NationStates Jolt Archive

Thought this was a telling piece, even though it was in the New York Times. I follow it with a piece by Mark Steyn. It's surprising how people on the editorial pages are finally beginning to get it.


New York Times
October 12, 2005

Silence And Suicide

By Thomas L. Friedman

If I were editor of this newspaper, I would have led last Thursday's issue with the news report, under a big headline, saying that a Sunni Muslim suicide bomber attacked the Shiite mosque in Hilla, Iraq, on Wednesday - the Shiites' first day of Ramadan - and blew himself up, killing at least 25 worshipers and wounding more than 87. The worshipers had come to the mosque not only to mark the start of the Muslim holy month, but also to mourn a Shiite restaurant owner who had been killed by insurgents a few days earlier. According to The A.P., "The explosion hit the Husseiniyat Ibn al-Nama mosque, ripping through strings of light bulbs and green and red flags hung around the entrance to celebrate the start of the holy month."

This attack, which got scant attention, deserved much, much more because it's the essence of the terrorism problem we now face. When a Sunni Muslim jihadist blows up a Shiite mosque - a mosque - during Ramadan - Ramadan - and virtually no one in the Sunni world utters a word of condemnation, it means there is no controlling moral authority in the Sunni Muslim community anymore.

When Sunni Muslim insurgents have no respect for the sanctity of Muslim lives, Muslim houses of worship or Muslim holy days - and no one from their own wider Sunni community really moves to restrain or censure them - then there are no boundaries anymore. No one is safe. Anything goes, against anyone, anywhere. If the Sunni Muslim world does not act to halt this genocidal ethnic-cleansing campaign against the Shiites of Iraq, which this week included a teacher's being dragged from a classroom and shot in front of his students, the Sunni world will eventually be consumed by this very violence. A civilization that tolerates suicide bombing is itself committing suicide.

Inexplicably to me, the Bush team, which has finally settled on the right rationale for the war in Iraq - to help Arabs carve out a space in the heart of their world where they can create a decent, progressive future, instead of drifting aimlessly under autocrats and worshiping a glorious past - is equally silent. Instead of going to the U.N. and seeking a resolution declaring the Sunni terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his ilk war criminals, it sends Karen Hughes around the Arab world to get flagellated by Sunni Muslim women for how awful we are.

The Bush team calls that "public diplomacy." I call it losing a public relations war to mass murderers.

Yes, we, too, are hypocrites. I think the U.S. abuses of prisoners of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (we apparently tortured to death scores of prisoners in our custody) is a lasting blot on us all. But at least we have news media, a religious elite and courts that are exposing this, and a Senate majority that is now acting to bring it to a halt.

As Human Rights Watch noted in an Oct. 3 report, U.S. abuses in Iraq cannot justify the deliberate attacks by Iraqi insurgents on civilians, which "are serious violations of international humanitarian law - war crimes - and in some cases they are crimes against humanity. ... Not only should all insurgent groups in Iraq cease such attacks, but the political and religious leaders in Iraq and other countries who have expressed support for the insurgency should condemn the targeting of civilians."

But try to find an Arab head of state, or a major Sunni Arab cleric, who has consistently and repeatedly condemned Zarqawi or bin Laden by name. There are very, very few. Oh, yes, they arrest these jihadists in their own countries. But they rarely take them on - head on - in the war of ideas, because they are afraid of their own Sunni fundamentalists, many of whom tacitly support the war on Shiites.

And that is a real problem. Because there is only one way to stop this terrorism we are seeing from Indonesia to Iraq and from Madrid to London: it takes a village. It will stop only when the religious and political leaders, and parents, in these Sunni Muslim communities delegitimize it and anyone who engages in it.

Western leaders keep saying after every terrorist attack, "This is not about Islam." Sorry, but this is all about Islam. It is about a war within Islam between a jihadist-fascist minority engaged in crimes against humanity in the name of Islam, and a passive Sunni silent majority. Many of those Sunnis, I'm sure, are appalled by the violence against Iraqi civilians, but are too afraid, too morally leaderless or too quietly anti-Shiite to act.

