ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto

[Undertoad]

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?

[hermit22]

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:

fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

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.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Undertoad
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.

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.

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?

[/b]

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.

[Undertoad]

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."

[hermit22]

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22

Where in here does this talk about religion?

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.

A semi-valid argument could be made that bin Laden is looking for a pan-Arab Islamic state

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.

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.)

Is that supposed to comfort me? The ultimate ambition of this movement is global domination with your "interesting social commentary" as a dogmatic base. .

What he is calling for is more of a religious movement that has political implications - not a political movement.

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"

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.

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.

Second, your dismissal of bin Laden's social commentary is a sign of blindness.

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.

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...You improve social conditions. Eventually, the force behind terrorist campaigns collapses.

No, that's allowing him to seize control of your agenda...which amounts to coddling every crazy that comes along.

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?

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.

The chance of you getting hurt or worse in a terrorist attack is, thankfully, exceedingly remote....Until the time that it is, it is imperative that our response is to study and understand...

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.

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).

The manifesto is a statement of another point of view.
Consider it a counter-fatwa.

[Undertoad]

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.

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.

[hermit22]

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22
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.

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.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by hermit22
I've decided to not bother answering MaggieL right now; this discussion is dead, and I think she has proven her reputation here.

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

[hermit22]

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22
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.

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.

[hermit22]

"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.

[MaggieL]

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"?

[hermit22]

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.