Fux Freakout

[JayB]

If we're talking Islamism pretty much anyone who refuses to acknowledge that there's anything tethering Islamists to the gajillion acts of transnational terrorism they've been engaged in over the course of the past 30 years other than a reflexive and justifiable response to western misdeeds....that hasn't been shaped or informed one iota by endogenous islamic concepts like jihad, etc - fits the bill pretty well.

 

YES, THOSE ARE THE ONES WE"RE WAITING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE!

 

Aren't you one of them?

 

Chris Hedges, Ward "Little Eichmann's" Churchill, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

The non-existence of people who attribute all Islamist violence to exogenous forces that have no connection whatsoever to Islam isn't really an interesting claim to parse sense such people do, in fact, exist.

 

Much more interesting to speculate upon what motivates people to engage in a passionate defense of actors who are inspired by a ideas that's completely at odds with all of the liberal values that supposedly inspire them.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

If we're talking Islamism pretty much anyone who refuses to acknowledge that there's anything tethering Islamists to the gajillion acts of transnational terrorism they've been engaged in over the course of the past 30 years other than a reflexive and justifiable response to western misdeeds....that hasn't been shaped or informed one iota by endogenous islamic concepts like jihad, etc - fits the bill pretty well.

 

YES, THOSE ARE THE ONES WE"RE WAITING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE!

 

Aren't you one of them?

 

Chris Hedges, Ward "Little Eichmann's" Churchill, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

The non-existence of people who attribute all Islamist violence to exogenous forces that have no connection whatsoever to Islam isn't really an interesting claim to parse sense such people do, in fact, exist.

 

Much more interesting to speculate upon what motivates people to engage in a passionate defense of actors who are inspired by a ideas that's completely at odds with all of the liberal values that supposedly inspire them.

 

 

Nope! Concrete policy proposals...you get an 'F'.

 

And Islam, per se, is no more against liberal values than Christianity. Both books are kind of kooky, and both religions have liberals and rabid fundamentalist wack jobs who support the use of violence.

 

What IS against liberal values is attempting to restrain the freedom of thought and religion, particularly when one religion is singled out, en masse.

 

What is also against liberal values is to create a silver bullet model, as you have, that blames what a) only one side and b) the least relevant aspect of what has been and continues to be a tit for tat political, economic, and social conflict.

 

If you're argument is that the world would be better off without God, I'd be inclined to agree with you, although that would be highly speculative, but we have a world where humans are evolutionarily predisposed to believe in God, so let's all pretend that we actually live in that world, shall we?

 

But your problem isn't with God in general, although you're apparently not a believer either. You have an oft stated problem with Islam per se. You believe that Islam is uniquely and inherently violent in nature. I believe this stems from your gross ignorance on the topic, but whatev. OK. What's your call to action?

 

Edited February 16, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

what policy recommendations do have Jay for 'dealing with Islam'?

 

I'd love to hear some concrete proposals...someday.

 

a contemporary Wall of Hadrian could be made of concrete, right JayB?

 

It's the only solution I've heard him mention.

 

Or perhaps sitting on a throne of indignation, hammering away at the Koran might be a better solution?

 

And yes, yes, before you start again, the Koran has passages that support violence, OMG.

 

 

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that there is literally nothing that we can do to affect the beliefs or practices in question anywhere outside of our own borders, and any discussion of such is inherently futile with regards to actually changing anything.

 

Would evaluating sharia, jihad, etc from a liberal western framework be an enterprise worth engaging in? Would it even be permissible to discuss?

 

How about applying the opposite boundary condition. Assume that simply by discussing and critiquing the practice of stoning adulteress' etc we could end the said practices. You - the enigmatic 'kimmo' could eliminate the death penalty for apostates forever just by articulating a critique of the practice. Or for simplicities sake - by pressing a button. Would you press it?

 

I think reality lies somewhere between those two poles, with a general distribution that's very close to the "there's nothing we can do about it" end of the spectrum, but it depends upon who you are dealing with.

 

If we are talking about determined Islamists who are out to slaughter as many civilians as possible - then killing or capturing as many of them as possible while making the maximum possible effort to minimize killing innocent civilians in the process is a good, concrete policy.

