Post by: Joe Demko on December 18, 2007, 08:05:48 AM
Interesting article. I was with him pretty much all the way through 'til the last few paragraphs. When it turned into a justification for the government to do pretty much as it wants when dealing with terrorists, he lost me.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 18, 2007, 09:12:32 AM
Edit: On second thought, that's incredibly, wickedly, spectacularly insightful. There are all sorts of people out there in the world for whom being the right "something" is more important than achieving any sort of real-world result. Attempting to understand them on those terms works much better than trying to match up their stated intentions with their seemingly contradictory demonstrated results.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 18, 2007, 10:07:13 AM
And I have no problem doing whatever it takes to get rid of them.
Post by: Ron on December 18, 2007, 10:11:02 AM
Quote
Somewhat wordy and dull but still a great thesis and well worth reading.
Couldn't have said it better.Nice to see you posting again The Rabbi, seems like you weren't around for awhile.
I know we don't always agree on everything but what fun is it living in an echo chamber, right?
Post by: Manedwolf on December 18, 2007, 01:05:34 PM
Quote
Combat with evildoers is not Clausewitzian war. You do not make treaties with evildoers or try to adjust your conduct to make them like you. You do not try to see the world from the evildoers point of view. You do not try to appease them, or persuade them, or reason with them. You try, on the contrary, to outwit them, to vanquish them, to kill them. You behave with them in the same manner that you would deal with a fatal epidemic you try to wipe it out.
Damn right.
Post by: De Selby on December 18, 2007, 07:32:53 PM
And hey, when you look through the article, what do you find?
Not one single citation. Not even a single quote from an Al Qaeda ideologue or even an Al Qaeda member, yet he's drawing sweeping conclusions about "the worldview of Al Qaeda".
Please tell me how he managed to sell this as a professional comment. If I can learn that trick and apply it to my work, I'll be a tenured professor at Harvard inside of six months.
Quote
There is no political policy we could take that would change the attitude of our enemies short, perhaps, of a massive nationwide conversion to fundamentalist Islam.
Considering that Al Qaeda can and does regularly attack other Muslims for having the wrong policies, I'd have to say the real fantasy is that this guy actually knows something about the subject.
I especially like his expertise in Islamic theology:
Quote
But the real world of radical Islam is different its fantasy ideology reflects the same philosophical occasionalism that pervades so much of Islamic theology:
Huh? Oh well-no need to cite anything here.
One continuing irony of all of these articles purporting to explain the ideology of Al Qaeda is the persistence of the word "martyr"-there is no word for "martyr" equivalent to the English in Arabic, just like there's no such word (or equivalent) as "infidel" in Arabic.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant on how Arabs generally are irrational. Paying attention to the facts would require us to recognize that they behave like everybody else, and admitting that they're humans who think just like we do would be "justifying terrorism" or "excusing evil".
Unlike refusing to debate whether or not racism is the answer, which is apparently exactly what we will do once we agree with this author:
Quote
Pseudo-issues such as debates over the legitimacy of racial profiling would disappear: Does anyone in his right mind object to screening someone entering his country for signs of plague? Or quarantining those who have contracted it? Or closely monitoring precisely those populations within his country that are most at risk?
This article could be reviewed in the Onion under the heading: "Ideologue blasts other Ideologues for ignoring Reality; Not one source cited to prove his case."
Post by: Ron on December 19, 2007, 04:20:41 AM
Do you believe that those in Al Qaeda represent the Muslim community at large? It seems many in the Muslim community do view Al Qaeda as a disease or virus that weakens Islam as a whole. The more Muslim communities adopt that view the better off we all will be.
As long as Muslims such as yourself conflate attacks on Al Qaeda and other violent extremists as attacks on Islam there will continue to be tensions between the West and Islam in general.
Post by: LAK on December 19, 2007, 04:35:26 AM
Yes, you can keep them out of your own yard to a degree, and you can certainly destroy individual mounds in your own yard. You are not going to eradicate them all over the neighborhood.
