Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[JayB]

Trashman, I think you've read too far into my comments. Doesn't matter as you and I know it was just a shot over the bow. I don't really care for the arab world and am not interested in pursuing any relations whatsoever in that part of the world.

 

The problem is, that's where the terrorists come from. Without at least some cooperation from these governments and their local populaces how are we going to conduct effective counter terrorism operations? I suppose we could pull out of the region altogether and hope for the best.

 

An analogy here at home. Every couple of years a homeless camp moves on to the lawn of the local church. The assault rate immediately goes up, and goes down when they leave. The solution on one side, I suppose, would be to kill them all. OK. Another solution might be to address the issue of why these people are on the streets in the first place. The worst option is to just ignore the problem, because the problem isn't going to ignore us.

 

Plus, there's that oil dependency thing we still haven't addressed.

 

Actually - a significant number - if not an outright majority of the terrorists involved in the attacks on the West spent a significant amount of time living in the West, in Europe or Britain in particular. These were not destititute Yemeni goatherds whose entire education consisted of memorizing a few bits of the Koran in the local free-lance Madrassa. They were fairly affluent and well educated men who were either living in or educated in the West, and were radicalized while living in Western countries in a way that they hadn't been while living in their native countries. The second and third generation Muslims living in the West are significantly more radical than their parents who, unlike them, may have lived under conditions of actual, rather than adjectival colonialism.

 

This and many other elements of the current situation suggest that anyone who believes that simply pulling up stakes and leaving the Middle East will eliminate terrorism or eradicate the long list of grievances that Islamists have compiled to justify their attacks is mistaken. This list extends well beyond the framework of contemporary geopolitics, and even if the situations in Iraq and Palestine were resolved to their satisfaction, there'd be plenty of other pretexts that would serve equally well in their place. The response to the publication of a few exceedingly mild satirical cartoons, published in a language which they could not comprehend, in a country as tolerant and accommodating as any in the world, should be telling in this regard - as should the fact that neither Canada, nor France, nor Germany has been granted any special exemption from terrorist attacks on account of their vocal opposition to US policy.

 

Whatever the solution involves, it will certainly not include craven opportunism, weakness, or cultural self-loathing of the kind that seems to permeate the Euro-Leftist outlook.

 

"Alright, alright - we'll get rid of the drinking and the carousing and the music and the satire and keep the ladies in Burkas if that's what you want - just stop with the bombing already!"

 

 

[JosephH]

Military endeavors of this scope and duration should require a formal declaration of war.

 

K, dude, be careful man, you've said I agree with...

[tvashtarkatena]

Trashman, I think you've read too far into my comments. Doesn't matter as you and I know it was just a shot over the bow. I don't really care for the arab world and am not interested in pursuing any relations whatsoever in that part of the world.

 

The problem is, that's where the terrorists come from. Without at least some cooperation from these governments and their local populaces how are we going to conduct effective counter terrorism operations? I suppose we could pull out of the region altogether and hope for the best.

 

 

Actually - a significant number - if not an outright majority of the terrorists involved in the attacks on the West spent a significant amount of time living in the West, in Europe or Britain in particular. These were not destititute Yemeni goatherds whose entire education consisted of memorizing a few bits of the Koran in the local free-lance Madrassa. They were fairly affluent and well educated men who were either living in or educated in the West, and were radicalized while living in Western countries in a way that they hadn't been while living in their native countries.

 

I've already profiled the 'typical terrorist' in previous posts on another thread. Noone here has suggested they are mainly simple, angry villagers. There are not training camps, however, in the West. Those do exist in the Middle East. Furthermore, the big cheeses of Al Qaeda currently operate in obscure, destabilized locations in N Africa and Western Asia, not Europe.

 

You've also oversimplified the European muslim issue. In France, for example, the riots there were not primarily religious in nature; they were more akin to our own Watts race riots, fomented by a marginalized minority.

 

The terrorists you speak of were radicalized by a community with leadership outside those countries. Taking out the leadership is one effective way to tackle the problem, and that involves operating in those countries where the leadership operates.

