ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
 

Found this very interesting, well-written, and representative of a lot of my own feelings. I'm awaiting a reply from ESR as to what distribution terms he'd like to impose, but surely linking (click the button below) to an offered permalink is fair use....even if it is a bookmark to the top page of the site.

<div align=center> <a href="http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_armedndangerous_archive.html#83695716"><img name="aim" width=100 height=40 border=0 src="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/graphics/aim-off.png" onMouseover='this.src="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/graphics/aim-on.png"' onMouseout='this.src="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/graphics/aim-off.png"' alt="Click to Read" title="Click to Read"/></a></div>

Got distribution permission.
<h3>Why We Fight &mdash; An Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto</h3><p>WHEREAS, the year since the terrible events of 9/11 has exposed the vacuity and moral confusion of all too many of the thinkers, politicians, and activists operating within conventional political categories;</p><p>WHEREAS, the Left has failed us by succumbing to reflexive anti-Americanism; by apologizing for terrorist acts; by propounding squalid theories of moral equivalence; and by blaming the victims of evil for the act of evil;</p><p>WHEREAS, the Right has failed us by pushing `anti-terrorist' measures which bid fair to be both ineffective and prejudicial to the central liberties of a free society; and in some cases by rhetorically descending to almost the same level of bigotry as our enemies;</p><p>WHEREAS, even many of the Libertarians from whom we expected more intelligence have retreated into a petulant isolationism, refusing to recognize that, at this time, using the state to carry the war back to the aggressors <emphasis>is</emphasis> our only practical instrument of self-defense;</p><p>WE THEREFORE ASSERT the following convictions as the premises of the anti-idiotarian position:</p><ol><li><p>THAT Western civilization is threatened with the specter of mass death perpetrated by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons placed in the hands of terrorists by rogue states;</p></li><li><p>THAT the terrorists and their state sponsors have declared and are pursuing a war not against the vices of Western civilization but against its core virtues: against the freedom of thought and speech and conscience, against the life of reason; against the equality of women, against pluralism and tolerance; against, indeed, all the qualities which separate civilized human beings from savagery, slavery, and fanaticism;</p> <li><p>THAT no adjustments of American or Western foreign policy, or concessions to the Palestinians, or actions taken against globalization, or efforts to alleviate world poverty, are of more than incidental interest to these terrorists;</p></li> <li><p>THAT, upon their own representation, they will not by dissuaded from their violence by any surrender less extreme than the imposition of Islam and shari'a law on the kaffir West;</p></li> <li><p>THAT, as said terrorists have demonstrated the willingness to use civilian airliners as flying bombs to kill thousands of innocent people, we would commit a vast crime of moral negligence if we underestimated the scope of their future malice even <em>without</em> weapons of mass destruction;</p></li> <li><p>THAT they have sought, and on plausible evidence found, alliance with rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; states that are known to have active programs working towards the development and delivery of weapons of that would multiply the terrorists' ability to commit atrocities by a thousandfold;</p></li><li><p>THAT Saddam Hussein poses a particularly clear and present danger in combination with them, a danger demonstrated by his known efforts to develop nuclear weapons, his use of chemical weapons even on his own population, his demonstrated willingness to commit aggression against peaceful neighbors, and his known links to the Islamist terror network in Palestine and elsewhere.</p></li> </ol><p>WE THEREFORE DECLARE that both the terrorists and their state sponsors have made themselves outlaws from the moral community of mankind, to be dealt with as rabid dogs are.</p><p>WE FURTHER AFFIRM that the `root cause' of Islamo-fascist terrorism lies in the animating politico-religious ideas of fundamentalist Islam and not in any signicant respect elsewhere, and that a central aim of the war against terror must be to displace and discredit those animating ideas.</p><p>WE REJECT, as a self-serving power grab by the least trustworthy elements of our own side, the theory that terrorist depredations can be effectively prevented by further restrictions on the right of free speech, or the right of peacable assembly, or the right to bear arms in self-defense; and we strenuously oppose police-state measures such as the imposition of national ID cards or airport-level surveillance of public areas;<p>IN GRAVE KNOWLEDGE that the state of war brings out the worst in both individual human beings and societies, we reject the alternative of ceding to the world's barbarians the exclusive privilege of force;</p><p>WE SUPPORT the efforts of the United States of America, its allies, and the West to hunt down and capture or kill individual members of the Islamo-fascist terror network;<p>WE SUPPORT speedy American and allied military action against the rogue states that support terrorism, both as a means of alleviating the immediate threat and of deterring future state sponsorship of terrorism by the threat of war to the knife.</p><p>WE SUPPORT, in recognition of the fact that the military and police cannot and <em>should</em> not be everywhere, efforts to meet the distributed threat with a distributed response; to arm airline pilots, and to recognize as well the ordinary citizen's right and duty to respond to terrorist aggression with effective force.</p><p>WE SUPPORT, as an alternative greatly preferable to future nuclear/chemical/biological blackmail of the West, the forcible overthrow of the governments of Iraq and of other nations that combine sponsorship of terrorism with the possession of weapons of mass destruction; and the occupation of those nations until such time as the root causes of terrorism have been eradicated from their societies.</p><p>WE DEFINE IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion <emp>within</em> the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it.</p><p>WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Left &mdash; the moral blindness that refuses to recognize that free markets, individual liberty, and experimental science have made the West a fundamentally better place than any culture in which jihad, 'honor killings', and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion.</p><p>WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Right &mdash; whether it manifests as head-in-the-sand isolationism or as a a Christian-chauvinist political agenda that echoes the religious absolutism of our enemies.</p> <p>WE ARE MEMBERS OF A CIVILIZATION, and we hold that civilization to be worth defending. We have not sought war, but we will fight it to the end. We will fight for our civilization in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.</p> <p>WE HAVE AWAKENED; we have seen the face of evil in the acts of the Bin Ladens and Husseins and Arafats of the world; we have seen through the lies and self-delusions of the idiotarians who did so much to enable and excuse their evil. We shall not flinch from our duty to confront that evil.</p><p>WE SHALL DEMAND as citizens and voters that those we delegate to lead pursue the war against terror with an unflagging will to victory and all means necessary &mdash; while remaining always mindful that we must not become what we fight;</p><p>WE SHALL REMEMBER that the West's keenest weapons are reason and the truth; that we must shine a pitiless light on the lies from which terrorist hatred is built; and that we must also be vigilant against the expedient lie from our own side, lest our victories become tainted and hollow, sowing trouble for the future.</p><p>WE HAVE FAITH that we are equal to these challenges; we shall not be paralyzed by fear of the enemy, nor yet by fear of ourselves;</p><p>WE SHALL SHED the moral cowards and the appeasers and the apologists; and we shall fight the barbarians and fanatics, and we <em>shall</em> defeat them. We shall defeat them in war, crushing their dream of dominion; and we shall defeat them in peace, using our wealth and freedoms to win their women and children to civilized ways, and ultimately wiping their diseased and virulent ideologies from the face of the Earth.</p><p>THIS WE SWEAR, on the graves of those who died at the World Trade Center; and those who died in the Sari Club in Bali; and those who died on U.S.S. Cole; and indeed on the graves of all the nameless victims in the Middle East itself who have been slaughtered by terrorism and rogue states:</p> <p>YOU SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN.</p>
Eric S. Raymond&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
2 November 2002&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/aim/support.html">(Your signature here)</a><hr><small>
<p>&copy;2002 by Eric S. Raymond. Link freely, print rights are reserved.</p><p>You can also read <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/aim/background.html">background information</a> on the manifesto.</p>
</small>

