Down is the New Up. The Wrongs of Robert Wright.

A response to Robert Wright’s Op-Ed in the New York Times:The Myth of Modern Jihad

http://nyti.ms/ckYgm2


This is yet another in a series of confused and naive Op-Eds on Islam from author Robert Wright. The contents of which are not entirely unexpected (see here religion and in particular here on Islam.) One gets the sense then that everything in Wright’s moral universe is all the opposite of what we think it is: everything is back to front; down is the new up, and black is actually white. Everything would be just fine in the world, Wright seems to think, if we all said to ourselves: “we have met the enemy and he is us


Wright, who wrote this article (The myth of modern Jihad) after reviewing the testimony of one Faisal Shahzad: an naturalised American citizen who failed to explode a bomb in Times square on May 1, 2010. Faisal, speaking in his elocution in Court this week stated that he sees no moral difference between himself and American soldiers or between military personnel and civilian bystanders in a city thousands of miles away from any battle. Rather, in his own words “they are all the same.” Presumably then, every man, woman and child who happens to hold an American or British passport is to his eyes, an open target to any Muslim, anywhere in the world. It is often said that racists and bigots discriminate. However, as Christopher Hitchens points out it is rather a failure to discriminate, to see people as individuals not as the collective swarm of ones feverish imagination. Shahzad, has relegated everyone - all non-Muslims to one monolithic enemy - the infidel, and as such they are without moral concern. Nevermind the fact that the targets of his bomb were of no direct threat to him, his family or any Muslim. Many of them no doubt, actually don’t support the war in Afghanistan, many of them we could expect are quite critical of their own governments. None of this matters however - for they are all Americans and to Shahzad and every fanatic - they are all the same, everyone deserves to be punished by bombs, packed into public places, with the intention of killing and maiming as many infidels as possible.


Shahzad was unrepentant (see the above hyperlink for his full testimony) and explicated his reasons ad nauseum. I find it fascinating, as well as disturbing that Shahzad, an American citizen, who, by his own testimony, was helped by America in his efforts to achieve a university degree, would choose to throw away his life for a conflict thousands of miles away, that except for the fact that he is a Muslim, he has no direct connection with. Despite his articulate explication; I would reserve a cautious scepticism that we may ever know precisely why he did what he did - I will venture some possibilities below; nonetheless, what we can say with almost total certainty, that if Shahzad had not happened to be brought up Muslim in the first place, he would not be spending the rest of his adult life in jail. Imagine, if he were Christian, Buddhist or even Jewish - the probability that he would run off to a foreign country to fight a war or try to blow up a bomb in a city is downright slim. Do American Zen Buddhists blow themselves up in Chinese restaurants in San Francisco over Tibet? No. Do Christians go and fight the Chinese government’s state repression of their co-religionists? No. Why then, is Islam different?


Wright meanwhile, has fallen for Shahzad’s propaganda, hook line and sinker. On the possibility that Shahzad may simply be grandstanding and attempting to appeal to the disagreements and divisions within the West over the War on Terror. It is after all, a basic strategy in conflict - divide and conquer and how does one do that - by sowing doubt, confusion and division within the enemy camp. Wright however, briefly considers this possibility, then sagely rejects it:


Should we really take this testimony seriously? It does, after all, have an air of self-dramatizing grandstanding. Then again, terrorism is a self-dramatizing, grandstanding business, and there’s no reason to think this particular piece of theater isn’t true to Shahzad’s interior monologue.



No reason? How about the fact that every major media outlet would broadcast his view; this furthermore, was his fifteen minutes - his chance to somehow justify the act by which he threw away the rest of his life. Further, did it not cross Wright’s mind that rather than being a noble defender of Muslims against the infidel, Shahzad was simply out to make a name for himself? Or, he simply enjoyed the idea of playing a solider - a mujahid? This idea is not implausible. Muslim scholar Reza Aslan in his book How to Win a Cosmic War thinks that young Muslim men become warriors for Jihad the same way middle class western children join the peace corps, or Amnesty International. Incidentally, Martin Amis suggested as much a number of years ago, that Jihad is the most attractive and seductive idea of this generation - it’s a licence to kill, it’s a mission from God, one that transforms bored young men into giants - both literally and figuratively (as Hamas propaganda grotesquely presents them.) Finally I suspect that Shahzad is telling him, and countless other left-wing writers just waiting to lap up any confirmation of their preferred narrative - whatever the source; even if it is someone who belongs to a irredentist cult of death. (See the Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim, which shows that Al Qaeda are quite savvy in their propaganda against America by citing for instance left-wing books like Rogue State by William Blum.)


Wright then goes on to accuses Daniel Pipes of cognitive dissonance, but perhaps it is himself who needs to look in the mirror. Just consider this fallacious piece of reasoning:


“My point is just that, if you take Shahzad at his word, there’s more cause for hope than if Pipes were right, and Shahzad’s testimony were evidence that Jihadists are bent on world conquest.”


This is a unsound conclusion derived from a dubious premise whose chain of reasoning is wishful thinking. Wright’s hope is that if we accede to everything Muslim extremists demand then everything will be fine - or rather, it hopefully will. The two indubitable facts of the matter however, is that practically, acceding is impossible; secondly, and more importantly, morally we cannot. What would this demand amount to after all? Sharia law in Europe, America and anywhere else large numbers of Muslims happen to reside. Leave Afghanistan back into the hands of Taliban thugs and fanatics, a similar abandonment would have to befall the Iraqi people. Every single, US and allied troop or citizen would have to either vacate the (Dar al Islam) or become a Dhimmi (a second class citizen). Furthermore we would be obliged to forsake Israel to be swallowed up by the seething anger of Palestinians and for Jews to take their “rightful” place - under the lash of every Muslim bigot (as they have done under Islam for much of history - see Bat Ye’ Or’s book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam and Bernard Lewis’s The Jews of Islam)


Wright, I am sure counts himself as a impeccable liberal and tolerant person. A believer in dialogue, understanding and compromise. These are liberal traits, and they are noble ones, traits which, nonetheless, flower as fruits of education and civilization. While I count myself as a liberal, I am also aware, painfully, but undeniably so, that there are countless who would burn the earth to cinders in order to purge the world of any deviation from orthodoxy. Consider then, the second example of Wright’s naivety:


Now on to the second cause for hope: Pipes’s confusion itself. For these purposes, it doesn’t matter whether Shahzad was telling the truth, because Pipes certainly thinks he was. Pipes applauds Shahzad’s “forthright statement of purpose,” adding, “However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness.


So then why doesn’t it bother Pipes that Shahzad’s depiction of Islamic holy war as defensive counter-attack is the opposite of the depiction Pipes has peddled for years? How can he possibly hail Shahzad’s comments as confirming his world view?”