Whatever the solution involves, it will certainly not include craven opportunism, weakness, or cultural self-loathing of the kind that seems to permeate the Euro-Leftist outlook.

 

"Alright, alright - we'll get rid of the drinking and the carousing and the music and the satire and keep the ladies in Burkas if that's what you want - just stop with the bombing already!"

 

 

Again, no on on this forum has suggested any such cultural capitulation. Quite the opposite. I've suggested repeatedly that we marginalize these assholes by giving them less play in the public sphere, treating them as just another international criminal enterprise, not a 'War on Western Civilization', and getting on with our lives. After all, the whole point of terrorism is to disrupt the public psyche and garnish publicity. We've played right into that strategy. This is one of your 'theme' admonitions, but no one here is really sure who you're addressing it to.

[foraker]

JayB, I think you'll find 'Euro-Leftist' countries have a population that is often 'tolerant and accomodating' in name only or, at best, only at the government services level and within various social-economic groups. My experience with Europe is that there is still a fair bit of ingrained intolerance there, though no one admits it so openly to casual acquaintances. If this intolerance leads to social and economic marginalization, its no surprise to me Muslims living in Europe become radicalized. You have to ask yourself why this radicalization occurs mostly in, say, Europe than here (that's my anecdotal opinion, not something I can really support objetively...I might be wrong). Seems to me it's an underlying wealth and economic problem, not a 'religious' problem. Sure, certain aspects of the clergy might be radicalized but you don't see them out with bombs strapped onto themselves, do you? Just look at our own immigration problem here. Why don't the Mexicans 'radicalize'? Some of them probably do but most of them are enjoying the fruits of superior economic opportunity. Why would you want to kill the gold-egg-laying goose? Anyway, I may be full of it. Feel free to criticize.

[JayB]

My comment about tolerant and accomodating had to do with the Danes, and I think that the description largely fits for them - although the problems that you cite are certainly present there also. With respect to the rest of your comments, I pretty much completely agree. The Euros have managed to combine a system where the folks who don't share the same ethnocultural background as the natives are subject to a million minor instances of petty bigotry and descrimination, and this is coupled with a labor-market/welfare-system which effectively denies them the opportunity to to participate in the labor market, so instead of integrating through work because that's what they have to do to put food on the table, they wind up warehoused on welfare estates where they're easy prey for an ideology that capitalizes on their marginalization, sanctions violence against the society that excludes them, and provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose - however warped and destructive.

 

This article is only about Sweden, but it pertains to pretty much all of Euroland:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05muslims.html?ex=1296795600&en=722dbb00a718b0f9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

 

[JayB]

Trashman, I think you've read too far into my comments. Doesn't matter as you and I know it was just a shot over the bow. I don't really care for the arab world and am not interested in pursuing any relations whatsoever in that part of the world.

 

The problem is, that's where the terrorists come from. Without at least some cooperation from these governments and their local populaces how are we going to conduct effective counter terrorism operations? I suppose we could pull out of the region altogether and hope for the best.

 

 

Actually - a significant number - if not an outright majority of the terrorists involved in the attacks on the West spent a significant amount of time living in the West, in Europe or Britain in particular. These were not destititute Yemeni goatherds whose entire education consisted of memorizing a few bits of the Koran in the local free-lance Madrassa. They were fairly affluent and well educated men who were either living in or educated in the West, and were radicalized while living in Western countries in a way that they hadn't been while living in their native countries.

 

I've already profiled the 'typical terrorist' in previous posts on another thread. Noone here has suggested they are mainly simple, angry villagers. There are not training camps, however, in the West. Those do exist in the Middle East. Furthermore, the big cheeses of Al Qaeda currently operate in obscure, destabilized locations in N Africa and Western Asia, not Europe.

 

You've also oversimplified the European muslim issue. In France, for example, the riots there were not primarily religious in nature; they were more akin to our own Watts race riots, fomented by a marginalized minority.