Well, that was a badly thought out shallow analysis full of sweeping generalisations in a format that requires far more definition lacking both forethought and factual basis. I want two minutes of my life back i just wasted reading that pile of trash. :angry:

That's enough vituperation outa you.

Quite restrained actually. The temptation for a 3 page diatribe was overridden by the nagging feeling of a psychology exam on thursday.

Just consider it a "minority report".

I figured you''d love it. Glad you didn't bother to respond in detail, since I'm planning to ignore three-page diatribes anyway. Even though you're busy, I know we'll see two or three others.

"Reflexive anti-Amercanism" is <i>le mot juste</i> for so much of what shows up here from certain quarters. "The idiotarianism of the Left...apologists for terrorist acts, propounding squalid theories of moral equivalence....vacuity and moral confusion...."

"[We] reject the alternative of ceding to the world's barbarians the exclusive privilege of force.....meeting a distributed threat with a distributed response" Right on the money.

Interestingly enough, we don't see too much of "the idiotarianism of the Right" here on The Cellar, although Goddess knows there's plenty of it elsewhere. I'm expecting a few three-page diatribes there too, where there will be equally bad spelling but much worse grammar. :-)

Brilliant idea, lets sterotype every poition on both side of politics into two extremes and claim to be the sole voice of sanity. Such insight and depth of understanding is no better than any of the positions it attacks, and takes some of the worst points of both in the process, tata for this thread.

Stereotypes are funny, alligator wrestler.

I agree, problem is i think this thing is meant to be serious

I'm the one TRUE voice of sanity...the rest of you need to pack your bags and go home. Thanks. :)

No i am!

This is an attempt to seed a new cohesive political position on foreign affairs in a country that hasn't had to do so very often. It is to figure out and/or signal whether there is enough agreement to take the movement further.

So if you don't agree with the movement, of course you'll find it silly and stereotypical. By the time you've gotten to understanding what it's talking about, you are in disagreement with it at a very high level.

I felt that the term "idiotarian" was a non-starter, but after I thought about it for a while, I figured it had some kind of viral marketing value. It's terrible form to define yourself by who your political opposite is, and terrible form again to define yourself via an insult. For the purpose of serious discussion of issues, it's totally wrong to start by being insulting. But that's what makes it viral, too; it expresses how serious the matter is, how serious the believers are, etc.

Hey, it's the 2000s, and people are always up in your face to make a point. This is just what you have to do to get attention.

The problem is if it gets too directly insulting, if a serious discussion of issues isn't allowed afterwards, etc. Empty invective doesn't go very far.

But it is not a new policy. It is a mix of mostly hawkish opinions without the stuff that annoys the libertarians while condemning both sides of mainstream politics for their extremes. There is nothing new, nothing interesting, and nothing of real value. It also is a very superficial analysis of the situation, taking only the most obvious facts and symptoms without looking at the causes or underlying reasons before deciding a course of action designed to solve the problem in the long term without understanding the implications of asymmetrical warfare on traditional defense policy and mentalities. Thus the course of action addresses the symptoms in an incomplete way without facing some of the harder facets of the problem and does nothing to alleviate the underlying issues that have played a signifigant role in the rise of the problem let alone suggest (and i admit this is the signifigantly more challanging issue) methods by which the root causes of islamic terrorism can be erradicated.

For a 'manifesto' its also lacking definitions of key terms which makes it deeply inarticulate adding to the fundamental problems that already exist. In fact the only definition is that of IDIOTARIANISM, which according to their definition attempts to reinvent the wheel with a grammatical abomination. The fact it defines itself by what it opposes rather than what it stands for is telling in the extreme. The only good thing about is it is not guilty of the circumlocution that many similar documents are rife with, sadly this is not due to good writing or reasoning.