Wright is arguing that Shahzad is fighting for a defensive reason - and by extension would not have happened if America had not invaded. Again, this only follows if one accepts Shahzad; and why should we? Furthermore, it is simply undeniable that Jihad is inextricably concerned with conquest; that it is both a defensive and offensive notion. Wright disagrees. By way of evidence he provides a hypertext to a chapter in his book (Evolution of God) which amounts to a whitewash of Islamic colonialism and conquest. He cites a single sura, and mentions that it has the virtue of a get out clause, thus supposedly diminishing the external image of unmitigated militancy in Islam. This is what he wrote in his book:


Here again, useful guidance could be found in scripture so long as you looked hard enough. The Koranic verse that comes closest to calling for jihad on a global scale also has a crucial loophole. It begins, “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden,” but then ends, “until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.” In the end, money would substitute for theological fidelity.


http://evolutionofgod.net/historicaljihad/

Wright has not looked hard enough or rather has tried hard not to look too hard. His slurring over the concept of Dihmmi -(servitude) - paying the Jizya (a poll tax for unbelievers) as not being all that bad (read on from the link) or done for pragmatic reasons is also suspect. Though to be fair to Wright, what counted most for early Muslims was not theological sophistication or spirituality but success - success in battle and accumulation of booty There are numerous passages in the Koran, and voluminous in the Hadith that call for war, that, can easily be used to support offensive Jihad.. Here is but a flavour:


“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them” 9.5-6


“Those who believe fight in the cause of god” 4.76


“It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers, those who do will roast in hell.” 2.245


“Allah loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice.” 61.1


These are all from the Koran itself, which is, remember, the perfect and immutable word of the creator of the universe. This fact, once accepted by any mind, renders any liberal theological gerrymandering incoherent and dishonest. Consider now, as only a flavour, what the Hadith says:


“He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief “



“A day and a night fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer”



“Jihad is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked”


Consequently as a result of this militancy virtually every major Muslim thinker from Ibn Taimiya to Ibn Khaldun to Sayyid Qutub has echoed and expounded this notion of Jihad. See for example A Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad for a definitive, scholarly account. Islam, subsequently, has the honour or dishonour of being the first great civilisation (with the possible exception of China) that can claim to be the first truly colonialist and imperial power. Its geographical extension, cultural and religious penetration of less successful religions and cultures dwarfs the imperialism of ancient Rome, 19th century England or 21st century America. (see the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism in Ibn Warraq’s book Why I’m not a Muslim)


While it is true that nearly all Muslims are not violent there is simply no question of Islam’s doctrinal, philosophical and historical infatuation with violence. Nevertheless, Wright does not appear to directly deny this. He seems to be saying that it is a purely defensive notion - one perhaps distorted and abused. While the Koran seems to indicate that Jihad is a merit for those who fight for the expansion of the faith, it is however incumbent upon all Muslims to defend Islam once it has been attacked. Defensive of Islam however, can be construed so elastically that there is little to stop one who wishes to justify violence.


Given this therefore, and the historical weight of orthodox exegesis of Jihad; the Koran’s evident comfort with violence and apocalyptic imagery; and of course, Muhammad’s warlike example; killing innocent civilians - which are of no direct threat to any Muslim - yes, innocent civilians - let us not euphemise the matter - is, within Islam, simply a non issue.


This last point is important. For Wright, appears to be in the fog of moral bewilderment rendering him incapable of making basic moral distinctions. His tone and reporting of Shahzad, suggests that he sees no significant moral difference between American and British troops; soldiers who wear identifiable uniforms and conduct operations against militants - not women and children; who seek to minimize civilian casualties as best possible, though there are of course mistakes. When mistakes occur however, there are inquests, hearings and apologies. Does any of the above, which can be effortlessly expanded, apply to likes of Bin Laden, Zarqawi (remember him?) Muhammad Atta or Faisal Shahzad? No. These men are not even in the same moral universe.


No doubt, there are good arguments against the war in Afghanistan; the conduct of that war, or the need for its continuation. It is however a disgrace, that Wright legitimises Faisal Shahzad and his toxic ideology. While it is true that these wars have contributed to Muslim anger and resentment it should be pointed out that until 9/11 most Americas were not remotely aware of Bin Laden, Jihad or even the history and tenets of Islam. It is only after 9/11 -after America was attacked (and not for the first time) with the subsequent US and Western (re)-action that any credence can be given to America waging war on Islam. Justifiably, there is plenty of people in the world who could be angry at America and the West. There are plenty of starving and disposed, which we are either indirectly responsible for or are obligated to help. Little of this appears to apply to Islam. It suffered far less consequences of European colonialism compared to Africa or South America. America meanwhile has participated and supported four armed conflicts in the last thirty years in defence of Muslim people; have furthermore contributed millions in oversees aid and has tirelessly attempted to broker peace in Palestine; don’t forget meanwhile, the millions of Muslim immigrants that were and still are being welcomed in Western countries.


Bin Laden, we should remember was a multi-millionaire, he could have lived a life of luxury on the French Riviera, or could have spent his endowment peacefully helping Palestinians with food and medical supplies - or any other charitably endeavours. But no, Bin Laden and countless other men who often possess great intelligence, university educations and with no sign of mental distress or personal malaise - choose to live in caves, fight in wars thousands of miles away or detonate themselves in trains, planes and western nightclubs.


Many - political scientists and sociologists, from journalists to politicians to religious moderates will all attempt to resist the obvious yet “reductionist” conclusion - the common denominator that is a set of beliefs laid down in the 7th century and subsequently fossilised into the minds of millions. Beliefs - about the sanctity of violence - the metaphysics of martyrdom and the glory of the Caliphate. As the chapter in Malise Ruthven’s book Islam in the World Shows (see the chapter Spiritual Renewal pp-261) Islamic history is not only littered with Jihads but with individuals and groups who oppose any form of modernity and attempt to restore, usually with violence and intimidation, Islam to its purity. This is not therefore, a 20th century phenomenon. We are only “aware” of it because we are not only more self-aware of our beliefs but of our neighbours. There is, consequently, always going to be a significant group of men ready to do violence for faith - so long as Islamic ideas are held in good stead. It is therefore a totally circular and morally incompetent argument to mount, as Wright does, that the cause of terrorism is the resistance to it:


But as a practical matter, taking any of these issues off the table weakens the jihadist recruiting pitch. (Different potential recruits, after all, are sensitive to different issues.) And if we could take the Afghanistan war off the table, that would be a big one.For now my main point is that war-on-terror hawks need to confront the downsides, rather than act as if establishing the role of “jihadi intent” or “jihadist ideology” somehow ends the debate. They need to seriously ask whether the policies they favor have, while killing terrorists abroad, created terrorists both abroad and — more disturbingly — at home.


It’s a temptation we all have to fight. Maybe if we fought it as hard as we fight other enemies, we’d have fewer of them. (on our tendency to think even in terms of enemies in the first place.)