 

The terrorists you speak of were radicalized by a community with leadership outside those countries. Taking out the leadership is one effective way to tackle the problem, and that involves operating in those countries where the leadership operates.

Whatever the solution involves, it will certainly not include craven opportunism, weakness, or cultural self-loathing of the kind that seems to permeate the Euro-Leftist outlook.

 

"Alright, alright - we'll get rid of the drinking and the carousing and the music and the satire and keep the ladies in Burkas if that's what you want - just stop with the bombing already!"

 

 

Again, no on on this forum has suggested any such cultural capitulation. Quite the opposite. I've suggested repeatedly that we marginalize these assholes by giving them less play in the public sphere, treating them as just another international criminal enterprise, not a 'War on Western Civilization', and getting on with our lives. After all, the whole point of terrorism is to disrupt the public psyche and garnish publicity. We've played right into that strategy. This is one of your 'theme' admonitions, but no one here is really sure who you're addressing it to.

 

I didn't describe the French riots as terrorism, but there has been plenty of other violence perpetrated by Islamist fanatics who are either from, living in, or educated in Euroland so excluding the great French Car-B-Que changes nothing.

 

With regards to cultural capitulation, this is a process that's occuring in the real-world, and the opinions expressed here have no bearing on their occurrence whatsoever. The primary means by which this has occurred is via the deliberate conflation of critiques of Muslim ideas or practices with racism or homophobia, although violence and intimidation - witness Theo Van Gogh's Slaying or the death threats issued in the wake of the Danish cartoon episode - is clearly not off of the table either. Most of this is occuring in Europe and England, but there was an episode not too long ago where a public swimming pool in Washington was either arranging or had arranged for female-only swimming times to cater to Muslim sentiments. Some may argue that this is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it crosses the red church-state line that would normally have the the Left screaming.

 

 

 

 

 

[chucK]

I want to start out with good posts there KK and JayB!

 

Back to the spineless democrats. I think you guys are being a little harsh (not that I think they did right by any means). Remember how back then, EVERYBODY loved GWB or at least 60-70%. I mean, jeezus, most joe lunchbuckets and sally soccermoms were even backing the evil Yankees because of 9/11. The dems in the legislature knew that GWB was gonna invade Iraq whether or not they voted for the authorization, and I think it was reasonable to believe that there was a good chance we wouldn't have fucked up so bad and Saddam would be deposed, we'd be outa there, and we'd be blaming the dysfunctional Iraqis for all the chaos that "erupted", after we helped them out with their tyrant problem.

 

Anyway any Democrat with any sort of possible contest in his/her district/state figured it would be political suicide to vote against the thing, and they caved. Also, they figured they could use the "authorization to bargains agressively, NOT declaration of war" thing for political cover.

 

I wonder what would have happened has GWB gone to congress and asked for a declaration of war?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

With regards to cultural capitulation, this is a process that's occuring in the real-world, and the opinions expressed here have no bearing on their occurrence whatsoever. The primary means by which this has occurred is via the deliberate conflation of critiques of Muslim ideas or practices with racism or homophobia, although violence and intimidation - witness Theo Van Gogh's Slaying or the death threats issued in the wake of the Danish cartoon episode - is clearly not off of the table either. Most of this is occuring in Europe and England, but there was an episode not too long ago where a public swimming pool in Washington was either arranging or had arranged for female-only swimming times to cater to Muslim sentiments. Some may argue that this is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it crosses the red church-state line that would normally have the the Left screaming.

 

France has banned religious symbols in the workplace. England is considering banning burkas. Where's the cultural capitulation, exactly? You've cited one obscure incidence in the United States, and opined that 'the Left' would back it wholeheartedly. One minor data point bolstered by unsupported conjecture. Personally, I'm not going to run for cover any time soon.

 

If your tide of Muslim radicalism (rather that socio economic pushback, which is what is actually occuring in Europe) is such grim reality, why isn't it happening right here in the belly of the 'Great Satan'? Do we not have Muslims here? Have we not invaded two Muslim countries? Guantanamo Bay? And yet...no riots. All quiet on the home front. Hmmmmm.

