavery, except still in parts of Africa I believe, [and look at Darfur]?
5. So we colonised some Moslem areas, but also *many* other civilisations.
I don’t accept we can be blamed at all for the ‘catastrophic’ failure of Zimbabwe, for instance.
We didn’t invent imperialism. Sukarno invaded West Papua soon *after* liberation from the Dutch. Moslem Pakistan seceded from India after Independence, and Bangladesh seceded from it…. See?6. Did buying all that oil from Moslems them cause them to ‘fail’, even a little bit? Get real.
7. I accept that giving them Nazi and Marxist excuses for failure was not a good idea, but no man is an island anyway…
Christian and Asian countries succumbed too, but most are getting over it. Let’s hope we don’t borrow Moslem political ideas!8. Oh I forgot - Israel. Are we to blame for rescuing and defending that *civilisation*, after almost destroying it ourselves? That’s the most sickening ‘self blame’ attitude of them all.
I’m not so dismissive of attempts to identify the whys. I take others’ points that we didn’t need to understand Nazism or Japanese militarism to defeat them ...
No, I think the point is more that we understand them perfectly well, it’s just that people such as orang and his ilk flatly deny the answers can possibly be correct, despite coming straight from the bad guys themselves, repeatedly. With plenty of terrorist actions supporting those answers (see ArtV at #89), and most assuredly not supporting the answers that orang et al. would like to hear instead.
This whole “why?” business is really less about Islamofascism and more about its unwitting supporters/appeasers in the West at this juncture. In fact, I would almost suggest asking “why do those people do what they do?” instead. When are we going to see that one asked in print?
#96
Actually, I’ve been appreciated lately how much there is to learn from the war with Japan. True we fought as nation states, but it was anything but standard warfare, and the Japanese Imperial Way ideology was every bit as spontaneous*, chaotic and decentralised as Islamofascism.
They were also a vastly more formidable enemy than the Islamofascists. They killed more civilians and they were more fanatical. The Arab is a laid-back fellow at heart, and even the senior terrorist leaders who have been caught seem perfectly willing inform on their comrades to save their own skins.
Most of the terrorist tactics have come direct from the Commies (through the KGB to the Arabs in the 50s and 60s and then onto the current generation of terrorists). Killing civilians has always been a Communist tactic. In Vietnam they killed vast numbers of their own countrymen.
The US forces appear to have learnt a huge amount from Vietnam, but the terrorist tactics have barely changed, except to become more ugly and indiscriminate.
For anyone who hasn’t read The Belmont Club—Tim has a link in his Blog Roll—a few hours of reading will give more insight than all the MSM reporting since 1965. His extremely intelligent and well informed outlook is quite optimistic, too.
My fondest wish would be for something to be done about the rank treason of the MSM. Broadcasting unadulterated enemy propaganda as well as knowingly and constantly publishing falsehoods during wartime (or any time) ought to be severely punished.
(eg. Broadcasting licenses revoked, assets seized, offenders imprisoned incommunicado for multi-decade terms. Luckily for all of us our leaders are much too nice for that.)
(*In as much as it arose without the control of a specific leader or party)
There is a major problem in not holding the governments of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia responsible for the actions of these “stateless” troublemakers.
Any denial that they are supporting the various groups is implausible, and we all know you need plausible deniability.
It is well known that the money and technical know-how is the lifeblood of the secretive jihadists. In treating a cancer you have to use tough measures to beat it.One addition:
The left say “what we do” the right says “who we are”. In my eternal fence sitting position I suppose i’d say it can be both.
You’re overlooking that “what we do” is just a subset of “who we are”. I don’t think anybody on the right denies that Islamists hate what we do, it’s just that that’s merely an offshoot of their more encompassing hatred. And the Left isn’t merely saying “they hate us for what we do”, they’re also saying “they don’t hate us for who we are” (hence their assumption that these beasts can be reasoned and negotiated with). There really is no way to fence-sit on this question, since the two alternatives are mutually exclusive.
PW - I don’t disagree at all. I also think we understand where they’re coming from quite well. The constant questioning from the left arises from not getting only the answers they want. I suppose my point was that it doesn’t hurt to ask the question and that defeating them may require more knowledge in this area than for Nazism etc where to a large extent we won because we had bigger, better equipped forces - thanks mainly to the US. Overall though, i don’t think many of their issues are negotiable because of the reasons you have put and so agree that a “hearts and minds” approach would be woefully insufficient - military/police/legal action is a major necessary component.
I don’t think i overlooked that what we do is a subset of who we are. i thought that was precisely my point perhaps less definitively stated (my 3rd para, 4th sentence). The two can’t be disentangled and so the left is incorrect, as you say, by focusing only on the “what we do side”. That’s why i agree more with the right.
I don’t think they intrinsically hate us at all.
Again the Japanese case is a good illustration. When they needed Western technology (late 19th / early 20th Century), the Japanese were our good friends. As part of their expansion into China and Asia in the 30s, Japan and US/British Empire became strategic rivals. At that point they began fanatically hating us.
It had nothing to do with who or what we were. Totalitarians need to hate their rivals.
