shotbanner.jpeg

February 20, 2006

Practicing Cultural Sensitivity

The Religious Policeman, a fascinating Saudi expat blog, covers a Saudi response to the Cartoon Crisis:

Meanwhile, in a strange land far away, someone has had A GOOD IDEA.

The ******-based Foundation for Increasing Islamic Awareness Among Foreign Communities has announced that it will publish a book about the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Danish and distribute it in Denmark and other European countries.

So what's going to happen is, that after boycotting their butter and Lego and so on, and trashing their embassies, and threatening their journalists with beheading, and generally lecturing them like naughty teenagers, we are going to send them a load of Mohammad biographies. Oh, how the simple citizens of Denmark will welcome such generosity! I can see them now, out on the streets, wiping the tears of gratitude from their eyes, as the lorries trundle into their town squares and deliver these little bundles of Islamic piety! How will they be able to contain their joy? It'll be the best thing that happened to them since Hitler came to town!

Read the whole hilarious, chilling thing.

Posted by Mitch at February 20, 2006 07:29 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Noting that Mitch studiously avoids Iraq and the problems there ... the following is offered, it is an excellent article from the London Times - you know "the whole world is liberally biased" London Times.

Simon Jenkins – London Sunday Times

Is Osama Bin Laden winning after all? Until recently I would have derided such a thought. How could a tinpot fanatic who is either dead or shut in some mountain hideout hold the world to ransom for five years? It would stretch the imagination of an Ian Fleming.

Now I am beginning to wonder. Not a day passes without some new sign of Bin Laden’s mesmeric grip on the governments of Britain and America. His deeds lie behind half the world’s headlines. British policy seems obsessed with one word: terrorism. The West is equivocating, writhing, slithering in precisely the direction most desired by its enemy. He must be roaring with delight.

On any objective measure, terrorism in the West is a trivial crime. True, New York and London saw outrages in 2001 and 2005 respectively. Both were the outcome of sloppy intelligence. Neither has been repeated, though of course they may be. Policing has improved and probably averted other attacks. But incidents genuinely attributable to Al-Qaeda rather than domestic grievances are comparable to the IRA and pro-Palestinian campaigns. Vigilance is important but only those with money in security have an interest in presenting Bin Laden as a cosmic threat.
Indeed if ever there were a case for collective restraint it is in response to terrorism. The word refers to a technique, usually a bomb, not an ideology. A bombing is an anarchic gesture calling for police and medical services. It becomes a political weapon only if publicised and answered with hysteria. A killing is so staged as to cause over-reaction, violent response, mass arrests and a decay of civilised values. Bin Laden’s intention in 2001 was to portray the West as scared, emotionally vulnerable, over-reactive, decadent and careless of liberal values. The West has done its damnedest to prove him right.

I distrust “basket” analysis but events do sometimes rush in a certain direction. Last week alone brought new revelations of torture by American troops in Iraq. British soldiers were filmed beating demonstrators in Basra. British ministers sought new powers of detention without trial, a national identity database and impediments on free speech. A sectarian leader became prime minister of Iraq and British marines were flown to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United Nations demanded the closure of Guantanamo as a torture camp. The European media indulged in an orgy of finger-pointing at Muslim religious sensitivity. Muslim extremists reacted on cue.

Were I Bin Laden I could not have dreamt that the spirit of 9/11 would be so vigorous five years on. I have western leaders still parroting my motto that “9/11 alters everything” and “the rules of the game are changed”. I have the Taliban resu_rgent, financed by Europe’s voracious demand for oil and opium. I have the Pentagon and Scotland Yard paying me the compliment of a “long war” of indefinite duration. My potency is said to require more defence spending than was needed to contain the might of the Soviet Union.

There is now a voluminous literature on the politics of fear and its distorting appeal for democratic leaders (this month alone, David Runciman’s admirable The Politics of Good Intentions and Peter Oborne’s The Use and Abuse of Terror). The 9/11 “changes everything” mantra began as an explanation of a national trauma and a plea for sympathy. It was hijacked to validate the latent authoritarianism of democratic leaders.

America asks the world to believe itself so threatened as to require the kidnappings of foreign citizens in foreign parts, detention without legal process, the curbing of free speech and derogation from all international law. It asks the world to believe that it must disregard the Geneva conventions and employ foreign dictators to help it to torture at random. It uses the same justification for occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. The world simply refuses to agree. Only cringeing Britain appeases such actions and calls them merely “anomalous”. There are madmen aplenty, but they do not constitute a war.