 

At the other end of the spectrum - simply having the courage of our convictions and articulating liberal Western critiques of barbarous practices, beliefs, etc that are perpetuated or inspired by any of the gradations of Islamism that are associated with things like putting apostates to death seems like something that has no moral or practical downsides.

 

There's a broad spectrum of other actions that probably fit somewhere in between these two.

[JayB]

If we're talking Islamism pretty much anyone who refuses to acknowledge that there's anything tethering Islamists to the gajillion acts of transnational terrorism they've been engaged in over the course of the past 30 years other than a reflexive and justifiable response to western misdeeds....that hasn't been shaped or informed one iota by endogenous islamic concepts like jihad, etc - fits the bill pretty well.

 

YES, THOSE ARE THE ONES WE"RE WAITING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE!

 

Aren't you one of them?

 

Chris Hedges, Ward "Little Eichmann's" Churchill, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

The non-existence of people who attribute all Islamist violence to exogenous forces that have no connection whatsoever to Islam isn't really an interesting claim to parse sense such people do, in fact, exist.

 

Much more interesting to speculate upon what motivates people to engage in a passionate defense of actors who are inspired by a ideas that's completely at odds with all of the liberal values that supposedly inspire them.

 

 

Nope! Concrete policy proposals...you get an 'F'.

 

And Islam, per se, is no more against liberal values than Christianity. Both books are kind of kooky, and both religions have liberals and rabid fundamentalist wack jobs who support the use of violence.

 

What IS against liberal values is attempting to restrain the freedom of thought and religion, particularly when one religion is singled out, en masse.

 

What is also against liberal values is to create a silver bullet model, as you have, that blames what a) only one side and b) the least relevant aspect of what has been and continues to be a tit for tat political, economic, and social conflict.

 

If you're argument is that the world would be better off without God, I'd be inclined to agree with you, although that would be highly speculative, but we have a world where humans are evolutionarily predisposed to believe in God, so let's all pretend that we actually live in that world, shall we?

 

But your problem isn't with God in general, although you're apparently not a believer either. You have an oft stated problem with Islam per se. You believe that Islam is uniquely and inherently violent in nature. I believe this stems from your gross ignorance on the topic, but whatev. OK. What's your call to action?

 

Per se is quite an equivocation.

 

The problem is that we're not dealing with a set of ideas "per se," we're dealing with them as they are actually practiced and understood in reality. As in the present that we actually inhabit.

 

While Christianity and Islam might present equally formidable obstacles to the emergence of liberal democracy in theory, that's clearly not the way things worked out in practice since modern liberal democracy actually emerged in Christian countries, and has yet to find an equally firm foundation in predominantly Muslim countries.

 

That may well be largely due to a bum roll of the historical dice, or it may not. You can't exactly run a set of controlled experiments to settle that question, so we'll never know the answer.

 

I'm really not a friend of Christianity or any other organized belief system that's based on parsing the wishes of supernatural beings but you simply can't claim that Christianity writ large, as actually understood and practiced by contemporary Christians, is anywhere near as inimical to the progress or maintenance liberal western values as Islam as it's currently understood and practiced.

 

 

 

 

 

[prole]

If we're talking Islamism pretty much anyone who refuses to acknowledge that there's anything tethering Islamists to the gajillion acts of transnational terrorism they've been engaged in over the course of the past 30 years other than a reflexive and justifiable response to western misdeeds....that hasn't been shaped or informed one iota by endogenous islamic concepts like jihad, etc - fits the bill pretty well.

 

YES, THOSE ARE THE ONES WE"RE WAITING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE!

 

Aren't you one of them?

 

Chris Hedges, Ward "Little Eichmann's" Churchill, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

The non-existence of people who attribute all Islamist violence to exogenous forces that have no connection whatsoever to Islam isn't really an interesting claim to parse sense such people do, in fact, exist.

 

Much more interesting to speculate upon what motivates people to engage in a passionate defense of actors who are inspired by a ideas that's completely at odds with all of the liberal values that supposedly inspire them.

 

I've already argued my position which you've doggedly refused to acknowledge. Here you've provided a list of names but no examples of a "passionate defense" of suicide bombing or whore stoning or anything else. Since you mention Chris Hedges, a good place for you to start would be the video you posted that we're already familiar with. Where in his many statements there is the argument you attribute to him here? I must have missed it.

[j_b]

Thought that the issue was leftist apologists for communism.