It’s knee-jerk in point form. I hope UT, that explains why it’s silly.

I agree that current political figureheads aren't doing particularly well, but that's about it. The thought of having citizens fighting back against terrorism is quite disconcerting, as I have seen little to inspire trust in humanity.

Also, er...how does one uphold the American ideals--freedom, namely--while running around killing people primarily because of their religion?

Call me a sissy, but I'd much rather remove the motivation than the means. Regardless of how many armed maniacs you kill, there'll always be more.

--Sk

There is a word for people like you skunk.
Rational.

Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.

Who exactly is doing that?

The only part i liked was the last line. Ill agree with dave on that one, the US doesn't usually attack people for thier religion.

I was basically with him up to 6. and 7. I'm not convinced the publicly available evidence shows an alliance between Saddam and the terrorists in question. (Aid for certain operations _certainly_, an alliance like that of the Taliban and Al Queda where Saddam would hand over WMDs to them, not proven).

I also do not believe that attempting to discredit radical Islam would be a good idea -- I can think of nothing that would better ensure its survival.

If people like Noam Chomsky and John Ashcroft wouldn't fulfill those stereotypes quite so accurately, they probably wouldn't have the power they do.

Maybe I was reading a bit too much into it.

--Sk

He doesn't even get it right. There is no such thing as fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalism applies to a Christian religious movement around 1900 that called for a return to the 'fundamentals' of Christianity.

The difference with the Islamic extremism that is fueling Bin Laden, et al. is that he isn't calling for a return to anything. Instead, he is, by account of most Islamic scholars, misinterpreting the Quran.

So the use of the term fundamentalism is either an attempt to frame the thinking of these people in Western terms, which is not necessarily an accurate undertaking, or a demonization based on the perjorative nature of the term. I think that because of the way the term has slipped into our mainstream consciousness, it's a combination of the two. And that always bothers me - because without an accurate understanding of the enemy, we are bound to over or under qualify who the enemy actually is.

Sorry, that's just my basic rant about the term 'fundamentalist Islam.' I prefer the term extremist, which doesn't carry the connotations of the first term (of course, it has its own problems, but that's a whole different story).

And as for the manifesto above - I think I'd have to agree with those who see it as a flaming hunk of crap. It doesn't actually add anything constructive to the argument, except to frame the extremes on each side as extremes. And after all that, it ends up taking a moderately rightist view without considering a moderate leftist view. This is, of course, supposing that the argument can be framed on a 2-dimensional, left-right plane. I tend to think that it's more Cartesian.

I don''t really agree with that. What it adds is a description a point of view that is in favor of our right to self-defense without supporting "Homeland Defense" as a synonym for "NIghtwatch" or "Geheime Staatspolizei", and stands in opposition to curbs on the individual rights of our citizens as a reaction to terrorism...everywhere from the airliner cockpit to the archetecture of our personal computers.

It also recognizes the true roots of what is referred to elsewhere in the manifesto as Islamo-fascism. Perhaps you prefer that term to the more mainstream "Islamic fundamentalist", or "Islamic extremeist", or perhaps not.

Whatever one calls it, the reference is to the call to holy war to impose sharia law on everyone on the planet. One can debate interpretation of the Quran (and the Bible, for that matter) until the sun burns out, but that's not the issue. What phrase would *you* use to identify this movement?

SO its a hawkish right wing view, with TIPS et al. Well that sure is revolutionary. What makes me laugh is its a right wing view, while decrying the right as extreme right. Kinda circular, take it far enough and its self-defeating. What gets me (it stuck me after i read the top article on the page this came from which is advocating arming children for reasons that entirely escaped me) is that the whole idea that the police can't be anywhere and don't have additional powers thing is a backdoor gun lobby argument - the cops can't do it so we all have to arm up and do it ourselves. How predictable.


If people like Noam Chomsky and John Ashcroft wouldn't fulfill those stereotypes quite so accurately, they probably wouldn't have the power they do.[/quote] And they are the only face of the entire right side of politics from ultralibertarian to fundamentalist puritan christians?

Actually, what's even more circular is declaring it a "right wing view" because it believes in collective and individual self-defense. Do only "right-wingers" believe in self-defense? I guess if you're far enough left it looks that way...and the ideologically correct response from the left is to let anyone with a real or imagined grudge to walk all over you because "it's understandable" After all, *they're* not responsible for what they do...it's *your* fault.

Sure it is.

Pay attention....AIM didn't decry "the right" as "the extreme right" . It decried "IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it." It then pointed out who it considered the idiotarians of the Left and the Right.

Is how "extreme" someone is--to the left or right--how much they're willing to sacrifice of somebody else's rights in support of their ideology?

Surely there's nothing "backdoor" about ESR's support of the right to keep and bear arms. RKBA is *about* the individual right of self-defense, but we've already heard your rants on that subject. If you find Eric's views about teaching kids shooting and gun safety mystifying, I refer you to the discussion in the blog archive, and especially to the piece he linked to at his personal site at tuxedo.org.

Predictable? I suppose. Most folks in the open-source community are familiar with Eric's view on RKBA and individual freedom and responsibility.

By the way...don't forget you bade "ta-ta" to this thread six posts ago. Wouldn't want you to waste any more time on it. :-)

I guess if you're far enough right it looks that way too.

I'm not going near the gun topic, ripping this 'manifesto' a new one is far more entertaining that a tired flamewar.

*shrugs* Helps my typing, slowly and i'm not allowed out of the house till the 19th.