Even America’s most robust champions plead that this is all grotesquely counter-productive. What is frightening is not the evil of much American foreign policy at present but its stupidity; the damage it does to its own objectives. What was terrifying about Soviet power in the cold war was not its mega-tonnage but the incompetence of those controlling it.

America and Britain claim the right to invade foreign countries in defiance of international law. This requires at the very least a defensible moral superiority. Americans take this supremacy as read. Moral high ground comes with apple pie and the flag. Yet this supremacy, already questioned by many Americans at home, is in chronic disrepair abroad. Young Europeans and Asians no longer remember the second world war and do not see the world Washington’s way. Their belief in America’ s wealth is secure. Their belief in its values and their relevance to foreign countries is evaporating, blown away by relentless American belligerence. Last year’s BBC poll of 21 countries gave a majority that declared George Bush “a threat to world peace”.

The result is to cripple America’s effectiveness as diplomat and power broker. Take Iran. The emergence of any new nuclear power is alarming. Yet it was tolerated in Israel, India, Pakistan and Korea. Partly because of its isolation, Iran now seems certain to develop a nuclear potential. To respond by increasing that isolation and thus the paranoia of Iran’s turbulent and unstable rulers is daft. The sensible realpolitik must be to give Iran no reason to turn potential into actual power, let alone to want to use it.

I doubt if there is a world leader who would nominate America as best qualified to handle Iran in its present sensitive state. The war-mongering of the neocon ascendancy — the calls for bombing and the constant listing of targets — seems to mirror the fundamentalist mullahs behind President Ahmadinejad. American policy in the Middle East is so counter-productive as to be the problem, not the solution.

In desperation British and German leaders turned last week to the new “multi-polars”, Russia and China, for help with Tehran. This suggests a world moving towards new axes, seeking new leadership and distancing itself from American myopia. The spectacle is similar to the free world’s isolation of the Russian Comintern in the mid-20th century.

Such a recourse is fool’s gold. China and Russia are no more likely to exert sustained influence on the world stage than did Europe’s fragmented diplomacy over the past quarter century. Both have trade interests in Iran and much to gain as brokers of power in the region. Neither is a substitute for America. Neither carries the moral suasion of open and competitive democracy. Both face rumbling insurgencies on their frontiers. Yet the West turns to them in its hour of need. That is the measure of America’s collapse.

There never was a “terrorist threat” to western civilisation or democracy, only to western lives and property. The threat becomes systemic only when democracy loses its confidence and when its leaders are weak, as now. Terror attacks are for the police. For George Bush and Blair to demand a “long war” against Bin Laden and, by implication, a long suppression of civil liberty is ludicrous. Western civilisation is not some simpering weakling that cowers before a fanatic ’s might, pleading for leaders to protect it by all means, however illegal. It has been proof against Islamic expansionism since the 17th century. It is not at risk.

The American president and the British prime minister have spent half a decade exploiting Bin Laden for political ends, in thrall to their security/industrial complex. They have relied on terrifying their electorates with new and bloodcurdling threats, with what Runciman calls “spook politics”. But they will pass. The half-baked “message” laws passed by Britain’s limp parliament last week will fall in disuse. The vitality of British and American democracy has always been its ability to produce antibodies when truly challenged by an internal or external menace. The West will rediscover its self-belief and restore the liberalism, properly defined as freedom, that it once exemplified to the world.

Bin Laden is not going to win and never was. But Bush and Blair are giving him an astonishing run for his money.

Mitch - someday you'll understand that tollerance never meant tollerating hatred of cultures and peoples for facts of their existence. In fact, such hatred is an anethma to christians, and being intollerant of that hatred is not hyprocrisy. Tollerance means NOT hating people for difference not of their choice.

However, advocating accepting hatred of people due to their race, creed, sex, ethnic heritage, sexual orientation through disinformation is an ugly self-justification of vulgarity. Falsely arguing the misconduct of some muslims either is indicative of the whole and/or justifies/justified misconduct on the part of bigots in the west, is juvenile crappola of the first order.

While we piss and moan about the outrageous antics of some muslims, and use it as an excuse to say "see, they really are extremists", we fail to recognize the nearly inconsequential formal power they truly weild, and the immense harm we do when we talk about democracy yet export totalitarianism.

Bin Laden is winning, we're out of Saudi Arabia, our freedoms are fading needlessly, we're cowing from the expense and bloodshed brought about by ill-begotten wars, and the Palestinian peace process has ground to a halt.

