See no evil
People depress me. I'm so very sick of seeing the same sentiments trotted out to order when something like this happens. A large group of people get arrested, here and in Pakistan. The claim is they were going to board at least ten passenger jets and blow them up over major US cities. Thousands would have been killed, thousands more would have been injured.
And what do we get? We get passengers at airports being interviewed asked if they think this is the fault of British foreign policy. People writing letters to the Guardian saying that this is all a set-up, staged to distract from matters in the Middle East. Comments in blog posts from British lefties telling us that if they were Muslim they'd probably do it too.
And today we had a smarmy man in a suit, being interviewed by ITN lunchtime news, who told us calmly that there can be no surprise that Muslims are trying to do this to us. It is obvious, he explained casually, and the fault is entirely our own. It is totally normal behaviour to plan to commit mass murder because you disagree with government policy. Totally normal to kill yourself and others because of events that are happening to people you don't know in countries you have never been to. And all the while he spoke as if he were verbally shrugging his shoulders at the idea of thousands of people being ripped apart in our skys.
And this is where I get angry. The idea of committing such large scale violence upon innocent people seems to me to be at such an extreme end of behaviour that it almost isn't human. It is unnatural. Something so devoid of pity that it ranks outside humanity. And yet people talk as if it is entirely normal. As if it is normal that young men who have lived supposedly happy care-free lives should identify with a cause so strongly they will not just die for it, but rid themselves of all normal human feeling and reason and wilfully and indiscriminately kill innocent men, women and children.
As if it is an easy and logical step to go from being upset and angry to becoming a mass murderer. Fully reasonable and only to be expected.
And some people take these criminals seriously. They listen to them explain why they want to kill us and think they've got a point. They think they act out of love. But I don't believe for one second that these bastards truly feel anything in their hearts for the Muslims they claim to carry out these acts for. These self-appointed avengers are nothing but deluded fanatics, fuelled by narcissism and motivated by fairy stories. When people call for us to understand why they do what they do, they think it will offer some useful clue as to how we can stop it all happening. But it won’t. It will only show us the murky slop of a damaged mind. It won’t offer us the truth.
And the truth is that they do what they do because the well of Islam has been poisoned. British foreign policy could be the same and there would be no attempted acts of mass murder from any British Muslim if Islam had not been so contaminated. A strain of political Islam is capturing youthful energy, channelling thoughts and acting as a conduit into violence and that is the problem.
The Tipton four. Ordinary Midland lads, picking out a life in a small, poor Midlands town. I know Tipton. It’s the town next to the one I grew up in. I know too the crushing boredom of living in such a town, of having no money, of being young and directionless. I know the yearning for adventure, born out of the distress in seeing a life spread out before you that appears to offer nothing but hard work and low pay. And yet those lads end up in a war zone and then incarcerated in the world famous Guantanamo Bay. How does something like that happen to kids living in a boring little town where nothing ever happens? The answer lies in the plain terraced house on Wellington Street in which Imams from Pakistan infested young minds with talk of Jihad.
If that imam, or imams, had not been allowed to preach sermons of ignorance and hate, those Tipton lads would never have felt the impulse to go into Afghanistan.
That is what is missing from the discussion here. It’s not one easy step from being angry about British foreign policy to killing thousands of people, it’s a long journey and the road is laid by the islamofascists that swell the ranks of Islam. And we let them lay that road right under our bloody noses. We are a free country, at ease with allowing other cultures and religions to imbed and flourish. And the islamofacsists have used that against us. They have abused our trust and misused our freedoms. It constitutes just about the worst betrayal that it is possible to commit against this country.
And not content with allowing them to betray us, we then go on to reason away their lust for blood. We normalise their completely abnormal behaviour. We even take the blame for what they do. There really is no end to our desire to accommodate them and their sick ideology. People wonder at Britain’s fecundity when it comes to producing terrorists, but is it any wonder when we willing provide such fertile ground?