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on December 19, 2007, 04:47:43 AM
Yep; stomp all over that ant mound! Jab it with a sharp stick as many times as it takes! Look - there's another one! Quick, jump all over it. We'll get 'em all in the end!
Yes, you can keep them out of your own yard to a degree, and you can certainly destroy individual mounds in your own yard. You are not going to eradicate them all over the neighborhood.
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Yes, you can keep them out of your own yard to a degree, and you can certainly destroy individual mounds in your own yard. You are not going to eradicate them all over the neighborhood.
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Yeah, might as well not even try. Just roll over and play dead.
If everyone had that sad attitude, we would be surrounded by Communist nations now.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 19, 2007, 04:57:10 AM
Yep; stomp all over that ant mound! Jab it with a sharp stick as many times as it takes! Look - there's another one! Quick, jump all over it. We'll get 'em all in the end!
Yes, you can keep them out of your own yard to a degree, and you can certainly destroy individual mounds in your own yard. You are not going to eradicate them all over the neighborhood.
Yes, you can keep them out of your own yard to a degree, and you can certainly destroy individual mounds in your own yard. You are not going to eradicate them all over the neighborhood.
Or you can stop screwing around with "limited war", and if you're going to have a war, have a war.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 19, 2007, 05:06:22 AM
Post by: Ron on December 19, 2007, 05:33:28 AM
Against whom are we having the war, exactly? Al Qaeda? Are they a nation with a chain of command and an infrastructure that we can destroy as one typically does when having a war? Do they have a military that we can neutralize in the field?
They and their kind will only be suppressed by the Muslim world. It will have to become as shameful to be an Islamic extremist in the Muslim world as it is to be a neonazi or KKK'r in the USA. They won't be eliminated completely but they will have been marginalized. Unfortunately the tactics of suicide bombings and mass murder against civilians are still looked at as legitimate by some in the Middle East. This causes a blurring of the lines between radicals and moderates. Some Muslims (see shootingstudent above) act as if all condemnation of those tactics or those that believe they are legitimate are condemnations of Islam.
This is an Islamic problem that we cannot solve, even if we abandoned Israel and withdrew from the world stage the killing would continue.
Post by: LAK on December 19, 2007, 11:29:52 AM
I did say it could be done; only with limitations
Quote
Yes, you can keep them out of your own yard to a degree, and you can certainly destroy individual mounds in your own yard. You are not going to eradicate them all over the neighborhood.
Manedwolf,
I am not convinced that an "all out war" is possible against an idea. And like other insidious organizations in times past, Al Kidya will simply undergo a name change before it is eradicated.
Post by: De Selby on December 19, 2007, 08:53:26 PM
Just for the record shootingstudent, I read that entire piece. As far as I can remember he never conflated his subject "radical Islam" with "other Muslims", "Islamic theology" or "Arabs generally".
I quoted the part where he talked about "Islamic theology" and there were plenty of pieces where he talked about Arabs in general.
Quote
Do you believe that those in Al Qaeda represent the Muslim community at large? It seems many in the Muslim community do view Al Qaeda as a disease or virus that weakens Islam as a whole. The more Muslim communities adopt that view the better off we all will be.
They do accept that view, that Al Qaeda is a stain on humanity. But the fact that Al Qaeda is a giant criminal conspiracy that kills old women and little children does not make the author of this piece any less wrong about what the ideology of the Al Qaeda criminal movement actually constitutes.
You can't ignore everything every member of Al Qaeda says, ignore its pattern of attacks and public propaganda, and cite absolutely no documents, speeches, or anything remotely indicative of AQ thinking, and then claim you've correctly identified the "fantasy ideology" behind it.
Quote
As long as Muslims such as yourself conflate attacks on Al Qaeda and other violent extremists as attacks on Islam there will continue to be tensions between the West and Islam in general.
I quoted the piece where he gives his little one liner on things that "pervade Islamic theology"; but again, I'm not conflating this with an attack on all Islam. It's not-it's just plain wrong, and not even loosely based on the information we have available about Al Qaeda or the trends in suicide bombing.