Mitch's response to Abu Ghraib, to British Soldiers beating prisoners, to the UN requesting we close Gitmo.. mock muslims... I'm sure that will help, nearly as much as providing treatise on Muhammad, but not quite.

PB

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 11:06 AM

My freedoms are eroding?

Which ones? I haven't noticed a change.

I'm terrified?

Could'a fooled me.

9/11 was "the outcome of sloppy intelligence"?

Here, I thought it was the outcome of terrorism. Foolish me.

And, pb, you dolt, "tolerance" doesn't mean, "let them kill us, because it means so much to them."

It means that, as I kill them first, I won't scream the name of my gawd aloud. Might insult them, ya'know.

(I mean, seriously, you want me to be concerned that our actions and words are disturbing to the seemingly large proportion of the Islamic world that will not accept non-muslim lifestyles, even where they do not live? Screw 'em, pb. Let them make the first tolerant move. Or, do you consider the islamic world to be so subhuman as to be incapable of such tolerance, and so it's up to us civilized types to do so? I see very few articles such as the one you copied addressed to the intolerant islamic model.)

Posted by: bobby_b at February 20, 2006 11:40 AM

"Noting that Mitch studiously avoids Iraq and the problems there"

INIGO MONTOYA: "I don't think that word means what you think it means..."

I don't "studiously" - as in, with forethought and great effort - avoid *anything*, P, because the *article and my post were not about Iraq*.

There's a bit of a disconnect here, P; when I write a post, I usually try to find a subject. And then stick to it. To *not* do so would confuse and alienate readers, who would quit reading in droves.

The piece was about a Moslem group's reaction to the Satanic Toons. Moslem intolerance, and the often comically-provincial attitudes that some Moslems have about their relations to the modern world, was a story on 9/10/01, and it'll be a story until Islam has something that Christianity had a half a millenium ago - a Renaissance, and perhaps a Reformation wherein Moderate Islam figures out how to juxtapose the Quran with coexistence with other faiths and ideas.

"London Times - you know "the whole world is liberally biased" London Times."

Er, P? Before you put words in my mouth, you might want to make sure I'm not 25 years ahead of you. The London Times and the Telegraph are the UK's Tory-leaning newspapers, and (in the case of the Times) always has been.

The article is interesting enough, as far as it goes.

"Mitch - someday you'll understand that tollerance [sic] never meant tollerating [sic] hatred of cultures and peoples for facts of their existence."

P, this statement puts me in a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, I am sensitive to charges of being "insulting", and am trying to watch things.

On the other hand, that is without a doubt the most moronic thing ever written in this comment section by anyone, with or without full command of their faculties. That includes comment spam.

I am, and have always been, a cultural omnimath - to a degree that causes some fellow conservatives to give me crap ("No REAL conservative likes Couscous or plays the Curan, or whatever the f*** you call that thing", that sort of thing). I get around in a bunch of languages, and want to learn more - FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of understanding foreign cultures; I *require* my children to be bilingual for that exact reason; it is very difficult to be a bilingual provincial redneck. Unlike "chickencultures" who profess open-mindedness about other cultures but never really put their time and effort where their mouth is, I have done this in spades.

Among my huge mass of friends and neighbors amassed over 25 years of adult life are Arabs (of several nationalities), Farsi, Turks, Kurds, and Moslems of a variety of cultures, as well as people who've spent MUCH time among all of the above and more. I endeavor at every turn to learn more about each of these cultures - because *cultures fascinate me*. Period. And that doesn't even address reading, to say nothing of academic background. In short, my "tollerance" isn't the issue; never was; never will be.

Your statement is, in short, baseless, and in addition a fairly tortured twist of the initial topic done through (I'll be charitable) ignorance and an unseemly desire to insult. The initial point was, by the way (in case this subtle point got past you) a reposting of *an actual Moslem's opinion* on a current event.

Cheers.

Posted by: mitch at February 20, 2006 11:55 AM

If anyone hasn't read the whole hilarious, chilling thing (that would include pb, who could not have had time considering the length of rant), the Mohammed emoticons at the end are worth the time. That's if you can "tollerate" good humor.

Posted by: Kermit at February 20, 2006 12:34 PM

Mitch, I see because your name is present you posted, do not be deceived, my re-emergence on your blog has everything to do with pointing out your inane, pointless postings, and nothing to do with responding to you, so save your breath.