And, you know I’m not sure how much longer I can keep doing this. I really don’t think that it would have mattered to some people if this plot had not been foiled. If the attacks had gone ahead as planned and hell had opened up above the cities of America, they would still be doing it. Still shrugging their shoulders, still making excuses, still blaming Tony Blair. Because that’s what they are like these people. Devoid of any heartfelt compassion, lacking in any sense of reality. When that man was pontificating today on the ITN news I started shaking with anger. Literally. And when he had finished his easy delivery of his world-view in which guilt attaches to the innocent and murder is standard, I burst into tears. I had to spend the rest of the afternoon trying to distract myself from the pure fury that was burning me up. His complete nonchalance at what violence on a mass scale is, at the idea of it, at the threat of it, was just unbearable to me. If he knew, I kept thinking, what he was being so casual about, if he knew just what he was shrugging his shoulders at, he wouldn’t do it. He couldn’t do it.
We are still ignorant. Planes smash into buildings, trains explode, roofs get blown off London buses. Thousands die, hundreds die, fifty two people die. And yet still they don’t understand. And I don’t think I can bear to see, read or hear their ignorance anymore.


34 comments:
Sometimes I think the world's gone nuts and then I read for instance The Spirit of Appeasement by Victor Davis Hanson and realise nothing much has changed from the thirties except there is less excuse now with the example of Hitler to instruct them on the idiocy of wallowing in feel good theory.
And people like 'anonymous' in the comment section choose to think like an adolescent because I link to articles showing how the Islamists stage atrocities. As if people who commit real atrocities couldn't possibly be so evil as to stage them for propaganda purposes.
The only little excuse you can give the terrorists is that they are caught up in a dysfunctional society that teaches hatred to them as soon as they are old enough to understand. No such excuse can be extended to the useful idiots of the West.
Useful idiots who go on primetime TV and give the green light to the jihadists amongst us by asserting that mass violence it is a perfectly normal response, you mean? The idiots who pick their opinions off the shelf and spout rubbish with no harm being done, I can stomach. But adults in influencial positions (he was the head of some organisation) who go on telly and say this shit infuriate me. The damage they do.
Those people will be the first to demand that 'something should be done' if they are brought close up and personal with such violence.
Your post, Scribbles, articulates many of my own feelings about institutionalised idiocy and the poverty of British politics that has brought us to this point.
But the problem is deeper. It lies in mankind's capacity to 'believe' things - any old thing. And the people who believe good things simply encourage the barabaric among us - of all races - to believe bad things. Believing legitimises ALL beliefs, good or bad.
Humans are nuts and as technology like the internet faciltitates the spread of nuttiness (it is contagious) I lose all hope. I despair. Like you, I weep. Humankind is too stupid to know it is stupid.
Buck up. As the dime-store psychologist would say, turn the anger into action before you get too depressed.
We're not hopeless; a few of us just need a "stern talking to" is all.
Wise words Mr G. Wise words...
Robert g. said: turn the anger into action before you get too depressed
Oh no! Who else are we going to "liberate"?
ligneus said: people like 'anonymous' in the comment section choose to think like an adolescent
Quite happy to think like an adolescent; far better than having a head shaped like one of those little green "footballs"
Scribbles, you might want to have a look at this article
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?StoryID=7F974379-D91B-4780-A410-775F06D95B04&SectionID=803597D7-4BD5-45D5-BF88-E1AC85BF7FDF&_scoops=true
"The idea of committing such large scale violence upon innocent people seems to me to be at such an extreme end of behaviour that it almost isn't human. It is unnatural. Something so devoid of pity that it ranks outside humanity. And yet people talk as if it is entirely normal. As if it is normal that young men who have lived supposedly happy care-free lives should identify with a cause so strongly they will not just die for it, but rid themselves of all normal human feeling and reason and wilfully and indiscriminately kill innocent men, women and children."
Exactly. It isn't human. Because this, I think, is a pretty accurate description of the Israeli army over the last few weeks, but I guess your paranoid and narrow view of the world doesn't allow you to see that.