Edited February 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I want to start out with good posts there KK and JayB!

 

Back to the spineless democrats. I think you guys are being a little harsh (not that I think they did right by any means). Remember how back then, EVERYBODY loved GWB or at least 60-70%. I mean, jeezus, most joe lunchbuckets and sally soccermoms were even backing the evil Yankees because of 9/11. The dems in the legislature knew that GWB was gonna invade Iraq whether or not they voted for the authorization, and I think it was reasonable to believe that there was a good chance we wouldn't have fucked up so bad and Saddam would be deposed, we'd be outa there, and we'd be blaming the dysfunctional Iraqis for all the chaos that "erupted", after we helped them out with their tyrant problem.

 

Anyway any Democrat with any sort of possible contest in his/her district/state figured it would be political suicide to vote against the thing, and they caved. Also, they figured they could use the "authorization to bargains agressively, NOT declaration of war" thing for political cover.

 

I wonder what would have happened has GWB gone to congress and asked for a declaration of war?

 

 

He would not have gotten it. It's not politically and diplomatically acceptable to declare war so it's not done, even though it is a war. Korea was called a "police action" wasn't it? Totally ridiculous.

 

Deploying troops to Grenada, Panama, even Bosnia shouldn't need a declaration of war, but 200,000 troops? The constitution should be amended.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The last declaration of war was on Japan (Germany declared war on us afterwards).

 

Realistically, we will probably never declare war again. Why bother? The power of the presidency has been concentrated so much in the past half century that the commander in chief apparently feels that such a formality is no longer necessary.

[chucK]

Conflation of critiques of Muslim ideas with homophobia? How was that managed? Must be an interesting twist of logic.

 

I'm curious about this Washington swimming pool thing too, and why it should have the Left screaming. I see your point that it is a public institution that is catering to the wishes of religious people, but it seems like that could have easily been handled by calling it a "women only" swim hour instead of "devotion to Islam required". I guess you could now say that all males are wronged, but nobody seems to be bothered by segregated bathrooms. Why not segregate a public facility for an hour a week if there's the demand?

 

Ermmm...I guess there would be no way of having it happen if it was a "blacks only" or "whites only" swim hour though eh...that's a bit different though, most people acknowledge that the genders are different and they have different desires and that sometimes there are good reasons to segregate the two. I don't think this is the common belief though with respect to races.

[lI1|1!]

The last declaration of war was on Japan

 

didn't they declare war on drugs?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The last declaration of war was on Japan

 

didn't they declare war on drugs?

 

 

And Poverty. And Terror.

 

Jesus, we sure have been losing a lot of wars, lately.

[JosephH]

A president should have the power to deploy 20k troops and 10k support personnel for six months anywhere against a single threat on their own and be able to do so against more than one threat simultaneously. But one more day or one more body should require a formal declaration of war and the immediate imposition of the draft and a 10% federal VAT on all goods and services until there is a formal cessation of hostilities.

[foraker]

And Cancer

[tvashtarkatena]

And Cancer

 

How about a War on Stupid Fucking Big Ideas? I'd support that.

[foraker]

How's that War on Christmas going?

[JayB]

With regards to cultural capitulation, this is a process that's occuring in the real-world, and the opinions expressed here have no bearing on their occurrence whatsoever. The primary means by which this has occurred is via the deliberate conflation of critiques of Muslim ideas or practices with racism or homophobia, although violence and intimidation - witness Theo Van Gogh's Slaying or the death threats issued in the wake of the Danish cartoon episode - is clearly not off of the table either. Most of this is occuring in Europe and England, but there was an episode not too long ago where a public swimming pool in Washington was either arranging or had arranged for female-only swimming times to cater to Muslim sentiments. Some may argue that this is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it crosses the red church-state line that would normally have the the Left screaming.

 

France has banned religious symbols in the workplace. England is considering banning burkas. Where's the cultural capitulation, exactly? You've cited one obscure incidence in the United States, and opined that 'the Left' would back it wholeheartedly. One minor data point bolstered by unsupported conjecture. Personally, I'm not going to run for cover any time soon.