This is his last word, and it is about us and our mistakes. Not only is the thinking that there is some (some?) incompatibility between Western liberalism and Islam in principal mistaken but that the fact that we even conceive of thinking about differences between people and between ideas, and that there may be significant moral differences between them - no - this kind of thinking is itself “the problem”.


The sad fact is that there are differences between beliefs and between people. These beliefs, in fact, turn out to be a matter of life and death. Wright, who seems incapable of either believing or conceiving of beliefs and intentions, so radically different from his own, does not appear to be at all worried (then again, why should he, given that he sees no differences.) - subsequently all will end well - just like the end of Communism - which conservatives “demonised” and thumped their chests over. Why did they do this? If we believe Wright - its all down to human cognitive bias and our tendencies to demonise the “other”. If its rooted in evolution, its reasonable to ask, is it not, that emotions like fear, and thoughts of suspicion - did not serve some utility and perhaps, still do?


Just so stories aside, we should remember that there was plenty of reasons to worry about Communism, which Wright in the article slurs over; additionally we may laugh now at the “domino theory” of Communist expansion but that is only from the safety of posterity. Finally, Wright’s analogy between the fall of communism as a solution to Islam is embarrassingly superficial - Wright seems to imply that some day in the future - Muslims will spontaneously wake up and shatter the walls of fundamentalism. A moment of brief historical reflection, however, will reveal that compared to the tensions and conflicts between Christianity, the West and Islam, the less than a century spat between Liberalism and Communism - was nothing but a historical footnote. What is desperately needed here is some clear thinking as opposed to wishful thinking if we to understand and resolve the problem with Islam. Wright however, sadly displays much of the latter without showing a correspondent ability for the former.

The moral bankruptcy of religion

One of my very first posts on this blog involved the odious and equally idiotic Iris Robinson: former member of the fundamentalist and fundamentally noxious Democratic Unionist Party. I wrote about her views on homosexuality - arguing that, while being perfectly compatible with scripture there were other biblical recommendations she might have liked to mention - slavery for one, killing heretics another, or even - alas - the punishment for adultery - yep death again. In fairness, we could acquit her of bigotry only on the conviction of idiocy. Developments in the time since, however, force me to revise this assessment: not only is Iris guilty of moral midgetry but also of breathtaking moral hypocrisy.

Her “sin” was to seduce and sleep with a teenager; a boy, old enough to be her grandson. Now, I would contend that this tryst is not especially interesting, nor indeed, seriously wrong. Though the affair would have received similar attention had it happened to any politician or public figure; it was, however, her earlier actions - as a votary of God’s good works that made this revelation something of a schadenfreude moment. While her affair was a straightforward case of hypocrisy, from what I gather, she was fucking him around the same time as she was calling homosexuality “vile” “immoral” and in need of medical intervention. When the story broke, it was Iris however who needed the psychiatrist; though if one were not overly cynical, one would think that all that was needed was “forgiveness” and the grace of god.

What is more dubious, and more important is the possibility that Iris had manipulated the young man in order to obtain money for her own private purposes. This would elevate the affair and Iris Robinson from a woman brought down by earthly passion, to more sinister case of sexual predation for financial gain. Not only has Iris suffered the political consequences - psychological ones as well, her husband, Peter Robinson, has been made to feel the electoral lash as well for he too has some questions to answer over possible financial malfeasance. It seems no surprise to learn meanwhile, that the people of Northern Ireland have dubbed them: “Swish family Robinson”.

The lessons from this are obvious when we regard religion: it does not make people better, but in invariably makes them worse; in this case - quick to persecute, fulminate and pontificate, while ignoring the large specks in their own discriminating, deluded and woefully myopic Iris. That religion, in order to avoid embarrassingly displays of emptiness, shrillness and hypocrisy should shun politics and public life and tend its own garden - that is, it should preach and practice in quiet.

Even this last thought may need to be revised - that we should aim to shunt religion off into some quiet corner when we come to consider what is surely one of the greatest scandals in history. A scandal - one intensified in the last year - a disgrace, institutionalised and subsequently covered up by a religious organisation; occurring not just in one country or even one continent - but a truly worldwide phenomenon - a grizzly testament to religion’s claim and indeed - proof of its boastful universality. I am of course, speaking of the Catholic child rape scandal.

While it should not be necessary to point out that nothing in the Church’s teaching or its doctrines could ever justify such actions (the same alas cannot be claimed for another monotheism which I’m coming to shortly), it is impossible however to deny that this decades long racket of paedophilia and corruption is a direct consequence of the Church’s cleaving to power; its enforced secrecy; its belief that it is a law onto itself. Even the current Pope - Herr Ratzinger, has himself been implicated in the cover up of Priests guilty of abuse. The reason seems, to be nothing so “gross” or material - so human and man made as the need to protect its earthly power and prestige, to prevent the disfiguring of good name of the Church, to maintain its craven desire to survive at any cost - and of course - not to give ammunition to its enemies: the “Jews and atheists”.

The Church’s record on human rights - or if you like - its record breaking success in promotion and propagation of human suffering - forces upon us the conclusion, that there is no other organisation, religion or institution whose sole purpose self-evidently seems to be the accumulation of power, the retention of authority in all aspects of life with the purpose of propagating abject misery, delusion and division - especially to the poorest and the most venerable.

As parlous as the Catholic Church is, it appears to be in a running battle and indeed, what ever its misdeeds, appears to be losing the title of greatest enemy of civilization to Islam. The problem with Islam does not need to be stated in terms of the clash with the west. No. The first thing to say is that it is Muslims men and women themselves who suffer most under the totalitarian shadow of the Koran. Hardly a day passes, when another Mosque has been bombed with a fresh score (at least) of dead Muslims littering the prayers halls. Last Christmas, to take one example from many - it would appear that a fanatic was so incensed by a volleyball match that he unmade himself and fellow co-religionists with a bomb strapped to his body. Not to mention the persistent and flagrant abuse of its women with the constant trickle of reports of beatings, honour killings and rapes.

All of this, is Muslim on Muslim violence. While there is much made of Western humiliation of Islam, or the damage done to Muslim minds and Muslim societies by for instance the civilian death toll from Iraq or the pictures of Abu Graib. This is, of course, true and important. This thesis however (that pain and anger have been caused by the West) can be swallowed whole, while simultaneously admitting that the biggest cause of humiliation and the greatest damage done to Islamic societies is the contents of the Koran and the details of Sharia law itself.

The depressing and absurd conclusion however is that much of this is simply slurred over, denied or explained away. Blandishments like “all religion has its fanatics” “ we need to address the educational and economic factors of this malaise” “we should not blame an entire religion on the actions of a small minority of its members” “ we need to remember all the good that religion does”. All of the these statements could apply equally to the Catholic Church as well as Islam, though I could modify the first statement by saying: “all religions have its paedophiles” - though in the case of Islam following the example of its beloved prophet - thinks it perfectly acceptable that grown men should marry and enjoy full “conjugal” relations with girls as young as nine. Maybe the only difference is that Catholicism keeps its child rapes secret - while Islam boasts of it - that you tell you something at least about the “clash of civilisations.”