What now of popular Muslim opinion? Of the opinions of Muslims watching the world, in turn watching a Muslim sovereign state being systematically destroyed by US weapons shipped through UK airports?
And no, it is definitely not "an easy and logical step to go from being upset and angry to becoming a mass murderer." Like armies everywhere, you have to be trained to hate, without you realising what you are being trained for. Then, like recruits to the British Army, you will happily put yourself in the firing line. The thought of you being killed, or of returning home without all your limbs, or without a properly functioning mind, will have been surgically drilled out of you, and your family, beforehand.
Somewhere in these comments someone has suggested reading an article (anonymous, I found) in thebusinessonline.com.
Well, anyone can point to other endless stuff on the internet that bolsters up their own opinions, so have a look at the BBC reportage, describing in some detail how those US rockets, transported through UK airports, are destroying marked and lit ambulances taking wounded civilians to hospitals in Tyre. How at least one of those civilians now has to live the rest of his life without one of his legs. One incident in a country of thousands of such incidents. Now consider how very easy it will be, over the coming years, to radicalise the young people, future adults, maybe leaders, of that country.
Lastly, regarding the various opinions expressed on the draconian security regulations hastily brought in at UK airports, scaring the British public even more into believing all that the government says about the dangers of terrorism:-
I think I'm still correct in saying that the greatest danger of a violent early death for British people, particularly young ones, comes from private road transport. I fly quite a bit, don't drive much, get out quite a lot. I'm pretty sure, statistically, my greatest danger of an early death is an "accident" on the roads, as it is for all of us. So if the government claims it wants to make our lives safer, why doesn't it put the same hysterical effort into enforcing traffic laws properly, and treat careless and dangerous drivers the same way as it treats those suspected of terrorism? Why is it that a local speed limit cannot be changed, or proper police patrols put back on our roads, in the same one-day timescale that it has taken for the entire security procedures at all our airports to be reorganised, tightened, and brought into force?
The article in thebusinessonline.com made much of the number of people killed on 11th September 2001. It seems easy for people to forget, or choose to ignore, that about the same number of people are violently killed on Britains roads in about fourteen months. So how many violent deaths does that make in the time since? And what really are the threats to our own lives in this country?
Ken said:
Somewhere in these comments someone has suggested reading an article (anonymous, I found) in thebusinessonline.com
No, Ken! it was Charlie who directed us that way. However, I believe you are right about everything else. It is illuminating to observe the very same folk who expressed scepticism about reports coming out of Lebanon becoming irate, or 'depressed', when others express scepticism about reports coming out of London. I used to have a great deal of respect for some of the pro-warriors; in recent weeks--reading their despicable apologies for the murder and mayhem initiated by israel--that respect has rapidly drained away. I used to give some credence to the notion that they were the Decent Left, now they have unmasked themselves and I see them for what they are: the the recent Left!
What was I saying about some people being devoid of any heartfelt compassion and any sense of reality?
Thank you, both of you, for providing such prime examples of useful idiot thinking.
Why is it that western democracies have no problem with hypocrisy?
Colin Powell's two hour 'lie fest' to the UN Security Council. Dodgy dossiers, 45 minute claims, Niger Plutonium, Blair's pathetic mental gymnastics over the 'second resolution - not to mention the changing position over 'reciprocity' on the first resolution. Political abuse of the Security Services advice.
Prosecution of an illegal war: use of cluster bombs in civilian areas - resulting in tens of thousands of deaths including many hundreds likely in future years from discarded ordnance.
Guantanamo Bay - Abu Ghahib...
US military supplies to Israel being re-fuelled in UK civilian facilities (Prestwick). At the same time US/UK governments were resisting calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire!
I am not a pacifist. I am not a jihadist. I am a British subject seeking to hold my government to account for it's actions.
Without even considering the possibility that this might have been a 'war for oil'...
We have been cynically lied to.
Another stunt at Heathrow this week - it won't be the first time!