It is pseudo-analysis; ie, it's exactly the kind of ideological fantasy, unconcerned with the facts, that the author accuses Al Qaeda of adopting.
Post by: De Selby on December 19, 2007, 08:57:54 PM
I am not convinced that an "all out war" is possible against an idea. And like other insidious organizations in times past, Al Kidya will simply undergo a name change before it is eradicated.
Ding ding.
It is an ideology that has recruits for a number of reasons, none of which will be addressed by "all out war" short of simply exterminating a billion or so people.
Before Al Qaeda, people in this part of the world were signing up in droves for communist guerrilla movements. After Al Qaeda, they will do the same for whatever is next-who knows what it will be, but it might even be worse than Al Qaeda in the same way that Al Qaeda has proved worse than the communist guerrillas. It is a product of the geopolitical situation of the region, not this or that particular set of words that come out on tapes every year from some clown in the mountains.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 02:14:23 AM
I am not convinced that an "all out war" is possible against an idea.
And no one is arguing otherwise. "War on Terror" is just a handy, short-hand phrase, take it as intended. No one honestly believes that "terror" has a capitol city or national boundaries.
Post by: LAK on December 20, 2007, 02:31:11 AM
Terrorism is as old as mankind, and not going to be eradicated by any means. We can only keep it under control in our own yard. That is the best that can be expected.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 20, 2007, 03:06:37 AM
Right; a nonstarter, a dead horse.
Terrorism is as old as mankind, and not going to be eradicated by any means. We can only keep it under control in our own yard. That is the best that can be expected.
Terrorism is as old as mankind, and not going to be eradicated by any means. We can only keep it under control in our own yard. That is the best that can be expected.
It depends on what you mean by terrorism. If you mean a method of inflicting fear and panic in a population by drastic violent means, then you are right. That method has been used for some time and will continue to be so.
If you mean the semi-organized terrorism orchestrated, aided, or encouraged by radical Islam, then I would have to disagree. After all you don't see many acts of terror being committed by Basques or the IRA these days.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 20, 2007, 03:49:00 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on December 20, 2007, 05:09:26 AM
It's true you don't seem much Basque or IRA terrorism these days. It's worth noting, however, that that is not as a result of killing all the Basque Separatists or IRA members.
True. You don't need to kill all of them however. You need to kill enough, and make it impossible for the rest to operate, in order to stop the operation.This is pretty much what Israel did with Hamas. They killed off the leadership and imposed harsh penalties on anyone participating in those activities. Hamas isn't dead, of course, but attacks on Israel are way down.
Post by: Iain on December 20, 2007, 06:28:01 AM
ETA are still active, they went quiet for a while, probably something to do with terrorism being an activity unlikely to achieve too much support in the direct aftermath of Madrid.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 20, 2007, 07:33:33 AM
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 07:40:59 AM
Quote
True. You don't need to kill all of them however. You need to kill enough, and make it impossible for the rest to operate, in order to stop the operation.
Except that, in the case of the IRA, increased brutality only heightened the fervor and attacks on England.Quote
This is pretty much what Israel did with Hamas. They killed off the leadership and imposed harsh penalties on anyone participating in those activities. Hamas isn't dead, of course, but attacks on Israel are way down.
By "Hamas isn't dead," you mean "Hamas controls its own de facto state," right?
Post by: Bogie on December 20, 2007, 07:45:16 AM
Quote
You behave with them in the same manner that you would deal with a fatal epidemic you try to wipe it out.
No. When dealing with a fatal epidemic which can be relatively easily contained, rather than implementing quarantine procedures to stop patient-to-patient spread, instead you politicize it, and make any attempt to alter behaviors which lead to further spread socially unacceptable.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 08:48:37 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 12:53:51 PM
Right; a nonstarter, a dead horse.
Terrorism is as old as mankind, and not going to be eradicated by any means. We can only keep it under control in our own yard. That is the best that can be expected.