 

If your tide of Muslim radicalism (rather that socio economic pushback, which is what is actually occuring in Europe) is such grim reality, why isn't it happening right here in the belly of the 'Great Satan'? Do we not have Muslims here? Have we not invaded two Muslim countries? Guantanamo Bay? And yet...no riots. All quiet on the home front. Hmmmmm.

 

 

There's actually quite a number of these instances, and the fact that you are not aware of them does not negate their existence. Sorry. I just don't have the time or the inclination to compile them.

 

As for the reason that the US doesn't have the same problems with fanaticism, the primary reasons are that we have a Muslim population that is smaller both in absolute terms and in percentage terms - and more importantly, we have a much more open society and labor market. There's also the fact that the American identity has no fixed ethno-racial standards associated with it, which is not true for most European countries, where ancestry is a vital component of the national identity.

 

Why you even brought this up is interesting because it not only counters a claim that I was not making, it actually supports my argument to the detriment of your own. If the geopolitical factors that most claim are the sole determinant of who's on the receiving end of the jihad, then Euroland should be virtually exempt from such attacks and the US should be suffering from much more violence - homegrown and otherwise. The fact that Europe is also getting its share speaks to the fact that the problem of terrorism is more complex than "American provocation = Islamist Repsonse." The entire argument assumes that Islamists have no positive agenda of their own that they are trying to drive, and are simply reacting to Western provocations in a precisely calibrated manner.

[JayB]

Conflation of critiques of Muslim ideas with homophobia? How was that managed? Must be an interesting twist of logic.

 

I'm curious about this Washington swimming pool thing too, and why it should have the Left screaming. I see your point that it is a public institution that is catering to the wishes of religious people, but it seems like that could have easily been handled by calling it a "women only" swim hour instead of "devotion to Islam required". I guess you could now say that all males are wronged, but nobody seems to be bothered by segregated bathrooms. Why not segregate a public facility for an hour a week if there's the demand?

 

Ermmm...I guess there would be no way of having it happen if it was a "blacks only" or "whites only" swim hour though eh...that's a bit different though, most people acknowledge that the genders are different and they have different desires and that sometimes there are good reasons to segregate the two. I don't think this is the common belief though with respect to races.

 

"Islamophobia," "Flying while Muslim," etc.

 

The point is that a public institution has catered to the wishes of religious people. If there were a conservative Baptist group that wanted a public facility to make a similar accommodation, and there was a public facility that actually did so, I think that the odds that everyone would greet this development with a collective yawn are rather small.

 

The easy answer with regards to swimming pools, is for anyone who wants religious principles to govern their swimming, bathing, whatever - is for them to pool their funds and create a private "Religion X" pool where they can impose their principles on themselves. If they want to use the public pool, then they have to abide by the public's rules, which in this case do not include using public resources to cater to any particular group's religious demands.

 

The other salient point here is that neither gender, nor race, nor sexual orienation is something that people voluntarily adopt. Islam is a set of beliefs, not something that one inherits through birth and has no control over, and it's surprising that so few people have even noted, much less objected to the equation of critiques of a set of beliefs and the behaviors which they inspire to prejudices and discrimination directed at characteristics which people have actually inherited and can not be held responsible for.

[tvashtarkatena]

Conflation of critiques of Muslim ideas with homophobia? How was that managed? Must be an interesting twist of logic.

 

I'm curious about this Washington swimming pool thing too, and why it should have the Left screaming. I see your point that it is a public institution that is catering to the wishes of religious people, but it seems like that could have easily been handled by calling it a "women only" swim hour instead of "devotion to Islam required". I guess you could now say that all males are wronged, but nobody seems to be bothered by segregated bathrooms. Why not segregate a public facility for an hour a week if there's the demand?

 

Ermmm...I guess there would be no way of having it happen if it was a "blacks only" or "whites only" swim hour though eh...that's a bit different though, most people acknowledge that the genders are different and they have different desires and that sometimes there are good reasons to segregate the two. I don't think this is the common belief though with respect to races.