Remember the plot to bomb Old Trafford? Young British Muslims arrested under new anti-terror legislation. The story was released to the press they were planning an imminent attack on Old Trafford. Result - all were released without trial and it emerged that they were Man U fans who had kept ticket stubs as souvenirs of old games!
Islamic terrorists do not threaten my life and liberty to the same extent that my government has threatened the life and liberty of muslims in Iraq and elsewhere.
Further - my liberty is far more threatened by the government's response to the idiotic 'war on terror' than it is by Islamic terror.
'Tough on Crime, tough on the causes of crime'
Blair delivered on neither.
He never even got round to formulating the soundbite: "Tough on terror, tough on the causes of terror."
But the upshot of his misguided and inept policies are we are deserved target with no moral defence.
Where do you start with this crap? Well I don't have a lot of time but a couple of points. Israel did not initiate this 'mayhem'. There are videos of Palestinians and Hezbollah using ambulances to transport terrorists and weaponry, making them under the Geneva Convention no less, legitimate targets. What is Israel supposed to do? When the avowed intent of Hezbollah is to destroy it? Of Iran and I'madinnerjacket too. Yes, you'll say, it's just rhetoric, they don't really mean that. That's what they said of Hitler. Talk to them? Puhleeze!
All the Arab countries have expelled the Jews that have lived there for centuries, Israel, the only democracy in the region has a peaceful Arab population and Arab MK's. [Members of the Knesset] Which of the two is the more honourable? Only one guess allowed.
Anonymous. 'head shaped like a little green football'?
Oh dear, I should be embarrassed for you.
Ligneus
I question the right of Isreal to exist. It came into existance as a result of a terror campaign. It secured its early survival with a brutal and systematic policy of ethnic cleansing. The UN policy on these matters asserts the rights of the dispossesed to return. Most of the Palestinian people have ben dispooesed since 1948! Who speaks for them? To say the Isreal is a 'democracy' is an insult tyo those millions who have been forcibly removed from their land and couldn't vote if they wanted to.
Isreal is a state, democratic or not, based onh brutal ethnic cleansing and supported by US military hardware. It has no moral basis to say it is only acting 'defensively' when it uses it's US ordnance to attack Lebanon.
Mooney, firstly it might help if you could at least spell 'Israel' correctly. The Palestinians [who weren't even called that until the name was invented in the sixties as a political move by the Arabs] were displaced because several Arab countries attacked Israel with the intent of destroying it. The 'Palestinians' were told by said Arab countries to move out of the way to be returned once the objective was achieved. Unfortunately............
The Palestinians were however forcibly and brutally removed from Jordan for plotting against the government there. They were kicked out of Kuwait for siding with Saddam. Meantime sixty odd years after '48 they still sit in refugee camps because their fellow Arabs want nothing to do with them and use them as a pawn in the ongoing war to destroy Israel.
Oh Scribbles, I do agree with you (and Charlie) - politicians are STUPID and 'people' are STUPID.
It is SO depressing: 'Lets blow up 'Westerners' and/or Salman Rushdie - then they will see Allah is good' - WTF is that?
Is all the violence a cash boost to the UK armaments industry? (BAE Systems).
I mean, the rockets that the rocket launchers launch, have to be made and purchased somewhere, and that has to be stopped before the fighting will stop.
Mooney, you are not welcome here. There are plenty of places you can go and spout off about how you don't think Israel has the right to exist (places where people won't be quite as polite to you as Ligneus has been), but I don't want that kind of talk here.
Please don't comment again.
Amusing that Mooney in opining that Israel is illegitimate, spells it as is-real.
Oh the irony.
Yes, it's strange. I get the 'us good, them bad' mentality, loathsome though it is. But 'us bad, them good' leaves me slapping my forehead in bewilderment.
I suppose it feels like a moral outlook, being based at least partly on guilt and (selective) compassion, and appropriating the garb of standing with the weak against the powerful, empathising with the other, etc. But it's just as much based on identity as the first; it sees and magnifies the wrongs of one group, and downplays or justifies the wrongs of another.