Eh? Did Mom and Dad ground you? What about your exam?
Sure...you're not going near RKBA just like you're dropping the thread. Thing is, this is actually all the same issue, just at different scales. "Leave your self-defense in the hands of 'the proper authorities' [the cops/Homeland Defense/the UN]. They'll show up in time to pick up the pieces when the crime is over. Just wave some non-lethal weapons around until then."

I don't like the term Islamo-fascism either. Fascism implies nationalism and, Arab pan-nationalism aside, al-Qaeda isn't really looking for that.

And I call any movement that is not accepted by the mainstream extremism; whether that is Ashcroft, Chomsky, or Wahabbism.

If i go out i lose a day, i take a 10 minutes break every now and then, i lose a couple of hours, self control mechanism.

I'm not responding the rest of your post, its just too silly and thus i am dropping this thread now, its lost all sembelence of logic.

I didn't ask you what term you don't like...so far you don't like *any* term for it. The question is what term you *do* find acceptable to refer to this movement?

Are you simply hoping that if it's never given a name that you won't have to deal with the issue? Or are you in such denial as to claim it doen't even exist?

Uhh, the argument that the cops can't be everywhere and therefore people must be responsible for their own self defense isn't a "backdoor" gun lobby argument. It's one used openly and loudly by gun freedom supporters.

As for Ashcroft and Chomsky: No, they are not the only faces on the right and left side of politics respectively. They are, however, loud voices who are respected by the mainstream of the right and left. And they exemplify the "idiotarianism" of the right and left that ESR describes.

(BTW, if you were paying attention, you'd notice the Manifesto does not include TIPS. TIPS is part of the "idiotarianism of the Right")

(As a computer science degree holder, I feel somewhat funny denigrating Chomsky... but he deserves every bit of it)

Hey, why don't you actually read my post? I said in two separate posts that the term extremism is the most appropriate. I think that without an at least vaguely accurate definition of what you're talking about, a valid debate is hopeless.

Then again, I'm also starting to think that you like this manifesto so much because you don't realize you're an idiotarian yourself.

russ i meant without tips, that was my point, my bad on the typing.

I did read it, including the place where you said callling it "Islamic extremism" "has it's own problems", which gives you an out to blow it off later, when it too becomes inconvenient.

In fact, it would probably be much safer for you to not name it at all, and instead to handwave in the direction of the Palestinian red herring, and not have anyone point out the stated objective of the "extremists": to impose their religion on everyone, by force, while offering that religion as the justification for what they do. Personally, I think "extremist" fails to capture how vile that is.

Of course that's not how all--even <i>most</i>--Islamic scholars interpret the Quran. But that's not the point....there's a lot of Christians who'd like to divorce themselves from other folks who style themselves Christian, too.

I think it's unfair to associate any social movement specifically with religion. There are a lot of things that make people turn to religion or some other philosophy - from economics, nationalism, social conditions, etc. In addition, every major philosophical movement goes through cycles - every few decades, its adherants want to go back and clear the barnacles of liberal interpretation off of the ship of their movement. We're seeing a lot of that in the resurgence of Christianity in America in the past two decades. Modern day Marxists claim that Communism failed because it didn't stick to Marx's initial ideas, and that future implementations need to reflect them more clearly.

So you see, my problem is with using the qualifier "Islamic." When you remove that, you're left with extremist, fascist, fundamentalist, etc. All of these terms have problems, but the last two are worse than the first because they pigeon hole the targets into an ideology they don't necessarily agree with. Extremism, however, is quite broad. And that breadth, unfortunately, is its problem. I think, however, in lack of anything resoundingly better, that its acceptable.

And what do you mean by the Palestinean red herring?

Unfair? It's the people involved themselves that justify their fascism (n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government) on the basis of their religion. So if you object to that linkage you'd better address <b>them</b> directly, since they are the ones establishing it.

Look I've got no problem with Islam; there is much beauty and wisdom in it. But anybody who says "My religion says it should run all govenments and enforce my rules on pain of death; my religon also justifies armed jihad to establish our rule everywhere" is just not someone I can get along with. I think "islamo-fascism" identifies this group pretty well; "extremist" is too weak; there's lots of extreme positions that fall short of this in terms of being evil. And leaving out the islamic connection fails to identify this particular movement as distinct from other fascist power grabs.

By "Palestinian red herring" I mean the attempt to cast this terrorism as the struggle of the oppressed Palestinians. That's totally bogus; bin Laden didn't give a hoot about the Palestinians until he saw how universally negative the reaction to 9/11 was. See Premise 3 in the Manifesto.

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.

Bin Laden has long said (going back to his original fatwah in 1996) that there are 3 things he wants fixed:

- US out of Saudi Arabia
- Sanctions lifted from Iraq
- Home for the Palestinian people

He didn't just "come up" with that because the world reacted violently to 9/11. Not only that, but you sound like you believe that there was no terrorism before that tragedy, or that bin Laden did absolutely nothing before it.

Also, it doesn't necessarily matter what the people involved say. Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is one of thousands of various social forces that influence people's opinions and actions. And no matter what someone claims as their ideals - or what cover they use to sell those ideals - you have to look at the content of their message to see where they really stand. And of the three agenda items, only the first one has anything to do with religion. The rest are social.

Finally, to constantly frame it as "Islamic" whatever is irresponsible. It casts a negative light on the religion that 20% of the world's population calls their own. Since it is not representative of the religion, the stigma that gets attached is inappropriate.

Think about it this way: how often did the media call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? How about Bray or Hill (first advocated and the second killed abortion doctors)?

And that Manifesto was obviously written by someone whose entire familiarity with terrorism is based on mass media. I can't take stock in anything like that, sorry. Referencing a part of the manifesto, then, as proof does not actually prove anything, nor does it represent a valid course of action (which, in my mind, it doesn't). I don't mean to sound like a white tower snob here, but how can you argue for such a drastic course of action when you don't have all the facts?