Regarding some further points and excellent article was on NYT today.. URL below

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_1&oref=slogin

The funny thing is, this guy actually thinks neo-cons really do believe they were exporting "democracy". Perhaps the rank and file did, but the leadership, unless painfully stupid, could not have. They prop up dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, greatly infuriating the Wahabists further - despite a supposed intent to disarm the philosophies of Wahabism - they prop up Musharaff, and through it all maintain they are interested in democracy. They claim abandonment of Realpolitik, yet reinforce it repeatedly whenever there's any real risk/challenge. It's funny that the administration is re-engaging Realpolik yet Mitch recently argued that the Bush Doctrine means no longer conforming to it.
Mitch is out of step with the political back-sliding the administration is happy to engage in. Their sincerity in the "Bush Doctrine" is so clearly non-existent. Iraq was about winning elections, not democracies, and funneling money into corporations. I agree we need a better Wilsonian vision, but this President is totally unwilling and incapable of doing so.

PB


Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 12:39 PM

Three cheers for PB!
Using the comments section and Mitch's hard earned band width to cut and paste an article in its entirely that is only tangentially related to the orginal post. Bravo!
If bin Laden is winning I bet he'd hate to see what losing would look like! If being reduced to skulking from cave to cave, issuing the occasional depraved rant via cassette tape, and engineering no further terrorist attacks on US soil is winning, what would define losing? (I mean losing as compared to the reality of 9/12 when we -- correctly -- were waiting for the other shoe to drop, and not the reality of 2006 in which the immediacy of the of threat seems to have been forgotten and current results are compared to some utopian ideal?)

Posted by: chriss at February 20, 2006 12:40 PM

Chrisss,

I fully agree that my post was tangientially related. By the way, Mitch paying for bandwidth, big deal, Mitch signed up for that when he opened the blog. He can delete my comments, as he's done in the past, if his precious band-width is becoming so impaired.

Bin Laden is winning the ideological battle, argue that he isn't. Pointing out he's hanging out in caves, or in Pakistani villages, or maybe somewhere else entirely, only proves we are no closer to "Dead or Alive" than we were 4.5 years ago.

If Mitch actually took on tough subjects, tangential posts would not be required.

PB

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 12:45 PM

"Bin Laden is winning the ideological battle, argue that he isn't."

He's not.

"Pointing out he's hanging out in caves, or in Pakistani villages, or maybe somewhere else entirely, only proves we are no closer to "Dead or Alive" than we were 4.5 years ago."

And it's completely irrelelvant; he is not the sole panacaea of international terrorism.

"If Mitch actually took on tough subjects, tangential posts would not be required."

No, PB. If you weren't an intellectual midget, you wouldn't need to wander among topics like a bipolar alcoholic in the subway.

Seriously, PB - I can not tell if you're stupid or crazy. Either way, that laughing sound you hear? It's not people laughing WITH you.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 12:53 PM

Jack... once again proving Mitch's Huge mass of friends is not exactly swimming in the intellectually astute gene-pool.

Mitch, I'm apologizing to you for not reading your post. Such conduct is completely counter to my ethic. While your posts normally have been insult laden irrelevance, not considering them is completely inappropriate. Consequently, I will do so, and apologize for my misconduct.

PB

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 12:57 PM

Mitch,

First, my post in no way indicated YOU were intollerant. Far from it, and I fully expect you, like many of us, have friends from many cultures.

Rather Mitch, it is the cover your post gives to those who argue that tollerance is tollerant of everything except intollerance that is the problem. Perhaps you had no intent to do so, but past comments from you seem to indicate otherwise (perhaps these are just memories in my own mind, but I seem to recall you pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of tollerance).

I won't be drawn back into your "supposed insults" line, as I said I'm done with the subject, and your discussion of it.

That subject notwithstanding, if you cannot perceive the infringement on your personal privacy, then you and I have vastly differing views on liberty. My actions are not the business of the government unless they can show good cause - which is entitled under Article IV to require "probable cause". I further am offended by imprisonment without charge (especially indefinete such detentions) of US Citizens, and by an administration which sets up prisons NOT on US soil precisely to avoid US law.

Those are important freedoms, I'm sure you agree, just perhaps you don't conceive of why allowing these encroachments represents a dangerous prescedent. Further, any President who asserts that he is essentially unfettered by Congressional checks in wartime, is suggesting a power not supported in writing in the Constitution. If that President at the same time is arguing for strict interpretation of that Constitution, his position seems hypocritical and irreconcilable.

I did not cut and paste your post precisely because doing so is the height of poor debate/discussion. I do appreciate your general approach to not insult me (though calling me a dolt seems like less than entirely well-reasoned comment) - if you can maintain rationality, you will be repaid with it.