It is time we ended the dogma that there is such a thing as freedom of belief or respect for beliefs that have nothing supporting them but ignorance and tradition, either a belief is supported by the evidence or it is not, if it is not then it should be abandoned. Religious belief has the same ontological status as fairies, ghosts and goblins. Its books belong to the same shelf as the Odyssey; Arabian Nights; or the Lord of the Rings. People are killing and dying in the name of nothing. Organizing their lives around a fiction. Religious moderates, condescending secularists and liberals are all engaged in the ponzi scheme that religion is useful and necessary for the uneducated and the unwell. The results of this Faustian bargain with faith meanwhile are bodies piled higher than the sun, the slavery of many millions of women, the relentless demonising of Jews and homosexuals and the abandonment of children to religious demagoguery and sexual predation.

Truly, God loves his children.

Bigotry, Stupidity and Superstition in the Age of the Internet.

Last night, my friend and I, after sitting through Dune: David Lynch’s beautiful mess of a film; we traversed into the dark heart of America - via the omniscient power of the internet. My friend, perhaps a little naïve, was shocked to discover that the Prophet Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl (this came up after the discovery that Dune has many allusions and parallels to Islam and the oil situation in the Middle East.) He was dumbfounded when he saw the Conservapedia site; laughed outright at the sheer verbal and intellectual incompetence of Sarah Palin; and, was thoroughly disgusted by a evangelical propaganda video.

The omnipresent question one always has to ask oneself: how can anyone believe this? You can have perfectly sound explanations of course, indeed, you can even have deep and penetrating psychological and scientific accounts of why people believe the “darndest” things, But still, despite someone like myself, (who is oddly familiar with quite a bit of human credulity), I find myself - adrift in sea of apoplexy and confusion, which, finally, waves into amused apathy and despondent futility.

Why are so many Americans, from the point of view of everyone else - so seemingly ridiculous? Now I am no crude despiser of America; on the contrary rather - it is a great country. Nevertheless, the Republican cum Christian right cum paranoid maniacs are - a menace to society. It seems miraculous, that in the age of the internet, space exploration and instant global communication, people, indeed, “high ranking” politicians can still believe in something like witches. Somewhere close to fifty percent of the American electorate believe in the actual existence of Satan; a higher number almost certainly believe that all living organisms were created in their present form by some kind of celestial creator - the same people believe that Man was created in a special act of creation, thus making him, indeed HIM, the centre of a cosmic sit-com. It generally goes unmentioned that many of the same people, who’s beliefs are of the sheerest ignorance - even to a reasonably educated six year old, are the same "loons" who are stymieing, what is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that the US government has attempted to pass in a generation: healthcare reform. It also goes without saying - literally - that many of the same group, believe that Obama - a confection of so many fears: liberal, black, educated; moderately religious (if religious at all); these fearful facts that are, on their own, shocking to the “average American” are married to a perception of Obama as a avatar of Satan; a messiah of Marxism; a closet Muslim; and a “figure” from the book of revelations.


Consider the lies that has been perpetuated concerning healthcare. The irony tapers ever upwards towards astronomical heights of surrealism when one considers that many on the Republican wing would benefit from reform. Johann Hari from the Independent, pointed this out recently with poker faced hilarity - recounting that a Republican “activist” was injured fighting in a town hall meeting concerning healthcare -only to waill later that he had no insurance. Never-mind also, the fact that America already has “socialised” medicine. Ponder over some of these examples, drawn from factcheck.org; if one did not know better one would think these are taken from the spoof political website: the Onion.


http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/


How could anyone fall for this? We need to remember, that right from the cradle many of them were brought up to believe in Jesus, the virtues of carrying firearms and the sinfulness of Homosexuality; that anyone you ever knew believed this; you parents believed this and expected you to believe this, moreover, demanded that you believe it. It would then, take a exceptional individual to overcome such a social pressure and maladaptive upbringing. The problems of individual autonomy and clear thinking are further sabotaged by the fact that the majority of evangelicals are home schooled - thus prevented from coming into contact with other children - other ways of thinking - other ways of seeing the world. Evangelicals, live in a sequestered world, they live in a closed society; despite all the technology of the 21st century, most Americas are as ignorant of the world as a Afghan peasant. This brings me to my next exhibit: Conservapedia.


Could anything be more forlorn when you read “An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.” - “the trustworthy encyclopaedia”. Edited and maintained by a posse of creationist wing-nuts; the purpose of the site: counter Wikipedia’s “bias” and provide “material” for “homeschooled children” - we should abandon this euphemism and simply call a spade a spade - this is, and always was - indoctrination.

Check out the hilarity -

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

(my friend was puzzled when I wondered whether the site would indulge the “birther” conspiracy - it does - (“Barack Hussein Obama II (allegedly[1][2][3][4][5] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961)”

Accuses Obama of mind control: “Obama used techniques of mind control in his campaign, as in this speech: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"

The icing on the cake: Obama is the “first Muslim President” and possibly an atheist!?? Where is the epistemology people!

If you thought that it was bad enough that half the American electorate hold beliefs that were first developed at a time, when a bicycle would appear as a masterpiece of technological creativity - it is not, just “regular folk” but Governors, Senators and, yes, Presidents. Enter stage right - Sarah Palin, or “Sarah Barracuda” former beauty queen, hockey mom and mayor of a little town no bigger than the hamlet out of Last of the Summer Wine. Palin: almost certainly will run for President in the next election. A President who is a believer in witches;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs

A liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biD1Eh69lb8&feature=channel

A fool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg


Over the last couple of days, I have repeated to myself the infamous and rather ambiguous line of Thomas Jefferson: “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is Just”. that, is more than I can say of “God” as conceived from this video

Let me quote another famous, and somewhat abused line of Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” perhaps, in place of patriots and tyrants, we should have idiots and creationists - only joking.

Best

Mike.

Belfast Bigotry.

A sad example of raciest violence occurred in Belfast on Tuesday the 16th of June.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8105488.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/17/romanians-race-attacks-northern-ireland


In my experience, the people who harbour raciest views, and especially in this case, who will resort to violence and intimidation are from “disadvantaged backgrounds” read- unskilled, uneducated and bored young men. Northern Ireland is a still a very divided place, not only class and religion but sexuality, as Fiona noted in her OP-Ed, NI is very hostile to homosexuals. All this, is both paradoxically shocking and unsurprising.

One night, for example, as I came home from Belfast, to the little town of Comber, I saw two small posters, one was for the KKK! Yes the KKK, the wholly discredited and humiliated KKK from America in the fifties!. The other, using similar design read FUCK ISLAM. All this is very disturbing.