In the first fatwah the Palestinians are a distant concern next to banishing secular control of Saudi Arabia and imposing sharia law everywhere, and he explicitly invokes Ibn Taymiyyah and Al'iz Ibn Abdes-Salaam in calling for that. His main motivation seemed to be getting out of his Afghani exile and back into "the land of two holy places"...code for Saudi Arabia.
You mean like tryng to get blessed as the defender of the Saudis against Iraq? Of course, *that* was back in the early 1990's. He wasn't particularly gunning for the Yankees until they got in the way of his triumphant return to rescue his homeland (who had banished him) from those awful Iraqis....who suddenly became his bestest Muslim brothers only a few years later, after they lost the war he tried to sign up to fight against them.

He engaged in a fair amount of terrorism against US targets before 9/11, but only after the US spoiled his reentry to Saudi Arabia to fight what became Desert Storm <i>against</i> his "Iraqui brothers".
You'd better read the first fatwah again, then come back and tell me it's a social document whose central theme isn't the call for imposition of religion in the place of secular law.

I think "islamo-fascism" fits because it distinguishes this movement from other forms of fascism. Would you be happier with "Wahabist fascism"? Unfortunately few people in our culture know what Wahabism is.
I've got no problem with identifying as a "Fundamentalist Christian terrorist" someone who assasinates doctors and then cites the Bible as justification.

As for McVeigh, he never articulated what he was trying to do clearly enough for me to try to label it. What the media does I have no control over.

McVeigh wasn't about Christianity so much as he was about sticking it to the government. I think he was very... right in his ideals. But went about getting the message across in a totally unappropriate manner.

John Allen Muhammad follows Islam; no one is calling him an "Islamic terrorist". Just a terrorist. I think that's important.

I think it's a good thing they aren't labelling Muhammad as a Muslim, but that's probably because he's from <crap, the name of the sect escapes me>, which is considered by many Muslims to be pretty tin-foil hat extreme.

McVeigh mimicked The Turner Diaries, which was rooted strongly in the Christian Identity movement.

Maggie....

I'll address the fascism thing first, because it's quick, and easier. Look up fascism. One of the first requirements is nationalism - and bin laden isn't looking for that on any level.

Ok, just read the fatwah again, and I still got the same message: it is a social commentary in the vein of Qutb and Al-Bana. The basic message (of the first part; the second part is his call to battle) is that Islam has been corrupted by the West, and the result is social oppression. The two most poignant situations of this, according to bin laden, are Israel/Palestine and Saudi Arabia. He speaks of the social inequities that have arisen because of the influence of the West on the ruling class. In this way, he sounds like a less intelligent Qutb or al-Banna. So yeah, it calls for an overthrow of secular law, but it is because that secular law has created a corrupt social system.

One of the requirements <b>isn't</b> "nationalism". Go look.

The Turner Diaries was rooted strongly in the fucking nutjob movement. I'm no big fan of Christianity, but I still don't believe a labeling of McVeigh as a "Christian Terrorist" is accurate (whereas I do believe a labeling of Mohammed Atta as an "Islamic Terrorist" <b>is</b> accurate) - his act was not induced by religion, but instead a pretty strong dissatisfaction with the United States government.

I'm sure we could all come up with a better person or group to label "Christian Terrorist(s)" - I just think McVeigh is an awful example. And that's all I was pointing out. :)

Well, that's a fundamental disagreement we probably can't resolve.

Qutb doesn't represent "social commentary"; the basis of his crusade--oops, excuse me: "jihad"--was religious orthodoxy. His call to overthrow Nasser was built on the theory that since Nasser didn't hew to the dogma of Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Wahhab, he was not a true Muslim and therefore should be deposed, and replaced with a government enforcing sharia law.

Imposing your own religious dogma on others through gaining control of the government just isn't "social reform" to my mind; if it is to yours we have no common ground to meet on and discuss this.

I will add that I could certianly understand someone who labelled Nasser as a "fascist" (despite his cozying up at times to the Soviet Communists), and that this is a reason to qualify the aims of Al-Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the panoply of organizations with similar goals as *islamo*-fascist, just to distinguish them from the other kinds of fascism floating around the region.

Again: wow. Have you ever read any Qutb? Go pick up Signposts. It's an informative look inside a way of thinking; much like Das Kapital or Mein Kampf was about their respective ideologies.

Qutb was about social commentary. Along with al-Banna, he was about the ulama being corrupt, and distorting the law of the Quran. I doubt you'll find the word "jihad" in any of Qutb's works; especially in the sense of Lesser Jihad that bin laden (erroneously, according to most Islamic scholars) uses.

When people see social injustice, they respond in different ways. Often, a certain group is villified: Qutb and bin Laden both demonize the West. Qutb, however, believed that the way to social reform was to educate the masses through Islam. His ideas were, in many ways, like the Protestant Reformation. The ulama was in charge of religious rulings, much like the Catholic church, and he believed they had spent so much time analyzing and liberalizing Islam that they had complicated what, to him, was a simple religion. He believed that the religion had to be spread, and the best way to do that was to help the masses through charity. bin Laden, on the other hand, thinks that the best way is through terror. But he still retains the "society is corrupt" ideals. No matter what his prescriptions for it may be, his social commentary remains intact as social commentary.

And back to this damn fascism argument. Have you gone and looked it up yet? Fascism is a social movement, with nationalist overtones. Nasserism could be considered fascism. But bin Laden is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Nasser. To put the two anywhere near each other is just ridiculous.