 

ah yes, the reptilian red-baiter beneath the pseudo-intellectual veneer

 

If we're talking Islamism pretty much anyone who refuses to acknowledge that there's anything tethering Islamists to the gajillion acts of transnational terrorism they've been engaged in over the course of the past 30 years other than a reflexive and justifiable response to western misdeeds....that hasn't been shaped or informed one iota by endogenous islamic concepts like jihad, etc - fits the bill pretty well.

 

Cheating again. Islamic religion being violent doesn't make it more violent than judeo-chritian or other religions as can be seen in the widespread use of violence and terror by widely differing heritage.

 

Scheer/Hedges are the tip of an iceberg that encompasses quite a significant fraction of the contemporary left.

 

as viewed through the distorting lens of Islamophobia.

[prole]

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that there is literally nothing that we can do to affect the beliefs or practices in question anywhere outside of our own borders, and any discussion of such is inherently futile with regards to actually changing anything.

 

Would evaluating sharia, jihad, etc from a liberal western framework be an enterprise worth engaging in? Would it even be permissible to discuss?

 

How about applying the opposite boundary condition. Assume that simply by discussing and critiquing the practice of stoning adulteress' etc we could end the said practices. You - the enigmatic 'kimmo' could eliminate the death penalty for apostates forever just by articulating a critique of the practice. Or for simplicities sake - by pressing a button. Would you press it?

 

I think reality lies somewhere between those two poles, with a general distribution that's very close to the "there's nothing we can do about it" end of the spectrum, but it depends upon who you are dealing with.

 

If we are talking about determined Islamists who are out to slaughter as many civilians as possible - then killing or capturing as many of them as possible while making the maximum possible effort to minimize killing innocent civilians in the process is a good, concrete policy.

 

At the other end of the spectrum - simply having the courage of our convictions and articulating liberal Western critiques of barbarous practices, beliefs, etc that are perpetuated or inspired by any of the gradations of Islamism that are associated with things like putting apostates to death seems like something that has no moral or practical downsides.

 

There's a broad spectrum of other actions that probably fit somewhere in between these two.

 

"In theory, we can wipe everyone off the face of the Earth or we can do nothing at all. Between these two extremes, there is a range of possible action. Thanks and good night."

 

Why do you have to do this? Why can't you address the situation as it actually exists in the real world as opposed to this parlor game bullshit?

Edited February 16, 2011 by prole

[tvashtarkatena]

what policy recommendations do have Jay for 'dealing with Islam'?

 

I'd love to hear some concrete proposals...someday.

 

a contemporary Wall of Hadrian could be made of concrete, right JayB?

 

It's the only solution I've heard him mention.

 

Or perhaps sitting on a throne of indignation, hammering away at the Koran might be a better solution?

 

And yes, yes, before you start again, the Koran has passages that support violence, OMG.

 

 

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that there is literally nothing that we can do to affect the beliefs or practices in question anywhere outside of our own borders, and any discussion of such is inherently futile with regards to actually changing anything.

 

Would evaluating sharia, jihad, etc from a liberal western framework be an enterprise worth engaging in? Would it even be permissible to discuss?

 

How about applying the opposite boundary condition. Assume that simply by discussing and critiquing the practice of stoning adulteress' etc we could end the said practices. You - the enigmatic 'kimmo' could eliminate the death penalty for apostates forever just by articulating a critique of the practice. Or for simplicities sake - by pressing a button. Would you press it?

 

I think reality lies somewhere between those two poles, with a general distribution that's very close to the "there's nothing we can do about it" end of the spectrum, but it depends upon who you are dealing with.

 

If we are talking about determined Islamists who are out to slaughter as many civilians as possible - then killing or capturing as many of them as possible while making the maximum possible effort to minimize killing innocent civilians in the process is a good, concrete policy.

 

At the other end of the spectrum - simply having the courage of our convictions and articulating liberal Western critiques of barbarous practices, beliefs, etc that are perpetuated or inspired by any of the gradations of Islamism that are associated with things like putting apostates to death seems like something that has no moral or practical downsides.

 

There's a broad spectrum of other actions that probably fit somewhere in between these two.

 

For the sake of argument, let's consider a world where the oceans are filled with beer and every weekend lasts 9 days.

 

Now, back to the real world. First, save your 'there's nothing we can do about it' for Billcoe.