PB

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 01:13 PM

Culture is very popular nowadays imho

Posted by: Naked Lesbians at February 20, 2006 01:46 PM

You are absolutely correct. You are living proof that bin Laden is winning the ideological battle.
I stand corrected.

Posted by: chriss at February 20, 2006 02:04 PM

Mitch..

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact

This would be the kind of "liberty" that has been destroyed. The belief that my country is better than this sort of conduct, the hope that it wouldn't use such tactics on me, and the falacy that my President wouldn't authorize it.

Perhaps you can conceive of a reason why this conduct isn't a testimony to our failure to stand up for what is right, but I see it as the chief article in the indictment of a policy that believes the "ends justifies the means", and which does not recognize it is the defense of the standards of liberty (the Constitution) which ratifies and safeguards the future for our society - not hollow claims of defending the "people".

PB

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 02:35 PM

Well, Chrisss, whether or not I am, and of course I'll hope you aren't in any way suggesting I'm some sort of traitor, because that sort of hate speech is what starts civil wars, anyway...

Whether or not I am, the numbers speak for themselves, as well as the facts.

1. Bin Laden's primary aim was our departure from Saudi Arabia (the holy lands for Islam, esp proximity to places like Ryadd (sic) and Mecca).

2. Bush erroneously claimed Bin Laden was making war on our freedoms. Outside of religious choice, and perhaps by extension, the right to a secular government, that's just poppey-cock. However,we HAVE attacked our freedoms as a result. As for non-secularity in government, Bush never supported secularization, and so he's plenty happy to go along with inserting religiion. It might not be Islam, but that particular freedom was one Bush didn't cotton to nohow.

3. Attacks are up sharply since 2001, and participation in islamic extremism has exploded, in part due to recent cartoons, but certainly even prior to that. As Bush himself said, it really isn't that important if we kill his leadership, they'll just be replaced (this was excuse making on his part for lack of results re: Bin Laden's capture - and funny considering the crowing they've done when an Al Qaeda leader has been killed), but I think it's very much true, Al Qaeda isn't exactly running out of soldiers.

4. We are bankrupting ourselves, and our country's commitment to Wilsonian ideals of democracy is fading rapidly with the debacle in Iraq.

So perhaps you're right, maybe it's just me who thinks Bin Laden's winning, but you know the rest of the world seems to agree.

PB

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 02:42 PM

Although my personal belief is that bin Laden has been a smear on a rock for some years now, it would be interesting to see him captured just to watch PB's head implode.

Posted by: Ryan at February 20, 2006 04:10 PM

Ryan,

Two points.

First, all evidence indicates Bin Laden is alive, none indicates he's dead. I'm assuming you're not an ostrich, based on what do you think he's dead?

Second, my head would hardly implode, though I can't say I'd rejoice because candidly, his organization is proving much more successful than he probably imagined (due to our ineptness). We've done nearly precisely what he predicted, and with nearly the precise outcomes he predicted. Whether he's alive is of only marginal consequence.

I think the only implosion is the vaccuous response that has been provided to Bin Laden's assertions that we are proving him right. We HAVE in fact invaded lands considered holy (at least by Shiites, we HAVE proven to be willing to expend force/money/blood in a vain pursuit to "stamp out" disent, we have constrained our own liberties, and we HAVE shown a lack of stomach for bloodshed (when the cause is not seen as sound).

Be careful in asking for whom the implosion speaks, (maybe)it speaks for thee.

Also Ryan, just like others, you've shown a remarkable willingness to not engage in anything ought insult, is this the right-wing "intellect" on display, as contrasted to the "vacuum" of idea on the left? You all have all the cards - the forum, the power, the administration, when is it you will engage in real factual discussion? Do you contest that we're in fact winning the hearts and minds of the Sunnis? That rebellion is dwindling, that we have good prospects for a stable government? Do you suggest we're "winning" the war on terror, based upon? What do you consider "victory" or even total victory in the war on terror? How would you get there, what does it look like, how long will it take? Do you believe the steps we've taken to date have been effective, if so, which ones?

Those are points to argue, if otoh, all you can do is issue insults... you're intellectual contribution will have thus been well established.

PB

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 05:02 PM

PB - I am not calling you a traitor. I do not question your motives; I believe you have what you believe to be our best interest at heart.
However, words and actions have consequences. The left in this country is indeed doing exactly what UBL wants (calling Gitmo a gulag, calling Pres Bush a liar, etc. etc). They are not doing it BECAUSE it's what UBL wants. They are not deliberately trying to hurt the US.
But to, on the one hand, do just what UBL would like us to do, and then on the other hand say that UBL is winning the ideological battle... doesn't that make you stop and think at all???

