Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[olyclimber]

it is the plumbers and carpenters of the war on terror that in trouble. the architects are chilling back in the states corrupting their .DXF and DWGs. they already got paid.

[Dechristo]

oly, you missed an important distinction of the thread.

 

perhaps, you could have phrased it:

 

anti-muslim architects

[sexual_chocolate]

There is no one path toward radicalism, and you won’t find the same brand of anti-Americanism or any other sentiment on the American college campus as you will in a Parisian slum or a middle eastern training camp. You probably won’t find the same brand from one College campus to the next. However, we can still consider the obvious in considering the affect our actions abroad may have on radicalizing certain segments. Invading countries under false pretenses, being responsible for the killing of several hundred thousand civilians who never attacked us, and publicly stating to the world that we are no longer bound by the rules of international law and we are going to “take the gloves off” and torture people, and you are “with us or against us,” and this is a “crusade” is obviously going to produce some backlash. These actions threaten our society from within as much as without. What thinking American can really believe and trust that America is truly stands for good? All of this fuels a national cynicism that gives rise to the general idea that there is no morality in any of it so why even pay attention.

 

JayB apparently believes that none of this has any effect because these hateful malcontents around the world are simply looking for an excuse to hate America and they are going to hate us no matter what we do so we may as well feel free to invade countries under false pretenses, blithely set of the killing of hundreds of thousands when it suits our purposes, and while we’re at it lets call everybody names including those liberals who might prefer to sip a latte while he drinks his Folgers. And this includes those who think America should be a force for freedom or who want to talk about pursuing peaceful means to solve world problems. They obviously hate what America stands for. JayB is not alone in this sentiment. We see it from several of our friends here at cc.com.

 

Our national debate now is about fighting a war against terror, and the discussion here just as in Washington seems to contain the idea that there is or should be a choice between aggressively protecting America in a hostile world and some kind of isolationist or passive role in world affairs. With us or against us, and we must take the gloves off while nobody else better violate a treaty or support some faction fighting a battle outside their border or we should drop a nuke. Sad.

 

(And, ChucK, he didn't specifically state Muslims are bad, but it has certainly been the general theme and sales plan in much the same fashion as he didn't specifically state that Saddam attacked us on 911, but they've tried to create that image every chance they had.)

 

Well said.

[Peter_Puget]

More indirect thoughts:

 

My father fought on Saipan in WW2. His teen years were subject to intense anti-japanese propaganda. After WW2 he went to college and anticipating that there would not be another war entered the ROTC program. Wouldn’t ya know it, he graduates and is back in the service – Korean War. My father for the last 20 years will not even consider buying anything other than a Japanese car.

 

One of my Uncles was raised in an Orthodox Jewish home. His grandparents arrived in the US in the early part of the century. As far as I know there were no close European relatives. Most of the breakfasts we have shared have included bacon. To this day he will not consider buying a German car.

 

The man who lives across the street from my parents emigrated from Germany after WW2. His older brother was a POW in the US and after being repatriated told his brother that they had to leave Germany and become Americans. Oddly he stayed while my dad’s neighbor came.

 

[Dechristo]

I remember the pervasive sentiment that owning most anything of German or Japanese origin was unpatriotic. The guy down the street that owned a '50's VW was a pariah. Anything of Japanese origin was considered, in quality, (and monetarily was) cheap. When the first Honda motorbikes started scooting around the streets, the faces of folks of my parents generation darkened. It's part of the legacy of "bikers'" loyalty to Harleys and Indians and disdain for "rice-grinders".

[tvashtarkatena]

My granfather came over from Ireland. To his dying day he never considered buying an Irish car.

[sexual_chocolate]

i only buy nokia on a linux platform.

[JayB]

Who is the one doing the simplifying here, Matt? I don't recall arguing that Americas actions had no effect on the motivations and general state of agitation in the Muslim world. What I did argue is that the factors that have brought us to this juncture have deep roots in history and are quite a bit more complicated than a simple input-output style reaction to American policy.

 

I also identified a number of contemporary realities which are difficult to reconcile with the notion that changes in American policy will materially change things here. I could have just as easily looked back 50 years and pointed out that the reasons that the members of the Muslim Brotherhood were intent on assassinating Nasser had absolutely nothing to do with US policy towards either Egypt or the Middle East, nor was the group formed in response to anything to do with the United States. Find me a reference to the US in that organizations founding credo "“Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Struggle is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." I could go on.

 

I am also personally not convinced that our default position with respect to either our foreign policy or in the manner in which we live our lives should be to ask "will X offend Muslim sensibilities" before engaging in any particular action or policy, seeing as something as trivial as a mildly satirical cartoon published in an obscure newspaper in a country several thousand miles away is sufficient to set off demonstrations and rioting throughout the Muslim world.

 

Given that it would be A) quite impossible to redress the list of grievances that animate Muslim violence throughout the world, and B) that the causes extend well beyond a simple reaction to American policies, it would be sensible to promote something other than either A or B or some combination thereof as a panacea that will eliminate this problem.

[sexual_chocolate]

Given that it would be A) quite impossible to redress the list of grievances that animate Muslim violence throughout the world, and B) that the causes extend well beyond a simple reaction to American policies, it would be sensible to promote something other than either A or B or some combination thereof as a panacea that will eliminate this problem.

 

Hadrian's Wall, of course!

[tvashtarkatena]

Given that it would be A) quite impossible to redress the list of grievances that animate Muslim violence throughout the world, and B) that the causes extend well beyond a simple reaction to American policies, it would be sensible to promote something other than either A or B or some combination thereof as a panacea that will eliminate this problem.

 

Hadrian's Wall, of course!