So not only do you use a term of a high perjorative nature; you continuously use it incorrectly. That's all I'm concerned about. Quit trying to read everything from a normative sense. Don't pass judgement on it before going in; rather, analyze the content of it. You'll find that Qutb, bin Laden, Marx, etc. make some good observations about society. It is in their prescriptions that they fail; it is the prescriptions that the media sees; and the prescriptions that temper our bias.

Again, no, it is not. Go look it up. Seriously.

Here. I've done the hard work for you.

fas·cism
n.
<ol><li>often Fascism
<ol type=a><li>A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
<li>A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.</ol><li>Oppressive, dictatorial control.</ol>
Doesn't really need to be nationalist, does it?

I'd send *you* to the dictionary to read the definition of fascism again, but it's a message you don't want to hear. Of *course* it''s perjorative; and deservedly so.
Actually, I don't particularly give a rat's fuzzy behind about bin Laden's philosophy, or that of any of his kindred, pe se. There's no shortage of "good observations about society" from Mencken to Orwell, Twain to Ghandi, from Jesus to Heinlein to your-favorite-pundit-here; their names are legion.

It's what you call the "prescriptions" that threaten us. It's the "prescriptions" that are indeed fascism, dress it up as you will. (Nationalism? Go ahead and try to tell me that "nation of Islam" is only metaphor and rhetoric.)

Starry Sky above us, if "fascism" an unfair perjorative for coercive establishment of sharia law as a part of a global state religion, what shall we call it when you dess up cold-blooded mass murder of innocents as a "prescription"? "Euphemism" is too weak by far, and "meiosis" doesn't cut it either.

It's the "prescriptions" that have already killed thousands of innocent people in our country, on which they have declared war multiple times. You'll just have to pardon my "normativeness" in judging it:. I judge it to be a direct threat to me personally.

For me this has absolute priority over how "good their observations about society" may be. All their "good observations" can take their proper place in the marketplace of ideas among everybody else's; when the likes of these people walk in my door with a bomb strapped to their waist, I'm simply not interested in how keen their social commentary is, nor am I inclined to grant their ideas priority simply because they're willing to kill me.

Maggie, perjorative as in lying under oath or pejorative as in this post? ;)

I'm surprised at you!

Keep that dictionary handy.

Bin Laden wasn't nationalist only because he couldn't take over a government to become nationalist about.

Most of the Arab world is quite fascist.

Islam apparently makes running government by Islamic law part of the religion.

In Saudi Arabia, the nation with the two holiest of Islamic sites, government appointed mullahs call for the total annihilation of all Jews and western "crusaders". The majority believe that bombers are martyrs. Their opinion can't really be called extremist; there, it's mainstream.

As far as Marx goes, tens of millions of people were killed by governments called "Marxist". One Marxist apology is that he was misunderstood and people just didn't get the implementation right somehow. How many tens of millions will die in Marxism Ver. 2?

When I was a toddler, I took a fork and stuck it in an electrical socket. I didn't need to be told not to try it with a spoon instead. It wasn't the implementation that shocked the living shit out of me, ya follow?

It's obvious that you don't want to listen to reason and instead engage in emotiveness, but I'll try anyway.

You said I should look up fascism. From www.m-w.com:
Where in here does this talk about religion? No, instead, it talks about nationalism, and ethnicity. A semi-valid argument could be made that bin Laden is looking for a pan-Arab Islamic state, but his writings would indicate that, at least temporarily, his goals are less universal. Yes, he wants to rid the world of the infidel (the US), but the US is not the whole world. (He does extend the fatwah against the West.) In addition, the people that are reading his fatwahs and nodding their heads now think of themselves as Yemeni, Egyptian, etc. The impetus for a pan-Arab state, or a pan-Islamic state is largely gone. More and more people recognise themselves by nationality first. And even that goal is not of a centralized autocratic government, although social regimentation could be argued. What he is calling for is more of a religious movement that has political implications - not a political movement.

Fascism was really a 20th century secular movement in Europe. In the end, though, actions can take on a fascistic nature - but that doesn't make a movement fascism.

So, for however many times now, your inappropriate use of fascism fails the test of logic. You are using a perjorative term - which generally should be avoided in a civilized conversation in order to alleviate the overblown emotions that result - and using it incorrectly.

But we're really just splitting hairs on this. The more important part is the following.

Second, your dismissal of bin Laden's social commentary is a sign of blindness. Why do you think the death and fear that his terrorism creates hasn't made him a criminal in the eyes of many Arabs (I simply say Arabs, though it probably applies to oppressed peoples the world over)? Simply because his social commentary resounds with them. If you ignore the reasons why people do the things they do, you cannot stop them from doing them. This doesn't mean you coddle every crazy that comes along - but if a terrorist is making what is at least valid comments to his base, you find a way to not make them seem valid. Sometimes that means propaganda - but propaganda can not cover up real suffering when the option is wrapped up in a pretty little bow. So, instead, you cut out the problem. You improve social conditions. Eventually, the force behind terrorist campaigns collapses.

To dismiss your enemy's philosophy without examining it is foolishness. How can you win a war against a cunning enemy who can slip between your cracks if you "don't particularly give a rat's fuzzy behind" about how they think?

The chance of you getting hurt or worse in a terrorist attack is, thankfully, exceedingly remote. Therefore, to act and think in just blind, responsive, emotional terms is not necessary. Until the time that it is, it is imperative that our response is to study and understand - and eventually defeat them. Using perjorative terms and faulty arguments that are not backed up by facts (I'm not talking about you so much as the hunk of crap manifesto posted earlier) does nothing to assist this, and only clouds the issue.