Again, I'm not questioning your motives, just your words and actions and their logical consequences.

Another point: If you don't think UBL is attacking our freedoms, what is he attacking? He wants us all dead, liberal and conservative.

Point of information: When was the last piece of UBL video that definitively fixed a date (not a video with old footage but a new voice over, not a new audio tape). I'm not trying to make a point, I honestly can't remember.

Posted by: chriss at February 20, 2006 05:21 PM

PB-
"Bush erroneously claimed Bin Laden was making war on our freedoms. Outside of religious choice, and perhaps by extension, the right to a secular government, that's just poppey-cock."
I was going to make some snide, satirical remark re the above PB quote, but I can't. It satirizes itself.
Though I think I should point out that "poppey-cock" is spelled "poppycock". Please add it to your spellcheck dictionary, PB, I'm sure you'll want to use the word again.

Posted by: Terry at February 20, 2006 06:29 PM

PB do you have a fu**ing JOB? Or are you a government droid? What a waste of time for you to get worked up and what a waste of time to read your drivel.

Posted by: DRW at February 20, 2006 09:10 PM

This effort is about as ham-handed as sending Karen Hughes to the Middle East, trying to get Muslims to adopt freedom, capitalism and the Junior League.

Posted by: angryclown at February 21, 2006 08:01 AM

AC is just frustrated because the Middle East has an over abundance of clowns and they ALL seem to be angry. It breaks his little entreprenurial heart.

Posted by: Kermit at February 21, 2006 08:27 AM

back to the original post, I hope this book on mohammed is illustrated....

Posted by: billhedrick at February 21, 2006 08:29 AM

No Kerm, the Middle East is full of angry people who aren't at all funny. Kinda like the comment section of this blog.

Posted by: angryclown at February 21, 2006 08:59 AM

That does it! We will be coming to NTC for a riot. What day works best for you?

Posted by: Kermit at February 21, 2006 09:00 AM

"Today is a good day to die!"
"No, today doesn't work for me, how about friday?"

Posted by: billhedrick at February 21, 2006 09:09 AM

NTC? More coffee, Stat!

Posted by: Kermit at February 21, 2006 09:33 AM

Don't order anything with soy milk in it, Kerm. Mitch'll make you for a DFLer.

Posted by: angryclown at February 21, 2006 10:05 AM

You just don't want to get in line in front of him at the coffee shop. Dunn Bros. should have two lines, one for normal people and one for anal yuppies.

Posted by: Kermit at February 21, 2006 10:43 AM

You know who you are.

Posted by: Kermit at February 21, 2006 10:44 AM

AngryClown:
"...the Middle East is full of angry people who aren't at all funny. Kinda like the comment section of this blog."

Don't sell yourself short, Clown. You're REALLY funny inspite of your impotent rage.

Ooops... sorry, I meant "important" rage. ;)

Posted by: Badda-Blogger at February 21, 2006 11:08 AM

It would be despite his impotent rage. In spite of would indicate he doesn't like it, and we all know that's not the case.

Posted by: Kermit at February 21, 2006 11:25 AM

Gosh, I was wondering when our own personal Tom Arnold (aka Badda) would surface to offer another pointless insult.

AngryC is funnier than pretty much everyone else here put together. He does his satire with class and style (well nearly always anyway), which is more than I can say about nearly everyone else.

Moving on - Terry..

I don't think Bin Laden gives a darn about our freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Wahabism DOES care about some of that, because its view is (similarly to the Mennonites or Amish) that technology is bad, that taking pictures is bad, etc.. but OBL's primary hang up is with our involvement in his regions politics. He believes the holy lands are for Islam (at least in a position of primacy), and in a Caliphate ruling the Muslim world, a Caliphate dominated by clerical edict.

Those ideals don't really have any involvement at all in whether the UK or the US has freedom of the press, privacy rights, or writs of Haebeus Corpus. They don't care about Bills of Attainder, they don't care about due process guarantees in the US or really the rest of the "Western World". They certainly don’t have any issues with guaranteeing property rights (Bin Laden IS after all an oil man). It probably can be said they'd support due process for their own culture/religious adherents. The line that they attacked us because "they hate our freedoms" was a lie of the first order. They attacked us because of our long standing involvement in Israel, and our presence in Saudi Arabia.