These people seem to think that might makes wrong. But you don't have to be a superpower to slaughter and tyrannise the innocent.
I found this link through the official Labour Party site and 'Bloggers for Labour'. Why am I not surprised that my critiscism of western policy in the middle east was met with the comment 'Mooney you are not welcome here'?
I thought the whole point of these blogs was to express opinion and generate debate.
I apologise for my shoddy spelling. As for my opinions they are genuinely held and hopefully politely expressed.
'In Haifa... they have opened a ghetto for the Arabs. Four of the meaner streets have been wired off and, just like the Jews in Medieval Cracow, Christian and Muslim Arabs must sleep and live here under guard. Businessmen can apply for passes if they wish to emerge during the day... it would be hard to visualise a more subdued and frightened population than the Arabs left in Israel...
Patrick O'Donavan, The Scotsman, 14 July 1948
'The Arab villages are deserted, their miserable houses have been looted, and many are burnt. The inhabitants, estimated to be about 20,000 - a number which has been swollen considerably by refugees from the north - have fled, and no one knows, or apparently cares, where they have gone... in Beersheba itself, once a thriving centre, a few inhabitants remain, and at present members of the Israeli Army are systematically looting those houses that survived the bombing.'
The Times, 25 October 1948
The dispossession of Palestinian Arabs (Muslim and Christian) in 1948 was an essential part of the creation of the Israeli state. It pre-dated the wars waged against Israel by other Arab states in 1967 and 1973 and referred to by Ligneus.
'Palestinians' as a term refered to all those living in the Mandated territory Palestine administered by Britain from the end of World War One until the creation of Israel in 1948. During that period one could therefore be a Palestinian Jew, Muslim, Christian or, presumably anything else.
The foundation of Israel in 1948 created a specifically jewish state. This, in my opinion, is a significant root of the problem. Hence my view that I question the right of the state of Israel to exist. This does not mean that I wish ill to any particular religion or it's adherants.
And finally, a cheap shot...
Tom Freeman writes: '... you don't have to be a superpower to slaughter and tyrannise the innocent' BUT IT HELPS!
Slainte and Shalom
OK you want to cite history, here's some and I apologise if it's longer than it ought to be for a comments section.
IN THE ARAB WORLD, Zionism is portrayed not as the Jewish response to a history of anti-Semitism in a world that culminated in the Holocaust but as a hyperaggressive variant of colonialism. But since this new anti-Semitism manifests itself so clearly now as political rejection of the Jewish state, it is worth examining the historical record for a moment. Fact: The majority of Jews came to Israel in the late 19th century and early 20th century not as conquering Europeans backed by a national army and treasury but as the wretched of the earth in search of respite from ceaseless persecution. They were not wealthy; they were young, poor, and desperate. The notion that the traditional position of the Arabs in Palestine was jeopardized by Jewish settlements is belied by another fact: that when the Jews arrived, Palestine was a sparsely populated, poorly cultivated, and wildly neglected land of sandy deserts and malarial marshes. Mark Twain, in The Innocents Abroad, described it as a "desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds — a silent, mournful expanse. . . . We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
Even people unsympathetic to the Zionist cause believed that Jewish immigrants had improved the condition of Palestinian Arabs. Consider the words of Sharif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic holy places in Arabia, in 1918: "One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1,000 years. At the same time, we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine. . . . They knew that the country was for its original sons. The return of these exiles to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually [to be] an experimental school for their brethren." Hussein understood then, as so many refuse to see now, that the regeneration of Palestine and the growth of its population came only after the Jews returned in significant numbers. As Winston Churchill, then the British colonial secretary, pointed out: "The land was not being taken away from the Arabs. The Arabs sold land to Jews only if they chose to do so."