Terrorism is as old as mankind, and not going to be eradicated by any means. We can only keep it under control in our own yard. That is the best that can be expected.
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Post by: De Selby on December 20, 2007, 05:05:23 PM
The IRA was also motivated by political separatism, not by a sincere belief that martyring would get them 72 raisins in an afterlife.
The idea that people join Al Qaeda only because someone told them they'd win a big prize when they did is well beyond belief. Common sense is enough to tell you that this theory doesn't hold water; actually studying our enemies is what tells you how they think. And that's what the Hoover institute's feature piece didn't do.
Post by: Ron on December 20, 2007, 05:33:01 PM
The IRA was also motivated by political separatism, not by a sincere belief that martyring would get them 72 raisins in an afterlife.
The idea that people join Al Qaeda only because someone told them they'd win a big prize when they did is well beyond belief. Common sense is enough to tell you that this theory doesn't hold water; actually studying our enemies is what tells you how they think. And that's what the Hoover institute's feature piece didn't do.
Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?
That is the point of the article, nothing you do or say is going to change the nature of this enemy. They live in a fantasy world based on an interpretation of Islam that apparently most Muslims reject. The moderates have to do a better job of reaching folks in their own faith and making it a shameful thing for someone to support or have sympathy for the radicals.
There can be no detente with radical Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy yourself.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 06:24:24 PM
Quote
Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?
Yes. Because once you get beyond the idea that it's a 'fantasy' of afterlife reward - you have to start dealing with terrorists as rational actors.
Americans at Iwo Jima rushed onward to certain death - were they ennobled by some kind of 'fantasy' that allowed many of them to take on what were essentially suicide missions? Or were they simply individuals fighting for something?
Post by: De Selby on December 20, 2007, 06:40:12 PM
Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?
In terms of moral culpability no. In terms of writing an article about what ideology motivates Al Qaeda crimes, it is so important that you could not possibly write such an article without exploring it.
Quote
That is the point of the article, nothing you do or say is going to change the nature of this enemy. They live in a fantasy world based on an interpretation of Islam that apparently most Muslims reject. The moderates have to do a better job of reaching folks in their own faith and making it a shameful thing for someone to support or have sympathy for the radicals.
There can be no detente with radical Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy yourself.
There can be no detente with radical Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy yourself.
Of course there can be-it's just that most aren't willing to accept the price of such a detente. Of course, there isn't much rational discussion of the price anyway, because people like this hoover author are flooding the press with totally off the wall, unsubstantiated, free-wheeling fantasy theories about how Al Qaeda operates.
The radical Islamic terrorists of today are the nationalist terrorists of yesterday and the communist terrorists with and before them. Unless you can grasp that the phenomenon of people being jaded with their un-representative governments and turning to extremism to fight them, just like many in America did in the 60's (witness the rise of black militant groups, communist terrorists, and the mess that ensued).
It is a product of more than just one guy's theological teachings; if there were no Osama Bin Laden, it would be someone else's idea about whatever driving this garbage. And after Al Qaeda is gone, there will be some other militant group doing the same things for essentially the same reasons, but under a different banner-and until you grasp that, there is no way to even start talking about how to deal with the problem.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 03:43:48 AM
Quote
Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?
Yes. Because once you get beyond the idea that it's a 'fantasy' of afterlife reward - you have to start dealing with terrorists as rational actors.
Americans at Iwo Jima rushed onward to certain death - were they ennobled by some kind of 'fantasy' that allowed many of them to take on what were essentially suicide missions? Or were they simply individuals fighting for something?
You and Shootingstudent have missed the major thesis of the article. Your points are way off base. I'd suggest trying to slog through it again.
Post by: LAK on December 21, 2007, 04:35:57 AM
Quote
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Not I. Let's backpeddle a some ...Quote
And no one is arguing otherwise. "War on Terror" is just a handy, short-hand phrase, take it as intended. No one honestly believes that "terror" has a capitol city or national boundaries.