 

The most important influence we have internationally is through example. Ours has been fucking abysmal of late. If you want human rights to improve (a very low priority for us, apparently), then we need to practice our values as embodied in our Bill of Rights.

 

That means pulling support for civil rights abusers like Mubarak.

 

It also means respecting a people's right to self determination - ie, not invading places like Iraq.

 

It also means harm reduction, not 'zero tolerance'. We don't, at all, understand Afghanistan - we shouldn't be there. Yup, the Taliban is fucked...so is Myanmar and the Congo - but they're not our problem - and, Allah knows, things haven't exactly gone well over there, have they?

 

The bottom line is that liberals, in general, believe that we should practice the basic values in the Bill of Rights, and that Righties have done whatever they can to circumvent those values. As a result, we're responsible for imperial invasions, torture, et al. Not a great example.

 

We treat our Muslim like shit in this country. Our Muslims are related to their Muslims, no? This is probably the most direct channel to the Muslim world...one we've filled with a big ole bigoted, anti-Islamic message. Oh well, opportunity missed, eh?

 

Finally, we should stop bullshitting ourselves that we have more power than we do, and that our way, which begs for so much reform, is the only way or the best way.

 

If we were applying economic and diplomatic pressure to scale back some of the most egregious human rights abuses, that would be one thing. We're not. It's not a priority for us. In many cases, we support and fund those governments who commit the lion's share of those human rights abuses.

 

Our 'unfettered' support of Israel? Yeah, that might be something we could look at. No injustice there.

 

Finally, the War on Terror thing is complete bullshit. We've turned international criminality into a hall pass to do whatever wherever we wish - with the appropriate and predictable negative response. We destroyed, completely, and entire society of 24 million people this way. Let's create an ideal free market economy from scratch in our dusty little petri dish! Um...that got noticed.

 

None of this is going to happen, of course, because we're saddled with religious freaks of our own.

Edited February 16, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

While Christianity and Islam might present equally formidable obstacles to the emergence of liberal democracy in theory, that's clearly not the way things worked out in practice since modern liberal democracy actually emerged in Christian countries, and has yet to find an equally firm foundation in predominantly Muslim countries.

 

You are subject to a little historical amnesia perhaps? I wonder what could have prevented most arabs from self-governing in the last 1.5 century. I wonder who installed autocrats and supported them during all that time?

 

That may well be largely due to a bum roll of the historical dice, or it may not. You can't exactly run a set of controlled experiments to settle that question, so we'll never know the answer.

 

Now, that's full on denial of the legacy of colonialism and imperialism. For example, Islamic fundies wouldn't have power in Iran if it weren't for big oil and imperialists. Remember how your side didn't like Mossadegh (the prime minister for secular democracy) because he wanted Iranians to profit from their resources, how there was a coup d'etat agasint him, and we supported the iranian security state that terrorized its people for decades until the Iranian revolution?

[tvashtarkatena]

And...sharia? Seriously? That...boutique problem is what you choose to focus on?

 

Most of the mayhem is still happening in Iraq, which is still most of the mayhem that concerns us over there, is a direct result of shitty ideological decisions made by Americans there early on, and our ongoing decision to continue the occupation for damn near a DECADE now. Is sharia really the END GAME for that insurgency? No. Not by any credible analysis. But let's keep telling ourselves that as an excuse for sticking around.

 

Past that, most of the human rights abuses in the Middle East are committed by the very governments we support.

 

Sharia, caliphates, all that crap, are mostly a Fux news propaganda play that Jay and many in our government have bought into. Most folks in Al Qaeda apparently don't believe it'll ever happen. Giving the US enough black eyes to drive it out of the Muslim world has been their agenda. In any case, it's not Al Qaeda that's driving the Iraqi insurgency that constitutes most of our problems over there, although we love to tell ourselves that one, too. It's Iraqis.

 

The counter to that is the creation of secular democracies like the kind we see forming in Tunisia and, hopefully, Egypt. As those events have shown, basic, democratic principles CAN win against the extremists...just as they tend to do in our own country.

Edited February 16, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

While Christianity and Islam might present equally formidable obstacles to the emergence of liberal democracy in theory, that's clearly not the way things worked out in practice since modern liberal democracy actually emerged in Christian countries, and has yet to find an equally firm foundation in predominantly Muslim countries.