Further, as the story points out, the ability of Islamic fundamentalists to fundamentally change our liberties is essentially non-existent, unless we allow it to happen - i.e. we bring it about through hysteria/over-reaction - not we sit idly by while they take it.

I pointed out the two things OBL could be said to care about, first religious choice. OBL (Al Qaeda) has never stated they believe in forceful conversion of infidels, so this is at best an arguable extension. The second, theocratic rule, they certainly support, but only Islamic Theocratic rule, and not really here. They certainly DON'T support theocratic rule by Christians, here or elsewhere. Consequently, on both fronts, they really don't much care about either of these liberties as they apply to the US. The point was, WE claimed they did (when they didn't) and then went about attacking our own liberty base.

Chrisss...

Thank you once again for the civil reply.

I think OBL is interested mostly in maintaining his criminal organization.

I think he is further interested in establish a religious theocracy somewhere (or at least anarchic rule somewhere) in order that he can continue exporting his attack on the west for it's involvement in the Middle-East and support of Israel. Iraq offers him ample "news fodder" to recruit - our presence is as he predicted, and is going, as he predicted. We keep making him look very smart, and us, very dumb. Al Qaeda in Iraq will NEVER take over (take it to the bank), they are reviled by the Shiia, and by most of the Sunni. Most of the insurgency/rebellion is not Al Qaeda, but OBL rather foolishly thinks creating a Caliphate in Iraq is a possibility. He is attacking us - your question - to promote instability in Iraq to further his goal of that Caliphate AND to prove to the fundamentalist Muslims who support him that bloodying the Americans will result in them loosing interest and leaving.

I think 9/11 was both a success and a failure for OBL, a success he never dreamed of (the publicity) and a failure in that the Muslim world (for a time) thought he was as loony as he really is. Unfortunately our attack upon a nation not involved in the attack reversed that course. That Iraq sponsored terrorism against Israel the majority of the Arab world (if not the Muslim one) couldn't care less. We sponsor Israel which in their eyes conducts terrorism on the Palestinians daily. We claim higher moral ground while we beat people at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. Whether or not we are better, or it was coordinated, really doesn't matter, they BELIEVE we are just as bad, and so don't care. Consequently, our involvement in Iraq was totally unjustified. THEY didn't attack us, and it gave the appearance of simply being imperialistic. Given the fact that we've done nothing on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, they have some grounds for thinking it was imperialism and oil. They also have some grounds (the Arab world is the "they" here) for thinking it was about "big stick" threats to secure oil.

I think OBL is playing on those sentiments, he attacks us to show we are "weak westerners" not because he gives a crap about our freedoms. WE react by - as we have always done - overreacting. A guy uses an AK-47 to shoot school kids in California, BAN ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS. Enron folds, create the ludicrous Sar Ox legislation, a ham-handed law so ambiguous it's costing billions of dollars to comply with, and does nearly nothing to prevent another Enron.

We trade away things like due process, probable cause, random search, to be "safe", and yet we are doing nearly nothing to be "safe." We guard against avenues of attack already used, we spend money to protect Boise in equal share to protecting LA/NY, we spend billions on what is in fact - other than the huge outlier of 9/11 - a low intensity threat. Would OBL use a Nuke on NYC - probably, but we guard against it how? By declaring N.Korea a rogue state and watching it develop Nukes while we sit around. The real dangers are from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan (and maybe the Ukraine or Moldavia), in that they might turn over old Soviet warheads to their fellow "Muslims". The things we do are cheap theatrics. The chance N.Korea will launch a weapon against us is , just as the CIA described in talking about Houssien, HIGHLY unlikely unless cornered, yet we want to spend billions on SDI - for what purpose? MAD relied upon the simple fact that while ONE leader might be suicidal, his entire administration probably didn't want their whole family dead, so N.Korea is NOT the threat vis a vis terrorism. Loose nukes are, certainly, and what has been going on regarding that... hmmm let's see, money promised to pay for "acquiring them" has either been cut or gone missing.

So.. in the end, OBL attacks us to prove to potential followers that attacking us works and thereby gain followers in order to extend his network and gain money. Our freedoms are merely recruiting slogans, and mostly, they aren't even that. All he needs is for us to do stupid things like invade Iraq while propping up Musharaf (who plays us like a fiddle) and the family Saud.

Regarding your question Chrisss on dates on OBL recordings, I believe his most recent discussed the house bombed in Pakistan, so while not dated, it, like others, has referred to events of the recent past.