In my experience, these problems do seem to come from the Loyalist or Unionist side of Northern Ireland. There is a good reason why this is so, even if the people engaged in the recent attacks did so without this in mind - NI is largely a “protestant” country, most immigrants, especially from Eastern Europe are Catholic. They fear, perhaps, being swamped by Catholics. More Catholics, hence united Ireland. I doubt this is rational, nor am I confident that this is what motivates the hatred Ulster Protestants have for outsiders. The simple explanation would be hysteria, ignorance and bigotry whipped up to a crescendo by the economic downturn.

Why there is no refuge from politics.

Last year I wrote a post--Why Politics Sucks.

http://theyoungcontrarian.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-politics-sucks-in-2008.html


One year on, I reconsider my views.

Christopher Hitchens in the introductory essay to Love, Poverty and War, states that there is no refuge from politics; even a life hermitically devoted to poetry, music and literature will have the cruel wind of the world intrude. A few weeks ago, I was asked, why study politics? I replied that everything about our lives is, essentially, political. That, every time you criticise someone’s actions or some social policy or promulgate some ought - “I believe we need to cut teenage pregnancy” “We need more jobs for British people” you are engaged, whether you know it or not. in politics. An interest in politics, is, probably, an interes, or a concern with power. Those who wish to change the world, or keep it the same, want implicitly or explicitly power. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, people who do not desire power or who are indifferent to their fellow man, are either mystics or lunatics. The Ancient Greeks had a name for persons not interested in public affairs--they called them idiots or idiotes

So, me being a very opinionated person, apt to criticise his fellow man, and equally willing to instruct him in matters political, ethical and religious, it is no surprise then that I have a interest in politics. However, it is an ambivalent relationship. I have no real interest in the grind of daily politics, or in politicians themselves. I prefer ideas, big ones, many of which were first thought and argued over by the Greeks, but mere contemplation and disputation of ideas without practical resolutions is vacuous and, ultimately, pointless.

Last August I decided to attend University. It was not a easy decision, however, the degree I signed up for was rather easy to choose. Why? In many ways, I am committed to a rather old fashioned idea of an educated gentleman: - one who educates himself in as many matters as possible, literature, culture, science and history. For me to have selected either a English degree or a science degree would have, I felt, limited me. That of course, does not mean to say that there will be no specialisation or hair splitting distinctions and arcane terminology in the degree I chose, indeed, far from it.

One of the issues I am interested in is the relationship between politics and science. For me there needs to be more of the scientific mindset in politics: a politics more clearly based upon empirical fact rather than feeling or intuition, and what the press wish. So, studying politics, perhaps, allows me to think and address these questions with greater freedom. I should say I wished to do a joint degree in philosophy, but could not because of clashing timetables, to digress a little, I believe in the Russell/empirical/ Quine model of philosophy as a extension of the natural sciences. That good philosophy be science enabling and science extending, for me, personally, I believe that philosophy can play the valuable role of midwife to a new politics, one based on reason, science and empirical research.

Economic Meltdown

What a year in politics it has been! Many time I said to myself, that this is my political baptism. Firstly there was and is the economic meltdown. I know little of economics, an ignorance I intend to rectify. It would seem, that economic reform will be the dominant theme of the next decade, after global warming and Islamic fundamentalism.

Palin, Obama and the US culture wars.

I don’t know which is more important or surprising, the election of a black US President or the Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin-- fundamentalist Christian and conservative darling. The culture war in America was especially virulent during the election, taking on an almost hypnotic pornographic quality. A major question that is occupying my mind - is the election of Obama a blip? Will Palin come to symbolise the America future? Fascinating questions, my suspicion is that we have not heard the last of Palin

Israel and Gaza

The Israeli bombardment of Gaza was in many ways a pivotal moment. I have always been interested in this dispute, now over 60 years running. It is in many ways a ground zero of all the ways humanity can go wrong. I am not, like so many liberals or leftists, (indeed I repudiate such terminology for myself,) “hostile” to Israel. I put hostile in quotation marks for it is a blatant understatement of the rancour, hatred and sheer lunacy of writing, opinion, and hand wringing over Israel. I do not have space to fully itemize or explore this issue, but the commentary, opinion and news reportage by the Guardian, BBC and other left/liberal magazines and writers was shockingly misinformed, wildly irrational and borderline anti-Semitic. This is a issue that is, and will be endlessly fascinating.

Pakistan, Iran and Islam

Islam exploded onto the world scene (or the western scene) on 9/11, this issue is, perhaps, in my top three interests. I have been following Islam in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Europe for the past several years. This is going to be, I believe, the number one political issue after global warming. Among the man questions that need exploring and answering: - are the West and Islam locked in a clash of civilisations? Can Islam reconcile itself to secular modernity? If there is a clash, who will win? Who is better equipped to win? Will Pakistan go under a Taliban like rule? Will Iran modernise? What role will British and European Muslims carve out for themselves?

Political reform and the Expense Scandal.

Returning to domestic politics, everyone is engaged in the expenses scandal, and Gordon Brown’s woeful reputation in the country. I prefer to look deeper, there is chance for some real reform--but will it happen? I don’t want a conservative government, but it seems inevitable if Brown stays. The only party that seems committed to the kind of reform I want to see is the liberal democrats, slim chance of them getting power however, though, a partnership with labour if a hung parliament results from the General election is possible.

What is needed

It has been a tumultuous year, not just for me but for politics in general, politics may “suck” but there is no escaping from it. Humans today have enormous power, we are in a position to influence and control events that no group of humans before us ever conceived possible. I believe that the enlightenment hope of a better world (one that has come under sustained attack) is a project that needs to be fought for and extended. We need to continually break down the barriers of division and irrationality, to grow the moral circle, and to educate and improve ourselves. We need greater international co-operation, a world government, a properly armed UN with a mandate to intervene in cases of genocide and mass murder. A commitment to extending and developing global human rights, social justice and the eradication of poverty. A universal education and politics based on reason, in short, enlightened cosmopolitism.

Best

Mike.

What Obama can and cannot say. Reactions to his Cairo speech.

The reactions to US President Barack Obama has left me somewhat perplexed and baffled. Perplexed as to what they (the liberal and Muslim commentators) expect of America and likewise of Islam, and baffled as to the sloppy moral equivalence, inaccuracy, and chronic myopia of the writers. That of course, is not to say that I found the speech profound, persuasive or likely to mark a new rapprochement in the West’s relationship with Islam, on the contrary if anything its likely to make the extremists more determined (As America does not have the stomach for a fight--what Bin Laden predicted) and the more moderate Muslims will remain defiantly sceptical.

I want you to pause over the sentence. “ West’s relationship with Islam”, Obama in his speech mentioned repeatedly the US relationship with Islam. This is curious terminology. Is it not suggestive, that, on one hand we have a President of a sovereign nation entering into dialogue with a single, monolithic and monotheist religion? (never mind all the factionalism and irredentist, ethno-chauvinist tribalism).