 

Well, considering that much of the Arab world has enjoyed 'self determination' now for well under a century - playing the stupid fucking historical analogy game - we were still slaughtering injuns and each other right around that point.

 

And, lets look at our 'nice', Christian, western democracies, shall we? Hmmm...might we have gone through a few...hiccups along the way? I recall there being just a wee bit of violence involved...on a scale that the Arab world has yet to exhibit.

 

And, finally, IS the Muslim world more violent than our own? Seems like the USA nears the top of the charts on some of those measures, no?

 

Is Islam really the problem? It does make for the kind of neatly packaged silver bullet solution the Right so loves. Or would colonialism, tribalism, centuries of overpopulated poverty, resource distribution and climate come into play?

 

In short, and as usual, your basic assumptions are fucked, which doesn't do a whole lot for your arguments.

 

Know what I've heard most about the Muslim world? That they have the best hospitality anywhere.

[tvashtarkatena]

Cool interactive showing the history of uprisings in the Arab world from the Wall Street Journal:

 

 

linky

[Kimmo]

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that there is literally nothing that we can do to affect the beliefs or practices in question anywhere outside of our own borders, and any discussion of such is inherently futile with regards to actually changing anything.

 

Would evaluating sharia, jihad, etc from a liberal western framework be an enterprise worth engaging in? Would it even be permissible to discuss?

 

How about applying the opposite boundary condition. Assume that simply by discussing and critiquing the practice of stoning adulteress' etc we could end the said practices. You - the enigmatic 'kimmo' could eliminate the death penalty for apostates forever just by articulating a critique of the practice. Or for simplicities sake - by pressing a button. Would you press it?

 

I think reality lies somewhere between those two poles, with a general distribution that's very close to the "there's nothing we can do about it" end of the spectrum, but it depends upon who you are dealing with.

 

If we are talking about determined Islamists who are out to slaughter as many civilians as possible - then killing or capturing as many of them as possible while making the maximum possible effort to minimize killing innocent civilians in the process is a good, concrete policy.

 

At the other end of the spectrum - simply having the courage of our convictions and articulating liberal Western critiques of barbarous practices, beliefs, etc that are perpetuated or inspired by any of the gradations of Islamism that are associated with things like putting apostates to death seems like something that has no moral or practical downsides.

 

There's a broad spectrum of other actions that probably fit somewhere in between these two.

 

your post above makes me thirsty for a sea of beer. Hercules IPA, to be specific, if i have a say in the matter.

 

but it does catalyze a thought: how far back does our thirst for self-determination go? is it inherent in the liberation of the big bang (would you call the big bang "liberation"? or would you call it being cast away from singularity (aka the garden of eden))?

 

yeah we should probably talk about something interesting sometime, but in the meantime, you are one wacky guy!

[Kimmo]

wild and crazy, like steve martin.

[JayB]

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that there is literally nothing that we can do to affect the beliefs or practices in question anywhere outside of our own borders, and any discussion of such is inherently futile with regards to actually changing anything.

 

Would evaluating sharia, jihad, etc from a liberal western framework be an enterprise worth engaging in? Would it even be permissible to discuss?

 

How about applying the opposite boundary condition. Assume that simply by discussing and critiquing the practice of stoning adulteress' etc we could end the said practices. You - the enigmatic 'kimmo' could eliminate the death penalty for apostates forever just by articulating a critique of the practice. Or for simplicities sake - by pressing a button. Would you press it?

 

I think reality lies somewhere between those two poles, with a general distribution that's very close to the "there's nothing we can do about it" end of the spectrum, but it depends upon who you are dealing with.

 

If we are talking about determined Islamists who are out to slaughter as many civilians as possible - then killing or capturing as many of them as possible while making the maximum possible effort to minimize killing innocent civilians in the process is a good, concrete policy.

 

At the other end of the spectrum - simply having the courage of our convictions and articulating liberal Western critiques of barbarous practices, beliefs, etc that are perpetuated or inspired by any of the gradations of Islamism that are associated with things like putting apostates to death seems like something that has no moral or practical downsides.

 

There's a broad spectrum of other actions that probably fit somewhere in between these two.

 

your post above makes me thirsty for a sea of beer. Hercules IPA, to be specific, if i have a say in the matter.