 

"Islamophobia," "Flying while Muslim," etc.

 

The point is that a public institution has catered to the wishes of religious people. If there were a conservative Baptist group that wanted a public facility to make a similar accommodation, and there was a public facility that actually did so, I think that the odds that everyone would greet this development with a collective yawn are rather small.

 

The easy answer with regards to swimming pools, is for anyone who wants religious principles to govern their swimming, bathing, whatever - is for them to pool their funds and create a private "Religion X" pool where they can impose their principles on themselves. If they want to use the public pool, then they have to abide by the public's rules, which in this case do not include using public resources to cater to any particular group's religious demands.

 

The other salient point here is that neither gender, nor race, nor sexual orienation is something that people voluntarily adopt. Islam is a set of beliefs, not something that one inherits through birth and has no control over, and it's surprising that so few people have even noted, much less objected to the equation of critiques of a set of beliefs and the behaviors which they inspire to prejudices and discrimination directed at characteristics which people have actually inherited and can not be held responsible for.

 

I agree 100%.

[chucK]

You are right, if a Baptist group wanted to block out weekly time at a public pool, and you couldn't go there unless you agreed to get baptized, I think the Left would launch a stink, as they would if it was "Islam hour".

 

I'm just saying if there was a designated "Women's hour" where modest women could swim free of real or imagined perverts. I don't think it'd be such a big deal. True, you might get some nutjob Men's rights headcase raising a stink and the ACLU would probably have no choice but to at least show support for his fight.

 

Still don't get your conflation of anti-muslim sentiment with homophobia, but that's a minor point. And I agree that it would be less illogical to criticize someone's religious beliefs than it would assail their race, gender, or sexual preference.

 

 

[JayB]

The construction of the term "Islamophobia" is an attempt to conflate negative attitudes towards or hostility to the ideas contained within Islam with the same set of irrational motivations that characterizes negative attitudes towards a subset of the population that's been mistreated on account of a characteristic that they did not choose for themselves. "Flying while Muslim" is a play on the term "Driving while black," which is an effort to characterize any additional scrutiny that Muslims may feel that they are subjected to on account of their beliefs to those that the term "Driving while Black," suggests that black people are on subject to on the basis of their skin color alone, another trait that's inherited rather than chosen.

 

There it is - the deliberate conflation of two unlike things - hostility towards a group based on traits that they were born with and could not choose vs hostility towards a group on the basis of beliefs and practices which they voluntarily adhere to and engage in. The acceptance of these terms changes the framework within which something like, say - disapproval of the Burqua - from a discussion of choices and ideas to one of birth and ethnic identity. In so doing, it effectively silences debate by casting anyone who dislikes the ideas or practices that characterize the Islamic faith as a racist or a bigot.

 

Here's an example which combines many the elements that I have been touching on in this thread:

 

"Religion edition sends student newspaper editor into hiding

 

 

"Alexandra Smith

Monday February 12, 2007

EducationGuardian.co.uk

 

The editor of a Cambridge University college newspaper is in hiding after his attempt at religious satire backfired.

 

The 19-year-old student and aspiring journalist, who has not been named, is under investigation by the authorities at Clare College who described the satirical issue of the student newspaper Clarefication as "abhorrent".

 

Most inflammatory, the college said, was the reproduction in the newspaper of the infamous cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad first printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten in September 2005, triggering violent protests worldwide.

 

For his own safety, the student has been taken out of his accommodation and put in a secure place. The newspaper had been renamed Crucification for the special edition of religious satire. The front page included the headline: "Ayatollah rethinks stance on misunderstood Rushdie."

 

On page six, there were pictures of Muslims holding placards reading: "Behead those who insult Islam" and "Freedom go to hell."

 

Enraged students have bombarded the college's student union with complaints, and the vice-president of the university's Islamic society has described the edition as "hugely offensive" and "crude, unabashed prejudice."