This is what I'm talking about. The social inequities of the region, and the tyrannical governments that reinforce them, are what give bin Laden his base. I'd agree that it would quickly turn into nationalism and fascism if given the opportunity. But since he is not really in a position of real power, but just standing on a soapbox, he can't impose his own brand of it.

Probably a lot, and that is regrettable. People don't learn from the mistakes of their forefathers. And I think one of the biggest problems is that there are still social inequities, and they spawn these movements. Sometimes they spawn good ones like democracy instead. But they will continue as long as people are truly oppressed.

The political dynamic in Saudi Arabia is very interesting. Those same government appointed clerics are what bin Laden hates, because he thinks they are corrupt. Any deviation from fatwahs that are strictly shari'a in nature are decried by the very vocal, very conservative minority. I can't find it right now, but there was a recent history on Saudi Arabia that showed how the moves to liberalize were killed by that minority - which is generally armed and filled with a great fervor for their cause. The government is constantly being pulled towards them, but still wants to hold onto its wealth (which is its power).

I would say that the Saudi Government is moving away from its anti-Zionism though. It offered to recognise Israel last year, an unprecedented move for it. The resolution gained traction in the OIC, but kind of sputtered out from there. I'm sure you can find hundreds of examples on the opposite side, and I won't necessarily discount them, but I do think this is an important first step.

It's the second half of the Koran that prescribes a system of society (including government). Most interpretations of this are at odds with bin Laden, Qutb, etc. But because its terms can be hidden among quotations, it offers relevance to many.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Marxist by any stretch, and I hope I'm not conveying anything of the sort. I'm not really an adherent to any extremism.

There have always always always been social inequities. Never before has it led to this kind of terroristic reaction. This is different.

That Friedman editorial in that NY Times article from last week said bin Laden's base comes from a very different place than you say it does. The last two paragraphs:

"There are domestic roots for what happened [on Sept. 11]," says Mr. Jamri, "and the root is that if you squash freedom, if you stop freedom of expression, insult this person and just give him money, he transfers all this money into revenge, because of having lost his dignity. We have six people from Bahrain in Guantánamo Bay. One is a member of the ruling family. The other five are . . . from the upper class. And for a young man from the ruling family, who receives a monthly salary, who is 23 years old, to go to Afghanistan to fight, there must be some sort of an explanation."

"There is a vacuum," he said. "You empty a person, you fill him with money, you fill him with material things, but that does not fulfill his aspirations as a human being. He has some objectives. He has feelings. He is not fulfilled. And all of a sudden someone comes and tells him that the cause of all that is this global power [America], which has insulated us, which continues to look at us as a bunch of nothings, who are basically eating and sleeping and going after women. And all of a sudden he directs his anger at what he thinks is the reason why he doesn't have what he wants — his sense of being a true human able to express himself and having influence on his society and being respected locally and internationally. This lack of respect as a dignified person has resulted in a bin Laden phenomenon."

Yes, there have always been inequities, but it wasn't until the tail end of the Industrial Revolution that opposition came to them in the form of terrorism. I'm not sure what the reason for that is.

Terrorists have always come from the elite. The Narodyana Volya, the first modern terrorist group (Russia, 1878-1881) was almost entirely of the intelligentsia and the rich, who couldn't stand to see the inequities going on around them. Their rhetoric was supported by the masses, and it laid the groundwork for the Bolsheviks a few decades later - many of whom were also from the elite.

I think Friedman's right in that the idleness that can come with wealth leads people to be easily taken in by easy reasoning. Most cult members, for example, are of the rich, or at least the intelligent class. I don't think this is a bin Laden phenomenon; it's been going on since terrorism began.

There are generally three levels to any terrorist organization: the leaders, the soldiers, and the sympathizers. When I say bin Laden't base, I'm referring more to the sympathizers, who don't take part in any terrorist action.

That's the problem. This movement seeks to erase the distinction between religon and government. If they achieve their goals, they will be one and the same, and in absolute control.
That's "semi-valid" in the same sense that water is "semi-wet". It's only not valid in the sense that the ultimate goal is larger than that...today pan-Arabia, tomorrow the world.
Is that supposed to comfort me? The ultimate ambition of this movement is global domination with your "interesting social commentary" as a dogmatic base. .
By their own words these people will not rest until there is notpolitics other than their religion. How long will you spin around in this shell-game of "it's religious....no, it's political and social"
Well, since we're in the 21st Century now, by that reasoning there can be no more fascism...I suppose we can all relax.

"Actions can take on a fascistic nature - but that doesn't make a movement fascism." You really don't think that's doublespeak?

"It can't be fascism because fascism is secular..." (Of course you just got telling us that this is a social movement, not a religious one) It can't be fascism because fascism is European...These are "actions of fascistic nature", but it's unfair and perjorative and emotionally loaded to actually call them fascism.
No, it's a sign that my priorities differ from yours. I don't move someone's social commentary to the head of the line because he's a terrorist. That's how you advance on a threat list, not how you advance a point of view. I won't reward a terrorist by making his priorities mine.
No, that's allowing him to seize control of your agenda...which amounts to coddling every crazy that comes along.
Oh, I *do* care how they think. It's the social commentary I'm dismissing (or more accurately, leaving in it's proper place in the pile). How they think tactically is very much a matter of concern.
Nonsense. Would you have given that same speech at the WTC between the first attack there and September 11? I suppose you probably would have.

Do you really expect me, to use your word, "coddle" this movement just because the probability that I personally--as opposed to one of my countrymen--will be attacked is low, based on the fact that we're just shy of 300 million in population and their current weapons are 'limited'? At least until they really get hold of some of the nifty WMD they've been seeking...