Nazis and Soviets were as similar as any two systems in earth. They imitated each other constantly—politically, ideologically, in propaganda—but they were strategic rivals, so they each manufactured an extreme and contrived hatred of the other. It was almost (but not really) funny that when they saw fit to cooperate (in the joint invasion of Poland and the Soviet logistical help with the Nazi invasion of France), they switched their hatred off like a light switch, only to flick it back on again when Hitler attacked the USSR.
The typical Muslim is a bigot, and regards himself as a better person than us—that’s not hate, and there is no connection between that and the ideology of the terrorists, except that it makes him susceptible to their brainwashing. We could be concerned about curing this bigotry to deny recruits to the fascists, but it would be a hugely inefficient effort, and a bad use of resources.
The Islamofascists have strategic reasons for involving us in their intra-religious conflict. A fascist must always fanatically hate his enemies, it’s part of the mind control technique that holds their stupid cults together.
Who we are, what we are and what we do, are all completely irrelevant.
#103 - Kip - interesting way at looking at it and the point about the fluid nature of national alliances is well taken, what we all call realpolitik i suppose. But doesn’t your point rest on the base that who or what we are is still fundamental - we are not them and therefore, by definition, their rivals?
One of the better examples of the “arabic” mindset comes from my time in Port hedland. I have never met a group ( generalisations here) more influenced and desiring of the trappings of the west.
Shopping trips to the local shops brought disgusted obsevations that most of the clothing was chinese or “not Gucchi”. Ads for coke, ford, gucchi ect. adorned the walls.
Yet they still danced and celebrated on 9/11.
They want the objects and wealth but hate the laws and cultures that spawn it.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 10 07 at 11:26 PM • permalinkI see your point.
I mean nothing we do to respect or disprespect Islam will make any difference. No matter much PC-gobbledegook we absord, how nice the gloves we wear when we handle the Koran, or how jewel-encrusted the toilet we flush it down, nothing will change.
Interestingly, the Fisks, Tariq Ali’s, Kerry O’Briens etc. are correct in what they say are the requirements for the terrorists to stop ‘hating’ us (temporarily at least)—not surprising really since they all get their talking points directly or indirectly from Commie/Terrorist Central Command—we have to abandon all support for Israel and links with the Muslim world, stand back and let the slaughter move into overdrive.
...then let our children and grandchildren wait for their turn…
An addition to Kip Watson’s point which may be of interest: In the Russo-Japanese War and the First world War, the Japs were notable for their GOOD treatment of prisoners. Their atrocious treatment of prisoners in World War II was deliberately adopted when they became totalitarian and were no longer seeking to impress. They knew better.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 10 07 at 11:52 PM • permalinkNazis and Soviets were as similar as any two systems in earth. They imitated each other constantly—politically, ideologically, in propaganda—but they were strategic rivals, so they each manufactured an extreme and contrived hatred of the other. It was almost (but not really) funny that when they saw fit to cooperate (in the joint invasion of Poland and the Soviet logistical help with the Nazi invasion of France), they switched their hatred off like a light switch, only to flick it back on again when Hitler attacked the USSR.
I think there is one important difference in the current case, that being submission to a state ideology vs. submission to a religious ideology. I would say the Nazis and the Soviets managed to switch off and back on the hatred created in their peoples precisely because there were visible beings (Hitler/Stalin) who could command them so, with people being expected to follow along. (It’s all very Orwellian in that regard, but that’s probably beside the point.) An additional example would be emperor Hirohito’s surrender speech on radio.
However, that dynamic isn’t applicable to Islam, since a devout follower of the Islamist bent will only accept the word of Mohammad when push comes to shove, and there’s no way to overrule that, especially once somebody has bought into the particularly extreme interpretations of the Quran at the heart of Islamism. Granted, some of those at the margins might put down their weapons if, say, Osama personally repudiated his earlier words, but I suspect the relative numbers would work much different to the WWII comparisons, and most would simply carry on, branding Osama as a traitor/heretic/whatever. Just look at the handful of times when an actual fatwa condemning terrorism was issued. Net effect completely negligible, no matter how high-ranking the issuing mullah.
Upon rereading once more, I’m actually not sure I understand your argument completely. kipwatson, you say it makes no difference who we are and what we do, and I’m inclined to agree. But you also say you “don’t think they intrinsically hate us at all” (I’m assuming you’re speaking only about terrorists, not all Muslims)...then, what is it that they do? I suppose it’s not intrinsic hatred if it’s all due to brainwashing, but that strikes me as a distinction without a difference, especially since you also suggest there’s little point in trying to reverse said brainwashing (another point I largely agree with).
PW, yeah, I guess what I was trying to say was kind of banal. That all the hooey about our culture offending them is false. It’s a propaganda creation from within their ideology.
I’m even more convinced of the similarities with Japan. The Japanese were basically a morally upright but chauvinistic people who were unusually susceptible to indoctrination because of their odd religious beliefs (ie. that the Emperor was divine).Interesting also that the extreme form of this belief came out of the Meiji Revolution and the diversion of the people’s existing reverence into a state religion, by people who were not entirely fascistic themselves.