The hope was that the Arabs would accept Israelis as their neighbors and, finally, recognize them as such. That hope died aborning. Even war, that grim final arbiter of international relations, has made no difference. The Arabs resisted from the outset a Jewish presence in the region. They expanded their war against Israel into an attack on the very idea of Israel. Zionism, the Jewish claim to a land of their own, was declared racist because the Arabs said it deprived them of their land. They substituted the homeless Palestinian for the homeless Jew. The Arabs, having rendered the Palestinians homeless by refusing to accept partition in 1948 and having kept many of the Palestinians who fled the battle homeless in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan by refusing to resettle them in their lands, now blame this homelessness on the Jews. They have consistently charged that it was the Jews who had driven the Arabs out of Palestine. But as the eminent Arabist Bernard Lewis has written, "the great majority, like countless millions of refugees elsewhere, left their homes amid the confusion of and panic of invasion and war — one more unhappy part of the vast movement of population which occurred in the aftermath of World War II."
Even the foreign press, in regular contact with all sides during the conflict of 1948, wrote nothing to suggest that the flight of the Palestinians was not voluntary. Nor did Arab spokesmen, such as the Palestinian representative to the U.N., Jamal Husseini, or the secretary general of the Arab League, blame the Jews contemporaneously with the 1948 war for the flight of Arabs and Palestinians. In fact, those who fled were urged to do so by other Arabs. As then Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said put it, "the Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." One Arab who fled encapsulated this thinking in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us, `Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in." And a bad situation, impossibly, was allowed to get worse. Arabs and Palestinians displaced by the 1948 war were resettled in camps administered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the only such agency established for any refugee group since the massive dislocations of World War II. The partition of India occurred at the same time as the conflict in Palestine, and millions of Hindus and Muslims were uprooted, but virtually nothing was done for them. Nothing was done in response to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, where a long-standing religious, social, and political culture was virtually destroyed.
Yet 55 years after they were first established, the Arab refugee camps still exist. With the exception of Jordan, the Arab governments home to these camps have refused to grant citizenship to the refugees and opposed their resettlement. In Lebanon, 400,000 stateless Palestinians are not allowed to attend public school, own property, or even improve their housing stock. Three generations later, they continue to serve as political pawns of the Arab states, still hopeful of reversing the events of 1948. "The return of the refugees," as President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt said years later, "will mean the end of Israel."
From an essay by Mortimer Zuckerman.
mooney: "I found this link through the official Labour Party site and 'Bloggers for Labour'. Why am I not surprised that my critiscism of western policy in the middle east was met with the comment 'Mooney you are not welcome here'?"
Yes, because we are all in the pay of Labour Party headquarters and all duitifully toe our lines. Please.
Rob,
You misunderstand me.
I was told that I was not welcome here. I assumed that was because I criticised our government's policy in the middle east and questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel.
Remember last years Labour Party Conference and the treatment of an 80 year old heckler who called the Foreign Secretary a liar?
I assume, and hope, that I'm still not welcome here. I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would admit me as a member.
Mooney, I'm not a Labour member and this blog has nothing to do with the Labour party.
I ask you politely once again. Please stop commenting here.
Can't resist it...
Comment, comment, comment.
Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah.
Shalom.
I think the whole argument is starting to make me feel sick. Why is it that people are limited to taking one side or another?
The people who express disgust at a plot to kill lots of Westerners on planes don't seem to give a shit about the infinitely larger numbers of Muslims in the ME slaughtered.
The people who attack our foreign policy and express disgust at what's happening over there, don't seem to give a shit if innocents are killed over here.
This is war, like it or not, both sides will commit atrocities, there are no good guys.
Scribbles, don't think I'm being pedantic, but "Islamofascism" doesn't seem the most accurate way of describing it.
Middle Eastern powers include pan-Arab socialist dictatorships (Syria), monarchies (Saudi Arabia), constitutional theocracies (Iran), and assorted fundamentalist movements. None are "fascist." For three decades of political scientists, "fascism" is a phenomenon of industrialized societies and exhibits features alien to the Middle East.
- smirking chimp quote.
To just label them all egomaniacal fascists is a blatant misrepresentation. As disgusting as a terror plot is, it doesn't help us if we stick our heads in the sand and deny these men have any reason for their actions other than bloodlust.