 

I wonder if the Mexican Fence will be a popular hiking route a thousand years from now....

[Dechristo]

I don't believe there is a 'panacea to this problem' concerning the perceived detrimental influences of religion in this world. Ivan posted this famous quote yesterday:

 

"it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart"

 

Perhaps, it is the outlaw of all religions with the simultaneous creation of one approved religion, sufficiently benign in text and practice, that holds promise.

[Dechristo]

Given that it would be A) quite impossible to redress the list of grievances that animate Muslim violence throughout the world, and B) that the causes extend well beyond a simple reaction to American policies, it would be sensible to promote something other than either A or B or some combination thereof as a panacea that will eliminate this problem.

 

Hadrian's Wall, of course!

 

I wonder if the Mexican Fence will be a popular hiking route a thousand years from now....

 

If climate change produced a verdant Southwest

[JayB]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to continue with this, but one of many variables at play in the Middle East that won't be materially affected by any particular change in American policy involves the economic factors that make the entire area susceptible to political repression.

 

When the vast majority of the income generated within a particular area is easy for the state to seize and exert control over, the said area is much more susceptible to centralized control and repression than an area in which the government relies on the industry of its citizens to generate the revenues necessary for the state to function. Where the state does not rely upon taxation, you rarely get representation, because the folks in charge are no longer dependent upon the citizenry to provide them with the resources that they need to govern. The fact that nation states that rely upon a single natural resource tend to be both less stable and more prone to repression is so thoroughly established as to admit no serious dispute.

 

The fact that most of the regimes in the middle east are congenial to the US proves nothing, as Iran has clearly demonstrated that a political alliance with the United States is not a necessary pre-condition for establishing a repressive state. If the Islamists seize control of any given Middle Eastern state, they will certainly be more openly hostile to the US than the rulers that they replace, but does anyone actually believe that they'd be less repressive?

[olyclimber]

it does seem at times like having a philosophical debate in the shower by yourself, but then out of the blue yonder every once in a while someone answers

[Dechristo]

"get the hell outta the shower or I'm flushin' the toilet!"

[tvashtarkatena]

it does seem at times like having a philosophical debate in the shower by yourself, but then out of the blue yonder every once in a while someone answers

 

...or turns the water heater off.

Edited February 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Very grim situation if you consistently lose those debates to the voices coming at you from the recesses of the drain.

 

I can envision several posters here growing increasing agitated upon being confronted with the rebuttals put forth by the drain-hole, and conjuring up elaborate conspiracies to counter the drain-holes assertions.

 

"Shut up drainhole! Shut-up! Rove -I know you're down there somewhere, and by God, I'm about to grab 50-foot roto-snake and finish you off once and for all...."

[Dechristo]

...or their justification for pissing in the shower

[tvashtarkatena]

"Snakes on a Drain" ?

[chucK]

Anybody ever heard the Henry Kaiser song "Devil in the Drain"?

 

 

[mattp]

Would a 50 foot snake really do it?

 

Of course, then they'd have JayB as backup. You're either with us or against us, the ends justify the means, and there is a whole world of haters out there who just hate what America stands for so it doesn't matter whether we invade and occupy countries who have not attacked us, maintain secret prisons where torture appears to have at least at times become routine, and make speeches about how this is a clash of civilizations. Further, the naive evil liberals among us who drink fancy coffee don't deserve to call themselves American.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

If Karl Rove is down there, that's not a drain. It's a culvert.

[JayB]

Would a 50 foot snake really do it?

 

Of course, then they'd have JayB as backup. You're either with us or against us, the ends justify the means, and there is a whole world of haters out there who just hate what America stands for so it doesn't matter whether we invade and occupy countries who have not attacked us, maintain secret prisons where torture appears to have at least at times become routine, and make speeches about how this is a clash of civilizations. Further, the naive evil liberals among us who drink fancy coffee don't deserve to call themselves American.

 

Is that what passes for an argument in your circles, Matt?

 

Whenever someone presents an argument which is not congruent some of the articles of faith that frame your thinking on these matters, you seem to revert to this particular mode. I've presented quite a number of instances in which Islamist violence and/or outrage has been evident in response to events which are difficult, if not impossible to tether in any way whatsoever to American foreign policy. It would indeed be naive to think that our actions have no influence on their motivations or behavior, but it would be equally absurd to insist that the Islamists have no aims, agenda, or ambition of their own apart from a tit-for-tat response to what they consider provocations by the West, or that there aren't forces outside of the US, and outside the scope of the current geopolical situation that play a significant role in catalyzing Islamist militancy and violence.

 

As far as the tone of your post is concerned, all I can do with that is channel Hamlet and observe that "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

 

 

[mattp]

It would indeed be naive to think that our actions have no influence on their motivations or behavior, but it would be equally absurd to insist that the Islamists have no aims, agenda, or ambition of their own apart from a tit-for-tat response to what they consider provocations by the West, or that there aren't forces outside of the US, and outside the scope of the current geopolical situation that play a significant role in catalyzing Islamist militancy and violence.

 

 

I don't get your Hamlet reference, heer Jay, but I think my crude synopsis of what you stated is really not as far off as you are trying to suggest. Anyway, I agree with the above quote: I have never argued that we are going to stop terrorism by adopting this or that foreign policy. Our current actions in Iraq are certainly adding fuel to the fire, though, and I think the baldfaced cynicism of those who say "the ends justifies the means" and "f*ck the rest of the world if they won't go along with us" is truly undermining any shred decency we may have held as a nation and, in a real way, our own democracy suffers along with our International image.

 

And what is this critique of my argument style in light of your constant refrain about latte sipping metrosexuals?

[olyclimber]

w00t! feeling RANDY matt????