As I said, a civilization that tolerates suicide-genocide will eventually be devoured by its extremists from within - and quarantined by its friends from abroad.

Mark Steyn

I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction "COEXIST". It's one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with. But the reality is, it's the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood. There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it's easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.

So even Muslims v (your team here) doesn't quite cover it. You don't have to have a team or even be aware that you belong to any side. You can be a hippie-dippy hey-man-I-love-everybody-whatever-your-bag-is-cool backpacking Dutch stoner, and they'll blow you up with as much enthusiasm as if you were Dick Cheney. As a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden put it in 2002, explaining why they bombed a French oil tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

But we choose in large part to stay in ignorance. Blow up the London Underground during a G8 summit and the world's leaders twitter about how tragic and ironic it is that this should have happened just as they're taking steps to deal with the issues, as though the terrorists are upset about poverty in Africa and global warming.

That's why they blew up Bali in 2002, and last weekend, and why they'll keep blowing it up. It's not about Bush or Blair or Iraq or Palestine. It's about a world where everything other than Islamism lies inruins.

When a Sunni Muslim jihadist blows up a Shiite mosque - a mosque - during Ramadan - Ramadan - and virtually no one in the Sunni world utters a word of condemnation, it means there is no controlling moral authority in the Sunni Muslim community anymore.

Precisely - so there's no point saying anything. Suicide bombers subscribe to an ideology that says not only are members of other religions infidels, but also Muslims who refuse to accept this belief. It would make no difference if powerful Sunnis pointed out that it's evil, as in the minds of the suicide bombers they would now have been corrupted, and no longer count as 'true Muslims'. The article seems to be based on the assumption that if some group (here suicide bombers) does evil in the name of a particular other group (here Islam), that other group (here Islam) is in some way responsible. Doing something in the name of a group does not automatically make you part of that group - you don't become part of a culture just because you say you are.

It might make a difference to devout young men who might be persuaded by the terror organizations to commit those acts. Terrorists aren't just born with a murderous ideology, they grow up in communities where they are exposed to that ideology and perhaps it's not condemned enough by their friends, neighbors, family and clerics, so they come to think of it as a service to their god.

*STANDS UP AND APPLAUDS* If only more people would get it. It's not anti-muslim. It's not anti-middle easterner. It's not anti-brown people. It's "I DON'T WANT TO BE BLOWN UP BECAUSE YOU THINK I'M AN INFIDEL!

If the peaceful Muslims did a better job of seperating themselves from the murderers, we could solve this problem much easier. Until ALL peaceful Muslims stand up to the terrorists and shout ENOUGH, they will continue to be looked at with suspicion and they will be profiled.

It might make a difference to devout young men who might be persuaded by the terror organizations to commit those acts. Terrorists aren't just born with a murderous ideology, they grow up in communities where they are exposed to that ideology and perhaps it's not condemned enough by their friends, neighbors, family and clerics, so they come to think of it as a service to their god.
Dude, you get my "Best post of the year" award. I couldn't have said it better if I'd thought about it all week.

Dude, you get my "Best post of the year" award. I couldn't have said it better if I'd thought about it all week.
I can't accept that honor for this post. Maybe for my expose on crack addicted squirrels, but this one is just common sense.

It might make a difference to devout young men who might be persuaded by the terror organizations to commit those acts. Terrorists aren't just born with a murderous ideology, they grow up in communities where they are exposed to that ideology and perhaps it's not condemned enough by their friends, neighbors, family and clerics, so they come to think of it as a service to their god.

In cases where we know about the background of the suicide bomber, it usually turns out that they were indoctrinated by a friend or through the internet. In some cases there's no trace of extremism in their community. I don't think the Muslim community condemning it will be any more successful than Christisn leaders telling the IRA that murder was against the teaching of the Bible - that war ended when everyone became tired of fighting.

It might make a difference to devout young men who might be persuaded by the terror organizations to commit those acts. Terrorists aren't just born with a murderous ideology, they grow up in communities where they are exposed to that ideology and perhaps it's not condemned enough by their friends, neighbors, family and clerics, so they come to think of it as a service to their god.