"Don't worry about that sniper in the high-rise, there's lots of people on this street; chances are he won't target you personally. Besides, so far he only has a bolt-action rifle, his rate of fire is really feeble. Most reports place him *days* away from a grenade launcher or full-auto weapon. Right now you should be studying his demands, they're based on very interesting social commentary, you should try to understand the terrible injustices that force him to murder people at random..."

Look, anywhere these people's version of sharia law is imposed, I personally will be executed. No question about it. Sorry if my sympathy level for their interesting points of view is very low...I'm just so unfair, biased and blind as to use perjoratives to describe them. But if they catch me, they'll push a stone wall over on me.

There's a bias for you.
The manifesto is a statement of another point of view.
Consider it a counter-fatwa.

Can't stop thinking about these sentences. Quick followups.

- When you say "study and understand", do you mean the rest of the entire world has to do this, or is it okay if a few really bright people at the state department do it? Because frankly "Friends" is finding a second wind this season with stronger writing, and I don't really have any extra time to devote to reading the Quran until maybe the Spring.

- If at the end of all this studying and understanding, we find that they have deeply-held but irrational beliefs that all the Jews and westerners should all be killed or enslaved, would it *then* be okay to inform them of our counter-opinion via JDAM? Or do we try UN sanctions.

- The small odds of me personally getting randomly killed in terrorism are somehow not a comfort. I would rather nobody get randomly killed in terrorism.

I've decided to not bother answering MaggieL right now; this discussion is dead, and I think she has proven her reputation here. Nothing I can say here will do anything to open her mind.

But Undertoad: you crack me up. :)

I think, however, that anyone who wants to have any interest in the world should try to have a basic understanding of the major conflicts outside of the soundbites of network news. The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, but that's only successful when the people are educated. Of course, no one except the experts can be expected to know everything about a field - that's why they're experts. I suggest, if you're really interested in understanding the theoretical basis, picking up Ibrahim Abu-Rabi's "Intellectual Origins of Islamic Resurgence in the Modern Arab World." It gives a pretty good overview of modern Islamic thought.

Obviously, actions can not always be done on the basis of a total understanding; but they must be predicated by an attempt and a willingness to do so. And appropriate action should take place under any credible means, including launching missiles into taxi cabs.

I bring up the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack because it is this realization that allows people to think logically; outside of the fear that currently holds America hostage. The fear holds rational thought hostage as well.

So, you're not actually going to answer Tony's second question either? I thought he asked a valid one, not rhetorical at all, even though it was framed humorously.

I think she ripped the guts out of your specious little argument and had them for lunch. But that's just me. YMMV.

Maggie, you've proven that you don't like to read my posts before you comment on them. I did answer his questions. Go back and read my posts and you'll see that.

Hubris Boy, I decided that I have already refuted all of Maggie's arguments, and continuing the conversation would just repeat myself. I don't have time to do that.

I read it repeatedly, I don't see any answer to Tony's second question....unless it's possibly buried in that incoherent sentence about missiles and taxicabs. I can only make that tentative connection because it's possible you might think a JDAM is a missile, and because you're saying you did respond to the question. It's a huge reach, though. How a taxicab might enter into this I have no idea.

"Appropriate action taking place under credible means" almost sounds like English but it fails to scan, for me at least. Actions don't take place "under" means. Actions might possibly be executed *by* means, the means being the instrumentatilty of the action. But I have no clue as to which actions and means you're referring to.

Can you paraphrase your response more directly? Remeber, the question was "<i>If at the end of all this studying and understanding, we find that they have deeply-held but irrational beliefs that all the Jews and westerners should all be killed or enslaved, would it *then* be okay to inform them of our counter-opinion via JDAM?</I>"

"Yes" or "No, because..." might be understandable answers.

Just on background, a JDAM is a Joint Direct Attack Munition, an air-launched precision-guided gravity bomb.

"Appropriate action " under "credible means" is what I said, and I stand by it. Read it. Get a dictionary, if you can't understand what that means. You'll see that under can mean to be covered - which, in this sense, implies that the actions are committed with credible reasoning. It can also mean that it is subject to something - the credible reasoning. So I don't care if you think it's improper English - it really isn't, and the meaning is clear. If not, here's an equally succinct version: Any action has to be appropriate and credible. Does that make you feel any better?

The people killed in Yemen last week were riding in a taxicab - thus my reference to one. I admit, I made an error in calling a bomb a missile, but that's the first error in this whole conversation - and a minor one at that. But you seem to like to ignore the big discussion, and focus on unimportant semantics.

You're gonna have to cut me some slack here in figuring out what you are talking about. "Means" are not "reasons" or "justifications", they are "methods" or "instrumentalities". "Means" can't be "credible"; they are either effective or ineffective.

Terrorists killed by the CIA in the middle of Yemeni desert in a car filled with comms gear and explosives (a "taxicab" if you like, I suppose a GPS could be used to compute fares) seems to have little connection to Tony's question about "delivering our counteropinion with a JDAM". The Predator attack wasn't particularly ideological, it was self-defense. I assume Tony is referring to an attack on a state-owned target somewhat bigger than an auto, like a building--you know, like the Pentagon or the WTC-- using a JDAM on a single vehicle makes no sense. The Predator attack was delivered with a Hellfire missile. JDAMs were used tactically in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and will probably be used if a war happens in Iraq.

So, with that distraction out of the way, again: was the answer to Tony's question "yes" or "no"?

I will not engage in this semantic debate. You are incorrect, and oblivious to the intentions of the statement. Furthermore, you have demonstrated an absolute refusal to listen to my arguments. It is not worth my time to try to engage in such a discussion. No wonder your posts got deleted a while back.