It is misleading; a fraudulently used term. People like George Bush and others have given the impression that it is a "war" in the context that it can be "fought and won" and somehow "the world freed from terrorism". There are plenty of people that believe that it is rooted in some countries and thus that if those countries are the subject of some G8 or U.N. sanctioned campaign, or invaded, occupied - or obliterated - that somehow "the [current] terrorists" and "terrorism" will be overcome and we will "win" the "war".--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 05:32:00 AM
As for the fantasy ideology of al Qaeda, one does not need to read al Qaeda's position papers (assuming they exist) to posit that theory. Look at how he defines fantasy ideology and it clearly fits this situation. This is regardless of whatever they happen to think themselves (assuming they actually think).
Post by: wooderson on December 21, 2007, 07:35:33 AM
Quote
Look at how he defines fantasy ideology and it clearly fits this situation.
Heh.
Post by: De Selby on December 21, 2007, 06:09:35 PM
That actually is the crux of the essay, or one of them anyway. People tend to interpret new events in light of their own historical experiences. For many 9/11 was like Pearl Harbor. Thus the war metaphor. Notably the author says Bush perceived the difference right away.
That part is true-except that what the article proved was that the author was incapable of getting outside his own presumptions and researching what the enemy really believes.
Quote
As for the fantasy ideology of al Qaeda, one does not need to read al Qaeda's position papers (assuming they exist) to posit that theory. Look at how he defines fantasy ideology and it clearly fits this situation. This is regardless of whatever they happen to think themselves (assuming they actually think).
I don't see how you can possibly assert something about Al Qaeda ideology without reading their texts or studying their speech. It's not even possible in theory to do this.
He is defining Al Qaeda's ideology without reference to any facts. That makes his article fantasy ideology; it doesn't say anything of value about Al Qaeda.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2008, 12:54:51 PM
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.
Post by: De Selby on January 02, 2008, 05:08:18 PM
The article wasnt meant to say anything about al Qaeda but about how we conceive of this "action", whatever it is.
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.
Well, let's quote from it to see what it says:
Quote
For us the hijackings, like the Palestinian suicide bombings, are viewed merely as a modus operandi, a technique that is incidental to a larger strategic purpose, a makeshift device, a low-tech stopgap. In short, Clausewitzian war carried out by other means in this case by suicide.
But in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into that of martyrdom martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to martyrdom.
But in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into that of martyrdom martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to martyrdom.
That sure looks like he's claiming to know what the "prism of radical Islam" actually is.
Quote
But this fact gave to the event in terms of al Qaedas fantasy ideology an even greater poignancy: Precisely because it had not been part of the original calculation, it was therefore to be understood as a manifestation of divine intervention. The 19 hijackers did not bring down the towers God did.
More claims to understand Al Qaeda's ideology.
Here's some more:
Quote
this interpretation is correct, then it is time that we reconsider some of our basic policy in the war on terror. First of all, it should be obvious that if our enemy is motivated purely by a fantasy ideology, it is absurd for us to look for the so-called root causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy, etc.
And some more:
Quote
While the Sorelian myth does aim, finally, at transforming the real world, it is almost as if the real world no longer matters in terms of the fantasy ideology of radical Islam. Our real world, after all, is utterly secular, a concatenation of an endless series of cause and effect, with all events occurring on a single ontological plane. But the real world of radical Islam is different its fantasy ideology reflects the same philosophical occasionalism that pervades so much of Islamic theology:
So now he's adding to his totally unfounded claims about Al Qaeda, with broad sweeps about "Islamic theology" and what pervades it.
Quote
Once we understand this, many of our current perplexities will find themselves resolved. Pseudo-issues such as debates over the legitimacy of racial profiling would disappear
Nice conclusion-we won't even debate "pseudo issues" like whether or not treating people differently on the basis of race is important, once we "understand Al Qaeda" like he does.