In cases where we know about the background of the suicide bomber, it usually turns out that they were indoctrinated by a friend or through the internet. In some cases there's no trace of extremism in their community. I don't think the Muslim community condemning it will be any more successful than Christisn leaders telling the IRA that murder was against the teaching of the Bible - that war ended when everyone became tired of fighting.

It's not about Bush or Blair or Iraq or Palestine. It's about a world where everything other than Islamism lies inruins.
Exactly!

In cases where we know about the background of the suicide bomber, it usually turns out that they were indoctrinated by a friend or through the internet. In some cases there's no trace of extremism in their community. I don't think the Muslim community condemning it will be any more successful than Christisn leaders telling the IRA that murder was against the teaching of the Bible - that war ended when everyone became tired of fighting.
That's my point. They might be exposed to such murderous ideology by the internet or by a friend, but if the entire community makes a point of condeming such behavior, rather than glossing over it, he's less likely to be swayed by the few voices calling for jihad.

Here's an example:

If someone espouses even faintly strenuous belief in Christianity, they get pummeled verbally in public, on this forum, in real life, etc.

All someone has to do is mention that a Western leader professes some limited belief in God, and the media gets their panties in a bunch.

Yes, there's no central authority to Christianity. So the people who live in countries where it is practiced feel free to criticize it when they think it's stupid - whether they criticize abortion clinic bombings or criticize the mere belief.

Effectively, no one is criticizing fundamentalist Islamic violence. Certainly not their media. Certainly nothing more than lip service from a scant few Arab leaders. And virtually none from the street.

If people were as silent about Christianity as they are about Islam, I bet there would be a lot more Christian violence - say, at the level that was seen during the Inquisition. Back in the day when everyone kept their mouth shut out of fear.

What does he mean, when he says there is no condemnation?

Where does he expect to see it? In an Iraqi newspaper? As far as I know, there is no Iraqi national press. In the street? Who want to be in the next batch of hundred bodies to be found on a riverbank, in handcuffs, with their brains blown out?

In an Arab newspaper? How, when virtually all the media in the Arab world is controlled by dictatorships, many of which are militarily and financially supported in the West as allies? Since when has anyone been able to count on the newspapers in Syria or Saudi Arabia to reflect the true thoughts of their readers?

Coexist? Drive through Saddam-era Iraq with that bumper sticker and see how long you'd get before being executed by the secular dictatorship (which the West installed and supported for decades). Indeed, try making a public show of your faith in Turkey, a "democratic" country which the EU is supposedly opposing admitting to its club out of racism. The harassment and oppression will not be long in coming.

Let us also not forget that for 8 years, the West gave financial and military assistance to Sunni-ruled Iraq as it waged a war against the Shia-ruled Iran. We paid for a million people to die in that conflict.

How many Sunni Muslims does the guy know anyway? He's a white neo-conservative columnist who frequently writes cringe-worthy opinion pieces in the Guardian.

This piece is a load of crap.

What does he mean, when he says there is no condemnation?

Where does he expect to see it? In an Iraqi newspaper? As far as I know, there is no Iraqi national press. In the street? Who want to be in the next batch of hundred bodies to be found on a riverbank, in handcuffs, with their brains blown out?

In an Arab newspaper? How, when virtually all the media in the Arab world is controlled by dictatorships, many of which are militarily and financially supported in the West as allies? Since when has anyone been able to count on the newspapers in Syria or Saudi Arabia to reflect the true thoughts of their readers?

Coexist? Drive through Saddam-era Iraq with that bumper sticker and see how long you'd get before being executed by the secular dictatorship (which the West installed and supported for decades). Indeed, try making a public show of your faith in Turkey, a "democratic" country which the EU is supposedly opposing admitting to its club out of racism. The harassment and oppression will not be long in coming.

Let us also not forget that for 8 years, the West gave financial and military assistance to Sunni-ruled Iraq as it waged a war against the Shia-ruled Iran. We paid for a million people to die in that conflict.