The Wahabbist ideology was also a conscious construction by religious politicians heavily influenced by Nazi and other fascist ideas wasn’t it?
Worth noting that if in WWII the Americans had tried to undermine the Imperial Way ideology, they would probably have failed, since they didn’t understand it. But defeat in war was enough to cause the movement’s demise from within.
People are people. Japanese and Muslim alike. If anything the flesh and blood Emperor made the Japanese ideology stronger, even though he was an eventual weak point. Continuous defeat in Iraq (mainly) is wrecking al Qaeda and destroying its support network in the Arab world.
JI, Iran, Hamas, etc. are different, but it’s hard to believe a defeat for one doesn’t hurt them all.
And Bush is a man of great insight. On a spiritual level, he is attacking Nihilism with Hope, in the form of Iraq as a model of success for Arabs to aspire to.
Orang and his gang of chicken little mates are saying that if someone injures or kills one of your family you must accept responsibility. Action against this act is a crime against humanity.
Orang and his gang of chicken little mates only apply this rule to western people.
Orang and his gang of chicken little mates would rather run that confront their adversary.
Orang and his gang of chicken little mates wouldnt walk out of sight on a dark night, chicken littles they are.
Thats why Orang and his gang of chicken little mates are destined to be always alone, for no good woman can respect a man who cavills to her enemy.
An interesting question is why they say ‘why’.
Personal responsibility, personal autonomy or even the existence of the ‘person’ is, as those on the left like to say, ‘problematic’. Actions, everything in fact, are determined more by external social, economic and political forces.
If someone does a bad thing, one looks to combinations of these factors when assigning responsibility - so when the young crim is hauled before the beaks, it’s the ‘system’ which is to blame.
Planet-wise, the ‘system’ is western, globalising capitalism and white power-mongering. For this, read the USA, particularly in its Republican guise. All evils must, as a matter of ideological loyalty, be laid at this door, including the atrocities of religious extremists - and any amount of twisted logic, abuse of evidence and moral obtuseness will do to fill the gap.
There has been tremendous and ever less plausible huffing and puffing along these lines, particularly since 9/11. But the chief difficulty has been the Islamonuts themselves who while willing to borrow from the why-ners seem to have a persistent religious thing going - and won’t shut up about it.
Such talk perplexes secular leftists who have a complete block about weird religious stuff. The terrorists talk about destroying unbelievers but they must really mean they are angry because Bush refused to sign Kyoto and local councils don’t do more about recycling.
That the root causes of Muslim alienation might be found in the religion’s failure to deal with modernism, its insistence on a literal reading of the Koran, its retreat into a more and more repressive and puritanical practice of Islam, coupled with or as a response to the failure of many Arab countries to develop more equitable political institutions and a genuine civil society is anathema to multicultural piety. Other cultures are necessarily good and used as fantasy projections of utopias leftists dream of imposing on the rest of us.
MacKay’s nonsense is just another blast of methane from Marxism’s old cow.
Sorry, a long comment but I found this discussion really interesting.
Mike Carlton in the SMH has regurgitated all McKay’s putrid idiocy as if it were omething fresh.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 10 08 at 08:32 AM • permalinkwronwright—Our Dark Master says you can cruise the seedy side of Paris just as soon as you find a clean side…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 08 at 05:15 PM • permalinkWell said, Inurbanus. You may want to read an analysis of the deep problems of sociology by a sociologist Thiele, in the October 2005 Quadrant. They deny having Gods and Devils [posing as ‘scientists’], but underneath they must have some basis for their heavy moralising - so it’s neanderthal politics.
It means they can’t understand or acknowledge real good or evil, or religious motivations either.Kip says truly: Bush is a man of great insight. On a spiritual level, he is attacking Nihilism with Hope, in the form of Iraq as a model of success for Arabs to aspire to.
Actually he is attacking a deeply anti-Christian Ideology within Islam - conquest of the infidel is prophesied and quite justified by brutal, total war. To the Islamist this is not Nihilism, but true faith.
Our problem is that we largely beat ‘nihilistic’ Communism by long economic and democratic success, yet the ideological virus of commumism is still not dead, as the educated left prove every day. What chance have we of stopping Islamofascism when it controls many madrassas and cannot be proved wrong either by democracy or economic success?
Sadly, we must expect a ‘long march of the brainwashed’ for many years.
Arafat was no weak fool, just very evil. When the Marxists failed him, he finally bequeathed his next generation to the Hamas ideologues, and so we are where we are.Thanks for the tip, Barrie, but I’ll have to wait a while. Online, they’re only at the June issue. You’ve got me thinking about an international subscription.
... and at #117. The US must grasp the Saudi Arabian nettle - chief disperser of poisoned theological weeds. Aramco oil bucks are killing people as sure as IEDs and suicide harnesses.
Told today about the wife of an acquaintance who was spending time with relatives in Riyadh. She was stopped by the the religious police (Mutawwa’in). Not wearing her veil correctly. The obscenely exposed section of forehead it should have covered was spray-painted black.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Appeasement: It worked for Chamberlain, right?