 

but it does catalyze a thought: how far back does our thirst for self-determination go? is it inherent in the liberation of the big bang (would you call the big bang "liberation"? or would you call it being cast away from singularity (aka the garden of eden))?

 

yeah we should probably talk about something interesting sometime, but in the meantime, you are one wacky guy!

 

Interesting ruminations - particularly the bit about the IPA, which has become my default beer of choice, which hopefully doesn't entirely ruin the beverage for you.

 

In the meantime - I have a hard time differentiating between my own positions and Sam Harris's when it comes to Islam in particular or religion in general, so I'll toss in a couple more offerings from him on these issues.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0RdUsvnqys

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

[JayB]

Also liked this rant from Bill Maher, particularly from 3:47 onwards:

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhvhNZC51gY

 

 

[Kimmo]

that's pretty funny:

 

"the crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you."

 

the first vid was good. the second was too decontextualized from his overall views, increasing the opportunity to entirely misconstrue him. i do wonder though why he never (that i've seen) mentions the repressive conditions that, without fail, give support to the extreme elements of islamist thought?

 

and, i am curious, would you consider the big bang an expression of freedom.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

and, i am curious, would you consider the big bang an expression of freedom.

 

Sounds like a great name for a porno, in which case, yes it could be an expression of freedom.

[Kimmo]

sexual compulsion is hardly freedom.

 

neither is reproduction, in and of itself.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

sexual compulsion is hardly freedom.

 

lighten up

 

BTW, is "sexual chocolate" a compulsion?

Edited February 16, 2011 by KaskadskyjKozak

[tvashtarkatena]

Iraqis are getting in on the fun.

Iraqis attack governor's office

 

"Unemployment, power shortages, and corruption..."

 

Nation Building GOP style!

 

 

[prole]

It's Greece on the Tigris!!

[JayB]

that's pretty funny:

 

"the crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you."

 

the first vid was good. the second was too decontextualized from his overall views, increasing the opportunity to entirely misconstrue him. i do wonder though why he never (that i've seen) mentions the repressive conditions that, without fail, give support to the extreme elements of islamist thought?

 

and, i am curious, would you consider the big bang an expression of freedom.

 

He addresses it elsewhere - from what I call he touches on that subject in "The End of Faith" but it's been 3-4 years since I read it so my recollection may not be correct.

 

He addresses that point in the essay I've linked below, and I'd suspect there are many other bits of writing where he does the same since it's a common objection level at him, and one that was reprised multiple times by Scheer and Hedges in their debate.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

 

 

 

[prole]

Why is this argument that simply reduces religious violence to what people read in ancient texts so compelling? It's certainly not one that's emphasized by the same folks when discussing the relationship between hyper-violent video games, television and movies, gangsta rap and death metal, etc to gun violence.

 

What exactly is the risk of exploring the complex history and contemporary political landscapes of the mideast to account for the rise of Islamist militancy? Why do the same people who thunderously assert the interconnectedness of global markets and geopolitics just as vehemently argue for a hermetically sealed, "endogenous" growth of political Islam? Who benefits from a narrative that suggests that colonial domination followed by cold war skullduggery and realpolitik, clientelism, unconditional support for a apartheid-state, invasion and occupation, etc. is really just a less important "bum roll of arthe dice"?

 

The answer unfortunately is quite simple: those who have been and continue to be served by the status quo and don't want anything to change. The fact that the cries of "caliphate!", etc. here have only grown more shrill since uprisings adopting the language of secular democracy, jobs, and rights have taken root there suggest that the arguments have nothing whatever to do with "getting to the bottom" of what makes suicide bombers tick and even less about upholding our values.

 

At this point in time, in the context of what's happened in the last month when Muslims are rejecting political oppression and speaking to material issues like jobs, Sam Harris' arguments simply look like outdated apologies more suited to 2002 than now. It's time to re-evaluate our historical role vis a vis the "Muslim world" and try our damnedest not to repeat the same mistakes. Resurrecting a discredited "clash of civiliztions" narrative from the neocon era and condemning all of Islam as a "cult of death" is a guaranteed non-starter with those moderate Muslims and secularists trying to make a break with the past.

[archenemy]

Know what I've heard most about the Muslim world? That they have the best hospitality anywhere.

We'd have better hospitality here if we could just keep our bitches in line like they do.