How many Sunni Muslims does the guy know anyway? He's a white neo-conservative columnist who frequently writes cringe-worthy opinion pieces in the Guardian.

This piece is a load of crap.


Al-Jazeera would do. It's an independent news organization.

Al-Jazeera would do. It's an independent news organization.
LOL, you only cease to call it a terrorist propaganda machine when it suits your purposes. Nice try. :rolleyes:

LOL, you only cease to call it a terrorist propaganda machine when it suits your purposes. Nice try. :rolleyes:

Perhaps it wouldn't be viewed as a terrorist propaganda machine if they condemned people who slit the throats of helpless people on videotape.

Folks, please focus on the elites and the leaders (both political and spiritual). The problem lies with them and not on the masses. Most of the masses would be content to have a meal to eat and a roof over their head.

Behind every case of mass protests of muslims against perceived injustices by non-muslims, there is always a political figure manipulating it for their political objectives.

Case in point is the koran abuse protests. The issue was reported in newsweek for 10 days and nobody bothered about it, until a certain Pakistani politician Imran Khan pointed it out in a press conference. Afraid that he will hog all the political space, the other religious parties also pitched in. Afraid that Pakistan will hog the "we care for islam" space, other muslim countries pitched in. This is how it happens.

Saving Islam is a business. Terrorism is actually a business. You would have to understand something called conflict economy.

Here's an excellent piece by Hussein Haqqani in WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112897850833064743.html
Earthquake Relief Can Win Allies In the Muslim World
By HUSAIN HAQQANI
October 11, 2005


The massive earthquake that rocked Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India on Saturday is a great human tragedy. But it also represents an opportunity for the U.S. to improve its image among ordinary Muslims in these countries, in the same way that American assistance to Indonesia after last December's tsunami led to a sea of change in public attitudes in that country.

Casualties, already estimated to be more than 30,000, are likely to rise still further as the full extent of the earthquake's devastation becomes known. In addition to burying the dead and locating survivors, massive humanitarian assistance will be needed to rehabilitate those affected by this natural disaster. Rebuilding destroyed towns and villages, reviving their economy and planning for the future will require far more resources than the affected nations can muster on their own. Countries such as Pakistan, where one-third of the population lives on less than $1 a day, will need considerable international assistance to cope with the aftermath of the tragedy.

President George W. Bush's announcement of American help for the earthquake victims in Pakistan, the country hardest hit by the earthquake, reflects Washington's humanitarian concern over the consequences of a natural disaster. The Bush administration has reacted quickly, sending eight military helicopters and two plane loads of tents and blankets to assist with the relief effort. Another useful step, which Washington could consider, would be dispatching some of the U.S. military personnel stationed in Afghanistan to assist with the relief effort.

American assistance in providing relief to the earthquake victims would go a long way to winning over Muslim hearts and minds. Public opinion surveys indicate that many of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims, including an overwhelming majority in Pakistan, have been conditioned to have a negative image of the U.S. The Bush administration is alive to this problem, as shown by the appointment of Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Although Ms. Hughes has little prior exposure to the Muslim world, she has good political instincts and the ear of President Bush.

These strengths should enable her to explore a fresh approach in building bridges than seasoned diplomats with fixed ideas. But for success in her new mission, Ms. Hughes will have to ignore conventional advice from State department bureaucrats. This advice is usually against rocking the boat, especially in the Middle East, and rests on a false dichotomy between stability and democracy. Listening to, and communicating with, the people in the Muslim world has been viewed in the past as having the potential to disrupt U.S. relations with pro-western rulers and elites.

If handled rightly, providing assistance directly to Muslim victims of South Asia's earthquake would enable the U.S. to bypass the ruling elites of the Muslim world that often control, manage and calibrate Americans' understanding of the Muslims and influence the Muslim peoples' understanding of America.