PB

BTW DRW - I have said often what I do, I work as an IT consultant in financial services. I make a nice living as things go. It sounds like you have your nose out of joint because you work hard yet aren't making enough (and/or think folks are out to "take it" from you) and think it's the governments fault. Maybe you're right, and you're not responsible for your own plight, but I think you probably have choices you've made, and blaming the government is a little like blaming the hammer when it strikes the nail off center. Real wages and benefits fell last year for the first time in 9 years... given how well tax cuts are working, the 2.5 million new jobs, etc.. gosh, I why on earth would that be? Maybe it's because tax policy has little to do with job creation, the "new jobs" are merely replacing those over seas, with others paying a lower scale - but in all it shows that the government is hardly the reason, positive or negative, for your current lot in life.

Posted by: pb at February 21, 2006 12:27 PM

pb Raved: "AngryC is funnier than pretty much everyone else here put together. He does his satire with class and style (well nearly always anyway), which is more than I can say about nearly everyone else."

An endorsemnet in under twelve paragraphs. The Clown is blushing through his greasepaint.

Posted by: Kermit at February 21, 2006 01:04 PM

PB old boy-
I was criticizing the incoherency of your statement:"Bush erroneously claimed Bin Laden was making war on our freedoms. Outside of religious choice, and perhaps by extension, the right to a secular government, that's just poppey-cock." First amendment freedoms, including freedom of religion, are consisdered by legal scholars to have primacy because they are fundamental. The right to bear arms, petition th governemnt, a speedy trial, etc, are hardly freedoms at all if you first don't have the freedom of thought and th expression of those thoughts guarenteed by the 1st amendment. Your statement was incoherent. I'm glad to see that you are backing away from it.
Here's a link to the text of the fatwa issued by Osama & other terrorists that is generally considered to be his decalration of war against the Uinted States: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Posted by: Terry at February 21, 2006 01:38 PM

Some quick points...
> UBL clearly thinks there is a linkage between our success in Iraq and his goals. No, al Qaeda is not supported in Iraq by Sunnis or Shi'ia as a whole, but our success there clearly deals a blow to his long term global goals.
> By every measure and every poll Afghans and Iraqis are the two most optimistic groups of people in the world.
> Yes the Arab world thinks our sponsorship of Israel is unjust. Tough. They are 100% wrong.
> Was UBL's tape discussing the house bombing in Pak video or audio? I thought it was audio, and still can't remember the last time he stood before a camera speaking in live action with a definitive date.
> N Korea and the other countries you mention already had nukes pre 9/11 and pre Bush. N Korea played Clinton like a fiddle. In the meantime we have gotten Pakistan out of the black market and prevented Iraq and Libya from entering it... and have made very clear to other governments the cost of arming terrorists.
Not a bad 4 years of work.

Posted by: chriss at February 21, 2006 01:56 PM

Chriss blathered: "In the meantime we have gotten Pakistan out of the black market and prevented Iraq and Libya from entering it... and have made very clear to other governments the cost of arming terrorists."

Yeah, judging by the example of A.Q. Khan, you win a get-out-of jail free card without a word of complaint from the U.S. President. Meanwhile we'll randomly invade countries that don't pose a credible nuclear threat.

Posted by: angryclown at February 21, 2006 02:02 PM

"Yeah, judging by the example of A.Q. Khan, you win a get-out-of jail free card without a word of complaint from the U.S. President."

What? The Federal Government makes mistakes? Don't tell Slash; he'll be so disappointed.

" Meanwhile we'll randomly invade countries that don't pose a credible nuclear threat. "

Well, to be fair, nobody knew they weren't a credible nuclear threat until we took the place over.

Posted by: mitch at February 21, 2006 02:35 PM

Notice how PB cannot stand insults:

"Gosh, I was wondering when our own personal Tom Arnold (aka Badda) would surface to offer another pointless insult."

...so he makes them himself.
lol

Whatever you do, pally... don't start posting on my blog. I'm not sure there's enough space to accomodate a simple "hello" post from you... let alone whatever it is you normally post here.

Posted by: Badda-Blogger at February 21, 2006 02:57 PM

As one of my elementary school teachers was fond of saying in my general direction: PB suffers from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

Posted by: Ryan at February 21, 2006 03:15 PM

a note to PB: brevity is the soul of wit. Say it succiently if you want it to have an impact.

Posted by: billhedrick at February 21, 2006 03:34 PM

Someone's been cheeking his meds again.

Posted by: Eracus at February 21, 2006 03:51 PM
hi