Even the government know they're talking bollocks when they deny it's anything to do with foreign policy!
Phu, when I'm talking about islamofascists I am not talking about the whole of the ME! I mean specifically the bastards who have joined up to a violent jihad. This movement seems to me exactly like fascism, the only difference being the change of nationalism for religion.
As for the reasons these jihadis do what they do, I really am tired of the niavety over this. Young men do not become radicalised and want to commit gross acts of violence just because of what they see on the tea-time news.
I saw first hand what these people did in New York. I saw the west being attacked. Why am I not radicalised? Why aren't I planning to wrap explosives around me and blow up mosques? Why don't I hate? Why don't I want to kill?
If they have a "reason" to kill innocent people, then so do I.
There is of course a legitimate discussion to be had over the effects of foreign policy on the jihadi movement. But the jihadis network in this country pre-dates September 11th. And I'd also like to ask why these bastards didn't give a damn about what Saddam Hussein was doing to the Muslims in Iraq, and what the Taliban were doing to the Muslims in Afghanistan, and what the Ayatollahs continue to do to the Muslims in Iran.
All this my 'Muslim brother and sisters' stuff is not only clearly bollocks (as illustrated by their selective compassion), it is also creepy and abnormal. I'm a feminist and take an interest and care about what happens to women around the world. Women everwhere suffer greatly at the hands of men for one reason or another. But I don't over-identify with other women to such an extent that I appoint myself as their avenger and go around killing random men on their behalf.
If we all acted like the jihadis this world would be a living hell. I'd be out killing my neighbour because their dog's barking keeps me awake at night. Well why not? I have reason?
I agree with your point on 'selective compassion', of course it's hypocritical. But you have to remember, a group will always take more offence at an outsider attacking one of their own than an insider.
This is, sociologically, a common phenomenon, not unique to the Jihadists.
Certain bloggers have argued against black sensitivity to the slavery issue, citing black thinkers' apparent refusal to address the fact that blacks were enslaved by blacks in Africa just like they were by whites from the West.
I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but I have to admit to finding it somehow understandable, if not justifiable.
I'm not intending to draw a comparison between the two examples, by the way, merely illustrating a point that stands.
You call this "Muslim brothers and sisters stuff" "bollocks". Why is it? Again, looking at the example of African Americans, who have the same brothers and sisters mentality, we can see that members of oppressed groups (which whether you accept it or not, many Muslims claim to be) form these common bonds, implying they have a shared understanding and experience, and in many cases with that bond comes expectancy.
I don't think it's naive to accept the fact that thousands of Muslims are prepared to strike terror in the West in direct response to US and UK actions in the Middle East.
I know it's not right or justifiable, and I'm not attempting to justify it.
You cite your feminist stance as some sort of reference point, which I think was pretty naive tbh. Feminists have assumed they can relate to others who are 'downtrodden' before, even claiming they spoke for all women, regardless of other dimensions such as ethnicity or economic status. I remember black feminists in particular vehemently challenging the idea that those prominent feminists knew anything like the struggle they went through. It's just not the same thing.
Do you really believe the US went to war in the ME to free it's citizens from tyranny?
If not, then don't be surprised that many Muslims are pissed off and see it as logical to 'bring the war' to the West.
Don't get too angry with me by the way! I must stress I'm not attempting to justify it at all, I'm just saying you have to look at what is actually happening, whether you agree with it or not.
Thank you Phu, I do get angry over this, but I wasn't angry at you. I like the sense of compassion that always comes through in anything you have to say.
Anyway, here I go...
"I agree with your point on 'selective compassion', of course it's hypocritical. But you have to remember, a group will always take more offence at an outsider attacking one of their own than an insider.
This is, sociologically, a common phenomenon, not unique to the Jihadists."
Agreed and good point. But that's where the danger is. Identifying themselves solely as Muslim leaves no space for other indentities - they see "the British" as outsiders because they refuse to identify themselves as British.