Ordinary Muslims are not unresponsive to America's positive actions or policies. They know the difference between U.S. assistance to their ruling elites and American support for the people at large. That was graphically demonstrated after December's tsunami, when America provided extensive assistance -- including marines landing in Aceh to deliver aid to survivors. A poll by Terror Free Tomorrow found that 65% of Indonesians had become more favorably disposed to the U.S. as a result of this American assistance. The number opposing U.S. efforts to fight terrorism fell by half, compared with a previous poll two years earlier. And, for the first time ever in a survey of opinion in a major Muslim nation, more people expressed support for the American-led war on terror than opposition.

If ordinary Pakistanis, Afghans and Kashmiris see American military personnel and NGOs providing relief to earthquake victims in a similar way, then there is every reason to believe it will have a similar effect on the anti-American prejudices that have been instilled in them over the years. Many ordinary Muslims have been persuaded to turn against the U.S. on the basis of propaganda about American imperial ambitions. A class of Muslim rulers, diplomats, global bankers and media specialists has emerged that lives off its role as intermediaries between the U.S. and the Muslim people, who are described by these intermediaries as backward, complex and inherently anti-western.

These intermediaries live good lives, frequently at Washington's expense. They are often responsible for decisions that frustrate the majority of their compatriots, such as spending on palaces and weapons at the expense of public education, healthcare or contingency planning for disaster relief. But they are also quick to come up with reasons why U.S. foreign policy is to blame for global Muslim decline or Muslim suffering. They do not acknowledge that the policies of Muslim rulers, which have suppressed dissent and thereby stunted the growth of innovation and research, have caused stagnation in the Muslim world for over three centuries.

Anti-Americanism in several Muslim countries is often nurtured by the very elites that the U.S. cultivates. These elites "rent" out their support to U.S. policies in return for economic and military aid. Anti-Americanism among the people is sometimes an instrument of policy for seeking "higher rent" for the rulers' services on behalf of America.

Direct and visible U.S. assistance to South Asia's earthquake victims would help improve understanding for the U.S. in the Muslim Street. The beneficiaries of the gulf between the U.S. and the world's Muslims -- those who profit from U.S. actions to stabilize "unstable" countries -- do not want their people to see the positive side of America. But Americans are always quick with their generosity when disaster strikes and, once again, that could have a positive effect in changing perceptions.

Mr. Haqqani is director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Co-Chair of the Islam and Democracy Project at Hudson Institute, Washington D.C.

This is especially true in Pakistan.

The ruling elite (the army head honchos, drug barons and landed aristocracy) make a good living out of the dole that US hands out to them to keep the jihadis in control.

We can be rest assured that the jihadis will never really be wiped out due to this.

Perhaps it wouldn't be viewed as a terrorist propaganda machine if they condemned people who slit the throats of helpless people on videotape.

I doubt it. You'd just assume they were lying, or being diplomatic.

I can't accept that honor for this post. Maybe for my expose on crack addicted squirrels, but this one is just common sense.

A normal and regular perusing of the general news comming from around the planet, should itself, as a common sense, tell you that common sense, is anything but common these days (and likely, ever)...

Perhaps [al-Jazeera] wouldn't be viewed as a terrorist propaganda machine if they condemned people who slit the throats of helpless people on videotape.

Surely it's not the place of a news organisation to make judgement on the news it reports?

That's my point. They might be exposed to such murderous ideology by the internet or by a friend, but if the entire community makes a point of condeming such behavior, rather than glossing over it, he's less likely to be swayed by the few voices calling for jihad.

You seem to have missed my point though... Christian leaders in Northern Ireland routinely condemned IRA murders, but that didn't seem to cause the IRA any recruitment problems. Why should it be any more successful when tackling Islamic extremism?

Surely it's not the place of a news organisation to make judgement on the news it reports?

I guess that explains the celebratory mood of the anchor when they showed Margaret Hassan being killed.

How many times do I have to post the extensive list of websites and other places showing Muslims openly and vehemently speaking out against terrorism before you'll get it through your thick skull?

Get your fingers out of your ears and your thumb out of your ass. You may find it helps.

How many times do I have to post the extensive list of websites and other places showing Muslims openly and vehemently speaking out against terrorism before you'll get it through your thick skull?

Get your fingers out of your ears and your thumb out of your ass. You may find it helps.