Indeed, During the cold war, no President ever talked of our relationship with Marxism or communism, or our need to reach out to the communist world. The fact that a democratically elected politician, a secularist, and a liberal would frame such a rapprochement in these terms is already begging the question of the gulf between Islam and America and of course the West. Obama’s speech is covertly giving credence to Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations model. That is, the Americans and Europeans identify themselves in political and national terms not religiously or in terms of race. Our values are ultimately democracy, Human rights, freedom and liberty. Muslims, do not see themselves in such terms, they define themselves religiously. For them no authority is greater than God, society is to be governed by Sharia law, and concern for fellow Muslims trumps concerns for other non Muslims. Needless to say, this, is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem for the demands the Muslim world will make on us, are not likely to be political, social or economic, but religious.

Obama’s speech was, though, politically excellent, but historically naive, factually inaccurate, and morally dubious. This is a strange feature of our discourse, especially when it comes to Islam. That is, the perfect acceptance of lying when it comes to this subject. Imagine the world reaction if Obama has of said this--

“On September 11, America was awakened to the fact that it is deeply hated and resented in the world. That this hatred and resentment is, in large measure irrational and unjustified. America woke up to the fact that there are millions of people in the world who think it is perfectly acceptable to use violence in the name of God. America was starkly awakened and reminded, that the end of history has not been reached, that secular democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience, the values that our forefathers fought so hard to achieve and maintain are not shared by most of the world. But, America, was not alone in being awakened, the rest of the world was awakened, awakened to witness the failure of Islam. Its failure to adapt to modernity, its failure to undergo an enlightenment, failure to progress, to commit itself to universal education, equality for women and respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. Islam, as it is practiced today, cannot continue, it is not only in America’s best interest but the world interest that Islam undergoes a radical process of change.”

Pie in the sky? Riots in the streets? Death to America? Probably, what I wrote above, is I believe, a honest assessment of our relationship with Islam, but to utter such words would entail political suicide and most likely a violent reaction. I am sceptical that Obama’s speech will do anything of substance. However, caveats aside, he was right to do this speech. Why? Because I think no other President and no other President for the long conceivable future has a hope of repairing America’s “tarnished” image in the world. So, while the make nice policy will quickly go down the drain, if America is attacked, the Israel-Palestine conflict rolls on, or Iran gets the bomb or another riot breaks out in the lands of Islam over a cartoon, a comic or a book. In short, we await the next terror attack, the next Muslim riot, and the next example of western liberal masochism as it censors or refuses to publish some author on the subject of Islam.


Now as to the commentators.

Consider what Ahdaf Soueif an Egyptian short story writer, novelist and political and cultural commentator had to say…

“There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem compatible with America's. Obama has said that America should have not only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the United States.”

This is rich considering that state of Egyptian democracy and Human rights records. More ironic, is that this is the birthplace of Sayid Qutub the intellectual grandfather to Al Qaeda and birthplace to AQ number two Ayman Al Zawahiri.


Here is Ali Abunimah a Palestinian working in Washington for a 1 state solution to the problem with Israel.

On Palestinian dislocation and what Obama could not say.

“Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?”

Perhaps this, and I will be boringly unoriginal here--is simply not true.

And on the origins of Muslim terrorism.

“It was disappointing that Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq – those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan.”

A short counter to would be to remember what author of Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis had to say on America relationship to Islam prior 9/11. That no other country has done more to help Muslims, from expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, helping, if belatedly, the Albanian Muslims and Muslims of Kosovo from the tyrant Milosevic. To all the aid we send Pakistan, the help we sent Afghanis over a clear example of imperialism--the Soviet invasion. never mind all the patience and time and money spent over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all the navel gazing and masochism that followed the 9/11 attacks. But, Perhaps, as Sam Harris wryly notes this is just another contribution to “Muslim humiliation”.


It was not just Middle east writers who were expecting some kind of apology from Obama, Robert Fish was at it.

“There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this.”

For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism.”


Consider the more measured NYT columnist David Brooks who had this to say.


“In the Obama narrative, each side has been equally victimized by history, each side has legitimate grievances and each side has duties to perform. To construct this new Middle East narrative, Obama strung together some hard truths, historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalencies.”

“The president’s critics complained on Thursday about Obama’s distortions: The plight of the Palestinians is not really comparable to the plight of former slaves in the American South. The Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 was not really a glorious example of Muslim-American cooperation, but was a failed effort to use bribery to stop piracy.

“But this is diplomacy, not scholarship. Obama was using this speech to show empathy and respect. He was asking people in different Muslim communities to give the U.S. a new look and a fresh hearing. He was showing people in a region besotted with tiresome hysterics how to talk to one another with understanding and dignity.”


For once I seem to be in agreement with the Republicans and the conservatives (as to the truth of the speech not the political necessity) on this issue.

The Republican Jewish Coalition offered faint praise for the balance the group said Obama struck between the interests of Israel and the Palestinians.

"We urge President Obama to return to the policy of holding the security of Israel as a key American priority and requiring significant, concrete, and verifiable moves toward peace from the Palestinian side," executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement.

Rachel Abrams wrote on the website of the conservative magazine Weekly Standard: "His greatest portion of criticism was reserved for the only nation in that otherwise benighted region that actually does believe in human rights and practices democracy, namely Israel."

Robert Spencer, a rightwing critic of Islam, said Obama had failed to confront Muslims with the words and actions of violent extremists like al-Qaida among his "platitudes and naivete".

"He assumes that it is his responsibility, and America's, to dispel mistrust that Muslims feel for the West," Spencer wrote.

Radio talk show host and former Reagan aide Hugh Hewitt, wrote that the speech was "deeply dishonest in its omissions".

The conservatives are right as to substance, but as I have said, there is no other President who has a chance of trying to overturn America’s image as an evil country.

Best

Mike

Quoted from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-cairo-speech-republicans


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/barack-obama-cairo


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/obama-islam-speech-analysis

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-words-that-could-heal-wounds-of-centuries-1697417.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-usborne-president-stings-israel-with-swipe-at-settlements-1697327.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion

Political Reform

Suggestions and ideas.

Institutional reform.

1. A written constitution, laying out several key themes. A. Greater and transparent separation of powers between the three branches of government. Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. B. Enshrinement of political and civil rights and liberties (in accordance with the UNDHR). C. The creation of a Secular state, the division of the private and public realm. D The winding down of the monarchy and creation of a Constitutional Republic.

2. Directly elected leader, President or PM. All people, (now citizens) given a vote in helping to decide who leads the country, no longer a cabal of politicians decide who runs the country.

3. An Elected house of Lords, with greater diversity and expertise.

4. The ability for a leader to form a cross party, cross ideological Executive.

5. A greater emphasis on evidence based polices, independent committees and policy tanks should have greater say in policy making, leaders should not be able, to a far lesser extent, pander or be bullied by special interest groups, or ignorant and divisive groups in society.