"You call this "Muslim brothers and sisters stuff" "bollocks". Why is it? Again, looking at the example of African Americans, who have the same brothers and sisters mentality, we can see that members of oppressed groups (which whether you accept it or not, many Muslims claim to be) form these common bonds, implying they have a shared understanding and experience, and in many cases with that bond comes expectancy."
Again, Phu, it's over-indentification. We've seen that here in Birmingham in Lozells, when the black and Asian commuinty pitted themselves against each other. Two poor communities in a poor area of the city fighting each other on racial grounds. Spurred on I should say by these ubiquitous "community leaders" who encourage segregation. Yes, we all have certain aspects of ourselves that give us a strong identity, but we all have more than one side to us, and bad things happen when we think we don't.
BNP supporters for instance indentify themselves as white first and formost. Yet we seem to easily be able to see that that is a dangerous way to think.
"I don't think it's naive to accept the fact that thousands of Muslims are prepared to strike terror in the West in direct response to US and UK actions in the Middle East."
It is entirely niave to accept that some Muslims are prepared to strike terror in the West, SOLELY because of UK actions in the ME. Read my post again if you can bear it. I do say that I believe that UK foreign policy could be as it is, and there would be no British Muslims trying to kill us if there was no jihadi network in this country.
I ask again, when I have personally witnessed an attack on the West by jihadis, why aren't I donning explosives and going out and killing people? Why don't I hold all Muslims responsible for what some Muslims did? Why aren't there militias springing up from New York, London and Madrid with the intent of killing Muslims?
We allowed nasty imams into this country to preach hate to our young, and that's why some Muslims hate the West. See my Tipton Four example in the post.
"You cite your feminist stance as some sort of reference point, which I think was pretty naive tbh. Feminists have assumed they can relate to others who are 'downtrodden' before, even claiming they spoke for all women, regardless of other dimensions such as ethnicity or economic status. I remember black feminists in particular vehemently challenging the idea that those prominent feminists knew anything like the struggle they went through. It's just not the same thing."
It is excatly the same thing. It's this over-identification issue again. Some feminists only identify themselves as women and allow no other side to their identity, and that's not healthy either. Still, though, there haven't been many feminist militias going out and killing thousands of men, and if there were I don't think even the white liberals of this country would be saying "well, they've got a point". Or perhaps they would. I don't know.
"Do you really believe the US went to war in the ME to free it's citizens from tyranny?"
No, I don't believe the US went to war to free the Iraqis or Afghanistanis (although I think they should have done, and done it a lot sooner). But do I believe that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the chance of a better life because of US intervention? Yes, I do. But it would help if the jihadis wanted that too and stopped trying to blow fellow Muslims up in mosques and markets.
"If not, then don't be surprised that many Muslims are pissed off and see it as logical to 'bring the war' to the West."
Well, I don't know about you, but when something pisses me off, I don't logically go out and kill thousands of people. Pissed off is absolutely fine. Commiting mass murder is not.
'Pissed off is absolutely fine. Committing mass murder is not.'
Do the bombing raids of 'Coalition Forces' on Iraq represent 'pissed off' and therfore are 'absolutely fine' ... or might they be construed by the victims as mass murder visted upon them be an alien power?
Scribbles position is ridiculous.
Assume a resistance to this overwhelming military machine wished to relaliate - should they be MORALLY condemned for engaging in a suicide attack which targetted civilians? I just don't get it.
Of course you don't get it Mooney, you have no goddam brains.
Front Page Magazine has an excellent article on useful idiots.
Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.
Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.
Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.
The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.
The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.
Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”
Worth reading all of it.
Sorry, I don't get the reference about the 'Monday morning Quarterback.' Is that a game you Israelis play that no-one else has ever heard of? Maybe in your warped view of reality you could organise a 'World Series.
USA vs Israel... only problem would be no-one would watch and no-one would care who won.
There's 'Useful Idiots' everywhere,serving everyone's purpose.
For some American idiots it's the first time they have ever been useful!
Slainte.
VICTORY TO THE ROADSIDE BOMBERS!
Post a Comment