I have to say, it looks pretty clear to me-and it doesn't look like he's just saying "oh, we don't understand AQ"--he's saying that he does, and then telling the rest of us we should agree with him, even though he cites not one shred of evidence to support his diatribe.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 02, 2008, 05:21:21 PM
Against whom are we having the war, exactly? Al Qaeda? Are they a nation with a chain of command and an infrastructure that we can destroy as one typically does when having a war? Do they have a military that we can neutralize in the field?
They and their kind will only be suppressed by the Muslim world. It will have to become as shameful to be an Islamic extremist in the Muslim world as it is to be a neonazi or KKK'r in the USA. They won't be eliminated completely but they will have been marginalized. Unfortunately the tactics of suicide bombings and mass murder against civilians are still looked at as legitimate by some in the Middle East. This causes a blurring of the lines between radicals and moderates. Some Muslims (see shootingstudent above) act as if all condemnation of those tactics or those that believe they are legitimate are condemnations of Islam.
This is an Islamic problem that we cannot solve, even if we abandoned Israel and withdrew from the world stage the killing would continue.
Mass murder against civilians also has support in the USA, Ireland, South America, and other nations. It bothers me that so many people think that Al Quaeda seems to represent all Muslims.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2008, 10:46:32 PM
The article wasnt meant to say anything about al Qaeda but about how we conceive of this "action", whatever it is.
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.
Well, let's quote from it to see what it says:
Quote
For us the hijackings, like the Palestinian suicide bombings, are viewed merely as a modus operandi, a technique that is incidental to a larger strategic purpose, a makeshift device, a low-tech stopgap. In short, Clausewitzian war carried out by other means in this case by suicide.
But in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into that of martyrdom martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to martyrdom.
But in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into that of martyrdom martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to martyrdom.
That sure looks like he's claiming to know what the "prism of radical Islam" actually is.
Quote
But this fact gave to the event in terms of al Qaedas fantasy ideology an even greater poignancy: Precisely because it had not been part of the original calculation, it was therefore to be understood as a manifestation of divine intervention. The 19 hijackers did not bring down the towers God did.
More claims to understand Al Qaeda's ideology.
Here's some more:
Quote
this interpretation is correct, then it is time that we reconsider some of our basic policy in the war on terror. First of all, it should be obvious that if our enemy is motivated purely by a fantasy ideology, it is absurd for us to look for the so-called root causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy, etc.
And some more:
Quote
While the Sorelian myth does aim, finally, at transforming the real world, it is almost as if the real world no longer matters in terms of the fantasy ideology of radical Islam. Our real world, after all, is utterly secular, a concatenation of an endless series of cause and effect, with all events occurring on a single ontological plane. But the real world of radical Islam is different its fantasy ideology reflects the same philosophical occasionalism that pervades so much of Islamic theology:
So now he's adding to his totally unfounded claims about Al Qaeda, with broad sweeps about "Islamic theology" and what pervades it.
Quote
Once we understand this, many of our current perplexities will find themselves resolved. Pseudo-issues such as debates over the legitimacy of racial profiling would disappear
Nice conclusion-we won't even debate "pseudo issues" like whether or not treating people differently on the basis of race is important, once we "understand Al Qaeda" like he does.
I have to say, it looks pretty clear to me-and it doesn't look like he's just saying "oh, we don't understand AQ"--he's saying that he does, and then telling the rest of us we should agree with him, even though he cites not one shred of evidence to support his diatribe.
How do you know his characterization of al Qaeda ideology is incorrect?
Post by: De Selby on January 03, 2008, 09:17:47 PM
How do you know his characterization of al Qaeda ideology is incorrect?
By paying attention to the organization's stated goals, concrete examples of its crimes, and by reading transcripts of statements and letters produced by Al Qaeda members.
Also by reading professional commentary that relies on such sources, like the Army war college piece posted above.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 05, 2008, 12:12:46 AM
The essayist says "they kill you because it makes them feel good".
I say:
1) These two takes are not mutually exclusive.
2) Either way, killing them off solves your problem.
3) The article is way too wordy; he could have said the same in a third of the space.