6. A complete end to political donations by private individuals and corporations. At the very least it should be limited and clearly transparent.

7. Greater freedom for parliamentarians to vote on policy.

8. More debate and scrutiny for the executive proposals in the house of Parliament.

9. During election periods there should be US style presidential debates.

Secular state.

1. A truly secular state, no religious test for office, political or social polices must be secular and empirical based.

2. State no longer supports the Church of England as the state religion.

3. The slow, and controlled end to faith schools. However religious education should continue in schools but with a greater focus on teaching world religions, histories, doctrines and differences.

4. The Secular Islam project. Prominent Intellectuals, Muslim scholars, community leaders, debating and exploring and recommending how to reconcile Islam to modernity, promote understanding and awareness of Islam, with an aim to trigger a reformation within the British Muslim community to serve as a possible example to the rest of the world.


Education

Education I believe should consist of three key things.

1. Economic success and wellbeing. Giving children a understanding in finance, and financial prudence. Training for the job world, how to undergo successful interviews, write a CV, how to communicate and team lead etc. In short more emphasis on practical tools and abilities that will help with the world of work.

2. Emotional wellbeing. A greater emphasis on sexual and relationship advice. Effective parenting. Coping with stress and mental health awareness. A more open ended and discursive exploration of the ends and values of human life.

3. Creative and critical thinking. We should turn our children into little Socrates. How to think clearly and for themselves. Grater emphasis should be placed on the attempt to develop creative or artistic impulses in children and young people. This is not for economic interests, though it could be, its more for private interest, to develop a sense of self and self-esteem.


Social Policy

1. The age of legal Alcohol drinking should be raised to 21, there should also be a higher tax on Alcohol.

2. (this now might sound comically paradoxical). There should be tentative and experimental steps to end drug criminalisation. This should initially apply say to Cannabis, MDMA, LSD but in theory could apply to much harder drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine. Any policy should be rigorously evidenced bases, reform should be piecemeal and the results should be studied intensely.

3. Prisons reform. Initially, for less serious first time offences, there should be emphasis on personal discipline, education and addressing mental health problems of offenders (many of them do). for serious and second time offenders, Prisons should be run like Military boot camps and then with the re-education elements. In short prisons should be for both punitive purposes, but, mostly for reform purposes(in cases where this is possible.)

4. The Civilisation Project. Civic centres that are the centre of public life. In short a secular, non-dogmatic, non-intolerant alternative to the role that religion functions in society. It should be committed to a wide number of activities and engagements. Local charity work, activities for young people, social networking areas for the elderly and retired. A commitment to providing information and spaces for public debate on politics, events and values. I believe it should also attempt to address peoples social, emotional and spiritual needs. (I cant go into the details here unfortunately)

5. Tax breaks and incentives for married couples, greater access for Grandparents to their grandchildren. Tax breaks and encouragements for women who have children later in life.

6. Incentives and rewards for people who do not use private health care and have not used the NHS in relations to diseases and illness relating to smoking, binge drinking and over eating. Purpose is to save money and to encourage health and wellbeing among people.

7. Greater Tax on corporations and individuals earning over 100,000 a year. A Euro/word-wide co-operation should be set up to prevent corporations from avoiding the paying of tax.

8. Greater improvement in Public transport, low-income earners should travel for free when work related.

9. More freedom for individuals to choose their working hours, greater flexibility for both mothers and fathers to look after young children.


Best

Mike

Comment on Ed Husain op-ed, What Binds Brits together?

Here is the Op-Ed at the Gurdian website.

Mr Husain, the man who wrote the Islamist,(which i reviwed here) has this to say on the values that bind people of the UK together.


key points from the OP-Ed

"Last week's arrest of alleged terror suspects reassured many in Britain. The suspects are all – bar one – from Pakistan. There was an unspoken sense of relief among many that at least they were not British. But why? Why do we expect not to be attacked by "our own"? Why is "home-grown terror" more terrifying? What in Britain glues us together to prevent us from turning on one another?"

"Let's cut to the chase: we have a problem with connected identity here in Britain. It's not just Muslims such as Khan who feel disconnected from Britain – the problems of atomised, self-centred existence are widespread. The "nothing-to-do-with-me-guv" mindset has caused us damage. It has made us unwilling to find common ground with our fellow citizens."

I believe though, you answered your own question. How can (Muslim) non-drinkers and drinkers get on? How can we reconcile the values of collective obligation with individualism. How can you reconcile the culture or reason, discourse and scepticism with the culture of obedience, faith and group-loyalty?

"We need to move beyond simplistic debates about identity and engage with the deeper issues that are at stake. Too often, commentators have suggested that a united society can be built on shared tastes in sport, food, and clothing. This is not enough: such arguments overlook that the 7/7 bombers played cricket, ate fish and chips and dressed in jeans. We need a deeper debate about the core values that can bind us together as a nation."

from Ed Husain, writing in the Guardian.

My View

I dont believe you can. Two choices face us from this conclusion.

1. We continue on the same path of not seriously engaging with Muslim separatists, by apologising for them, stating that there is not a problem with them or their ideology, that the problem is really US foreign policy. British policy regards Muslims at the minute is to engage with the non-violent extremists. This is a very short-sighted policy. The problem is not terrorism, it is the values of freedom and inquiry that are under threat. The extremists might not use violence, but they use ever other tactic to coerce others into complying.

2. Both the Government, the establishment and the intellectual class can and should wage intellectual war on Muslim separatists. We need the same kind of response that was present during the cold war intellectual battles over communism. The ideology of Islam and the politics of Muslim separatists will erode in the face of unrelenting, challenging scepticism from the larger population. Secondly, we need to give larger voice to people like yourself MR Husain and someone like Ayan Hirsi Ali. We need to encourage and support Female Muslim rebellions, and quests for independence.

The goal of creating a tolerant and reasonable Muslim population in the UK is a worthwhile goal. Why? For the reason that ideas spread, that relatives back home might pick up on whats going on with their UK cousins. That many silenced, progressive Muslims, might draw inspiration from the modern Muslims in Britain. One of the sad observations from MR Husains book is that England is such a hotbed of extremism, that it outdoes even the Saudis in rhetorical fervour, that many young British Muslims grow up to be the most radical kinds of Muslim. This, of course, can be changed, but only if their is willingness to do so, at present, I do not see such will.

Best

Mike.

The Doctrine of Terror.

Here is a thought experiment--an attempt to lay out what kinds of violence a terrorist or terror group would deploy that was justified. I am here, positioning myself in the mind of the potential terrorist. I will not be exploring in great detail, the justification that can be given for violence such as just war. I am primarily interested in setting down a continuum of ethically justified, proportionate terror/violence. Developing a gradual increase in action.

I feel I should say a few words on the use of the word terrorist. As the name implies, terror, fear and panic is one of the goals that various “terror” groups seek to achieve. However, I believe as this will show there is a distinction to be made concerning numerous terror groups various goals, intentions and tactics, not to mention their attitude towards targeting non-combatants.