Not on any Arab news media. Not one.

Let's go to the al-Jazeera website, shall we?

Well, why don't Muslims speak up?
They prefer to blow up. [/badtaste]

Not on any Arab news media. Not one.

Let's go to the al-Jazeera website, shall we?

In my extensive listings, there are some al-Jazeera sources. Also, you may surprised to find out that al-Jazeera is not the only Muslim source for news or information.

Also, it was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (clearly an Arab source) who declaired Osama bin Laden apostate, a murderer, and issued a fatwah against him.

So wake up and stop trying to spread anti-Muslim hatred.

In my extensive listings, there are some al-Jazeera sources. Also, you may surprised to find out that al-Jazeera is not the only Muslim source for news or information.

Also, it was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (clearly an Arab source) who declaired Osama bin Laden apostate, a murderer, and issued a fatwah against him.

So wake up and stop trying to spread anti-Muslim hatred.

Show me the outrage over the Bali bombings - a link please. From an Sunni Arab religious figure.

The other problem here is that you don't just want us to say it, you want it to be every other sentence out of our mouths. If it's not on the front page of al-Jazeera's website every day for the next 100 years, then clearly Muslims support terrorism.

You expect us to utter it with every breath from the minute we wake up to the minute we go to sleep and we'd damn sure better dream about denouncing terrorism as well lest you believe we support it.

Well fuck you. That's all I have to say about that. Go spread your hate on jihadwatch ... they'll appreciate you.

The other problem here is that you don't just want us to say it, you want it to be every other sentence out of our mouths. If it's not on the front page of al-Jazeera's website every day for the next 100 years, then clearly Muslims support terrorism.

You expect us to utter it with every breath from the minute we wake up to the minute we go to sleep and we'd damn sure better dream about denouncing terrorism as well lest you believe we support it.

Well fuck you. That's all I have to say about that. Go spread your hate on jihadwatch ... they'll appreciate you.

I'm not the one bombing people because they wear bikinis and drink beer. Sounds like they have the market cornered on spreading hate. I'm asking that all of their friends and relatives make it EVERY sentence out of their mouths until it stops.

Show me the outrage over the Bali bombings - a link please. From an Sunni Arab religious figure.

No ... find it yourself. I have already given you everything you could ever hope to ask for as far as link upon link upon link proving your lies baseless and full of hatred.

I will not do it anymore because you, like so many other ignorant fucks, can only see what your blinders tell you to see. People like you make *me* want to blow up Americans.

I'm asking that all of their friends and relatives make it EVERY sentence out of their mouths until it stops.

Well they won't. Would you daily and constantly apologise for your uncle or brother if they committed a crime? No, you wouldn't.

Why don't they? Because when they do they get ignored and/or become targets. They don't live in far away places behind fences surrounded by people paid to take bullets for them and who have licenses to kill. They live right there in the communities.

Well they won't. Would you daily and constantly apologise for your uncle or brother if they committed a crime? No, you wouldn't.

Exactly. Why should I apologize for something I didn't do, would never do, and isn't even allowed in my religion?

I don't ask my white friends to apologize for Timothy McVeigh blowing up the building in Oklahoma City. I don't ask my Lutheran friends to apologize for Hitler and the holocaust. They didn't do it. Never would.

You seem to have missed my point though... Christian leaders in Northern Ireland routinely condemned IRA murders, but that didn't seem to cause the IRA any recruitment problems. Why should it be any more successful when tackling Islamic extremism?
Because in the case of N. Ireland there was a strong anti-British and anti-unionist sentiment in the community that encouraged IRA violence. It wasn't strictly a religious war. It was, in fact, largely political and endorsed by the culture.

Is the attack on tourists in Bali largely endorsed by the culture in Indonesia's Muslim population? Is there a political gain to be gotten by banning bikinis and beer? It's a different situation.

Well they won't. Would you daily and constantly apologise for your uncle or brother if they committed a crime? No, you wouldn't.

Actually, if they had killed a few thousand people, and it was well known I was related to them, yeah, I would.

Petty theft no.