 

Late last week, senior college officials were locked in urgent talks about how the material came to be published and what action to take against the student.

 

In a statement issued by Clare College, a senior tutor, Patricia Fara, said: "Clare is an open and inclusive college. A student-produced satirical publication has caused widespread distress throughout the Clare community.

 

"The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent. Reflecting the gravity of the situation, the college immediately began an investigation and disciplinary procedures are in train."

 

Calum Davey, the president of the Clare College student union, expressed his "deep regret" over the publication and offered his sincere apologies for causing offence.

 

He told the Cambridge News: "This material does not reflect the views of Clare students."

 

Cambridge News said Clare College fellows had, in a rare move, called a court of discipline, which would sit in judgment on the student responsible for sparking what the university regards as one of the most embarrassing incidents it has suffered in years."

 

Plenty more where this came from.

[tvashtarkatena]

There it is - the deliberate conflation of two unlike things - hostility towards a group based on traits that they were born with and could not choose vs hostility towards a group on the basis of beliefs and practices which they voluntarily adhere to and engage in. The acceptance of these terms changes the framework within which something like, say - disapproval of the Burqua - from a discussion of choices and ideas to one of birth and ethnic identity. In so doing, it effectively silences debate by casting anyone who dislikes the ideas or practices that characterize the Islamic faith as a racist or a bigot.

 

If the college paper had taken a pot shot at Christianity, I assure you the reaction would have been even greater.

 

You've missed a central point here. Discrimination based on religion is every bit frowned upon by the constitution (that would be the 1st amendment) as discrimination based on race or gender. Along a similar line, discrimination against gays, which is certainly based on behavoir, not just genetics, is also increasingly illegal under state and municipals statutes. Your dividing line of 'choice' verses 'birth' simply doesn't wash in this country.

 

Certain forms of Islam (Sufism, for example), as practiced, are no more intolerant than certain forms of Christianity, which can be incredibly sexist, homophobic, and, in some sects, racist. In any case constitutional and statutory protections trump discriminitory religious practices when put to the test every time.

 

As for satirical free speech; that's a toughy in any arena but entertainment. Private entities avoid it to avoid 'hostile workplace' or other discriminatory legal action. Government violates the constitution when it engages in it. But, for the most part, entertainers get a free speech ticket to take pot shots at anyone they want. On the flip side, the audience is free to react in kind.

 

I would guess nearly all universities receive some kind of public money, which would ostensibly be cut off if they allowed discriminatory practices under their tutelage. Personally, I'd vote in favor of a totally free speech student publication, satire and all, but I can also see where an administration in this litigious society would feel nervous.

 

Kids these days.

[JayB]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Having one's religious ideals exempted from criticism or scrutiny is protected under the first amendment? Huh? I would wager that you are confusing the right the fact that it is not legal to deny someone their fundamental rights on account of their religion - such as with regards to employment, etc - but the nowhere does the first ammendment exempt any race, color, creed, etc from being satirized, mocked, offended, outraged, etc, etc, etc - and there's certainly no legal basis for the notion that engaging in any of the above entitles the state to fine or imprison you for doing so.

[Jim]

"Flying while Muslim" is a play on the term "Driving while black," which is an effort to characterize any additional scrutiny that Muslims may feel that they are subjected to on account of their beliefs to those that the term "Driving while Black," suggests that black people are on subject to on the basis of their skin color alone, another trait that's inherited rather than chosen.

 

 

I'd say you're stretching this analogy a bit far. Let's take, for instance, the case where 3 Muslim clerics were on a flight (United?) and they prayed before getting on board. They passed all security measures in the airport and again at the gate. But passangers were "uncomfortable" with the way they looked, and some got quite vocal. The clerics were asked to leave the plane prior to take off. I'd say this was discrimination less related to their religion than that they were by culture and skin color lumped into the islamofacist category we've created.

 

I do like your earlier point that most of the islamo-terrorists are second or thrid generation westerns, not breeding in the middle east. That puts an excamation point on our recent adventures over there.