In what follows can be seen either as an escalation of violence or a slow slide into ever more questionable or unethical and immoral action. (please note, again, this will be argued from a point of view of a terrorist, I am not dealing with the underlying premises. Or example I believe it would be justified to respond with some sort of “terrorist“ activity in response to genocide or slavery or a huge infringement of civil liberties.)

Here is the gradient.

* Rational persuasion and negotiation has failed to bring both sides to an agreement or that one side will not listen to rational argument. Said policy is continuing and will continue for the foreseeable future. Which leads to…

* Warning-that the failure to cease and desist from said policy will result in violent consequences.

Failure to do so results in….

* Kidnapping of political leaders who have either advocated, implemented or created the said policy. Attempt to persuade them to either see arguments to desist (dubious given the circumstances) or present them with three choices. Either support our cause, (if you really have changed you mind) and or cease and desist from you role in carrying out or implementing said policy or die. If you choose to cease and desist and renege on your promise--you will be marked for death.

* Targeted assassination (designed to kill one person, ie a sniper rifle or pistol--one bullet one body) of a political leader who has either advocated, implemented or created the said policy that has motivated the terrorists.

* Targeted assassination of various political leaders, deputies, ministers, military leaders, police chiefs, CEO’s who have either advocated, implemented or explicitly support said policy.

* Bomb or mortar attack on HQs, offices or home of said political leaders who have created or implemented said policy. If there is collateral damage this is justified if and only if there is strong evidence to think the political leader is or will be in the targeted location. And only if the violence is proportionate. (I will discuss proportionality later)

* Telephone or email target and or media and inform target that a bomb has been planted in said location. The call is a feign. There is no bomb, the point is to cause fear and to show the enemy that next time we might not either be lying or merciful.

* Plant bombs in or near military or political institutions. Ring forward and state that said bomb will explode--this will give them time to evacuate the building. Only structural damage and financial damage is the aim here. There is one other aim--which is power and fear (which is used to persuade the enemy to change said policy) Inform target that next time there may not be a warning.

* Deliberate shoot to kill policies against soldiers, policemen or other government personnel who are actively in co-operation with said policy.

* Deliberate and without warning--detonate bombs or mortar attacks, military bases or government building which are actively in co-operation with said policy.

* Kidnapping of non-combatants and NGO’s who are clearly and explicitly in support of said policy. Either persuade them to the cause or get them to cease and desist or kill them, and kill them (target for assassination) if they renege.

* Targeted assassination of non-combatants and NGO’s who are clearly and explicitly in support of said policy.

**** Indiscriminate bombing of non-combatants in a public place****

**** Maximal indiscriminate targeting of non-combatants in a public place****


Given the logic of just war and that there is times that violence is in fact an ethical response to things like slavery or genocide or the threat of annihilation- it seems to me that much of the above is justified. The problems start I believe when we move from bombing military and political institutions to the kidnapping and finally killing non-combatants. The threshold is non-combatant, however I believe it could be said that for example a wealthy German businessman who was donating money and resources to help the Nazi party could be targeted as a facilitator and supporter. If he were “persuaded” to cease and desist this would seem to be a “positive” outcome. If his death was caused, there would be less money and resources going into the Nazi party.

However this action would be constrained by what difference would it really make? Furthermore it might actually increase support for the Nazi party or similar political party or policy for example. Also would there not be more worthy targets? Would his targeting be justified though if the previous justified actions (kidnapping and targeting of leaders etc) were carried out and to avail? Surely though, if the leaders and solders were killed and a regime or country did not still change its ways how likely is it to change after a civilian is targeted? This is an “empirical” point, if there was no prior indication of what the action may result in it might be justified to carry out the action--provided the outcome or goal to be brought about was worth it.

Clearly the real problem is with indiscriminate bombing. Bombing kills indiscriminately. It kills both supporters of a terrorists cause, indifferent civilians and the backers of said policy that terrorists have a problem with. It is a crude, blunt weapon. However is there any circumstances were it could be justified? I believe so. To be adopted only in extreme circumstances and when all other approaches both non aggressive and aggressive has failed and only if there is a real chance of success and that the action is proportional to the likely success and goal of the terrorist and of his action.

Putting it more clearly, this pretty much rules out bombing if not in theory but in practice. I would define extreme circumstances as either slavery or genocide. Real chance of success also seems pretty negligible. The only “success” that perhaps can be taken from deliberate targeting of civilians is that it might persuade both sides to sit down and work out their differences peacefully as they have seen that violence does not work.

Proportionality is a problem and I don’t consider myself to have solved it. In the end all that can be said is that it is a matter of degree and reasonableness. For example it would not be proportionate to detonate a nuclear bomb in a city of a country that has denied certain members of that county labour rights or basic civil rights. It may be ethical though, to assassinate a politician or bomb a government building. From this crude example it would suggest that our concept of rights, freedoms and welfare does not translate easily into the arithmetic of body count. For example is it ethical to kill one person to promote to welfare and rights of twenty million people? What about twenty thousand or twenty? No? What if he is actively blocking their welfare and causing their death and suffering? Should violent action only justified in the actual consequences it brings about? Ie intentions and means are unimportant if the end gained outweighs the losses?

Given the hierarchy of justified violence it is quite clear that many terrorist groups do not consider them and go straight to indiscriminate killing or show no regard for human life whatsoever. There is many who would make a moral equivalence between say a government that accidentally kills civilians in air raid and a terrorist who blows up a teenage disco. The distinction is obvious when you consider it from the perspective of the continuum. The military are targeting either military or paramilitary targets, the terrorists are not. The military as best possible seek to reduce civilian deaths, the terrorists in many cases seek to maximise it.

Arguments about collective responsibility are fraught. Indiscriminate targeting, kills as I have said people who are indifferent or in support of what the terrorist wants. Also it should be considered unethical to hold hundreds or thousands of people guilty for policies in which they have not explicitly supported or carried out. Especially when there are more guilty targets that deserve singling out. Also at the risk of repeating myself, the repugnance of the action, the indiscriminate nature of the violence and the probability that it will bring about what the terrorist seeks is also further strikes against terror bombing.

A move against this could be that because individuals “choose” to live in a democracy they have to assume the responsibilities and consequences that the country they live performs. There does seem to be some tacit support for this. For example lets say I possessed illegal drugs, I don’t agree with the governments support of drug criminalisation and would argue the point with the judge, however I would have to resign myself to the prison sentence nevertheless.

I don’t think this argument is more persuasive to the idea that perpetrators of crimes are the ones that should be held to account. There are graduations of culpability and in turn graduations of punishment. It would seem to fly in the face against everything we hold of value such as individual liberty, choice, responsibility and notions of judicial equality.

To conclude then I would argue that almost certainly the policy of indiscriminate bombing and mass murder against non-combatants is never justified.

Best

Michael.