I’ve written a bit on the topic of how doggedly the left holds to its ideological fantasies about Islamic terrorists’ acting out of economic desperation, even as a trove of empirical evidence is making it increasingly untenable to maintain such a (romanticized socio-economic) narrative.
That is, unless you’re willing to ignore jihadists themselves — or recast them as “Neocon poster boys.”
Which, now that I think about it, might not be such a bad thing. Because if there’s one thing the left is willing to fight, its NeoCons.
Hell, were bin Laden to change his name to, say, Kristol or Perle, it’s likely you’d find Harry Reid himself out in the Kush, draped in ammo belts, head wrapped with a Joseph Abboud tie, hunkering down stealth-like in some stony crag like a dusty, loose-skinned Rambo bent on bringing home an ear necklace.
And Pelosi? Like a Ninja.
No matter how you slice it, it is nevertheless unfortunate that the sensible Muslim’s name happens to be Hassan Butt. It seems we in the West simply can’t catch a break these days.
I disagree with Milne, but he does not appear to make reference to economic (or socioeconomic) root causes in the linked article; rather, he blames terrorism on military actions in the Middle East (employing post hoc ergo propter hoc IMO).
Should be “Hassan Butt Notinsane”.
Funny stuff, Jeff–funny stuff, indeed.
Robert Spencer at Hot Air on root causes
I’ve always seen Pelosi as more of a lawful evil Halfling myself…….
You’re right, Hubris. Though the subtext that allows middle-class Muslim zealots the “out” of retaliating against “imperialist” “oppression” I think speaks to the underlying assertion.
Dan —
It’s easy to add manual links. Just use the html markup around the words you wish to highlight.
Here is a quote from one of the London/Glasgow bombers that I encountered in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times:
Jeff, hilarious post… but as always with a grain of truth. I’m converting to Islam so I can be infallible in the eyes of the lefties! I’ll rob a bank, then basically live in the city’s red light district for a week. The news will discredit everyone that tries to bring their Amerikkkan facist justice on my socio-economically deprived depravity. The lefties will make statues of me. I’ll be like Che, but with more bitches.
Will you wear a beret or a turban? I just want to get a jumpstart on T-shirt designs in case you make it bigtime.
Harry Reid himself out in the Kush, draped in ammo belts, head wrapped with a Joseph Abboud tie, hunkering down stealth-like in some stony crag…
That is a truly hilarious image. Bravo!
I always wondered why the left didn’t pick this up as some type of “uber-right wing battle for supremecy.” I only say that because they accuse the hard christian right of doing all the things they blithely ignore the Islamic jihadist doing. I would have been more prone to assume that they’d get off on claiming some faux moral high ground in the claiming the GWOT was really ultra righties waging a civil war of mutual extinction. I guess, in the end, the “hate America” meme was to overpowering for them to skip.
Ninja’s don’t wear red, do they?
“Ninja’s don’t wear red, do they?”
They most certainly do. I had to retrieve my son’s circa 1986 GI Joe COBRA Battlestation from the basement the other day, so I know. And Reid? Same eyes as COBRA Leader. Same voice, too, as I recall from the cartoons.
Coincidence? I think not.
The Guardian piece reflects the writer’s desire to lecture Britain on it’s imperial ways while spewing forth jihadist propaganda word for word. I would love to see this guy debate Robert Spencer just to watch Spencer bitch slap his head 360 degrees.
Bin Laden’s genius was to use the US troops in holy lands as a catalyst to recruit and inspire. The core goals of both Sunni and Shia based radicals remains the same and is well documented; overthrow the Apostate Muslim Rulers, crush Western Cultural influence in Muslim countries and, most important, establish a pan Middle Eastern Caliphate modeled on 9th century muslim empires like the Abbasids and the Umayyads as a stepping stone to the eventual world wide conversion or death of infidels and the ascension of the faithful umma globally.
Nostalgic communist wanna be’s like Milne ignore all of this, despite extensive documentation, to push their own imperialistic, “bash the mother country” agenda.
Great post. Nanacy Pelosi as a ninja? Cracks me up!
A couple of thoughts, and a point about changing the enemy:
1. Yesterday the carpet-munching muppet who was causing all the ruckus at the Red Mosque in Islamabad was caught fleeing the mosque dressed as a woman. He was immediately held up to public ridicule: leaving others to die after he’d incited them to violence, dressed in woman’s clothing. (Pity we didn’t catch Mookie in flagrante delicto.)
2. WGST in Atlanta used to have an afternoon radio show hosted by a former marine. He had no trouble mocking islamofascism. One day he played a tape where a chanting, bloodthirsty Muslim crowd had its chants morphed into a crowd version of “Rocking the Casbah”. Something scary was turned into something pretty funny. (OK, you had to be there.)
Reducing islamofascist leaders to objects of mockery should be a major war aim of ours. Arabs, coming as they do from shame-based societies, will flee these “weak horses” like rats leaving a sinking ship.
I agree with Hubris that Milne is assuming a temporal sequence to be necessarily causal, and indeed the primary cause (as suits his own political prejudices). But the rise of Islamist / jihadist groups, and of broader Islamist sentiment, predates the events that Milne cites as supposed causal factors. Indeed modern jihadist movements predate all of the “obvious†Western causes by decades.
No doubt events in Iraq and Afghanistan have exacerbated jihadist sentiments – as any sign of resistance will, however effective or ham-fisted it may be. But what are Milne’s unspoken assumptions here? Should we calibrate our foreign policy to the preferences of individuals who are, by definition, deranged? Or to Islamist pressure groups and their Mawdudist fantasies of dominion? What options for self-defence exist if one must studiously avoid “provoking†those who wish to be provoked, and whose ideology requires provocation and affected grievance, practically by definition?
My objection to Milne’s piece – and to Milne generally – is that he simply ignores all evidence to the contrary. Moreover, he implies, or flatly asserts, that no such evidence exists, and denounces any dissenting view or presentation of evidence as “NeoConservative†or in some way nefarious. If you follow the link below, you’ll see just how extraordinary Milne’s critical contortions are.
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/02/alguardian_the_.html
It’s very difficult to accept that these fundamental omissions are accidental. It is, I think, more likely that Milne is a determined propagandist. An ideologue; a dissembler. A liar, if you will.
Wait a minute.
If extremism and evil are caused by grinding imperialist poverty, then what causes rich Western neocons to be extremist and evil?
*pop*
Exactly right. Even if Milne had marshalled any evidence to support his claim that the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are the proximate cause of the recent attacks, or his implied premise that further attacks could be prevented by holding “to account those who launched an illegal war of aggression”, this begs the question of whether it is possible or desirable to design a foreign policy to satisfy the demands of terrorists.
Although I saw no evidence of it at the time, many on the Left now claim to have supported the invasion of Afghanistan from the beginning. If Milne is correct that this invasion is inspiring terrorist attacks on Britain, will those Leftists who supported it be forced to renounce their support?
Left-wing arguments have always been more nuanced on terrorism than those of the right. People on the left see multiple motivations to Islamic terrorism, including (in declining order of significance) anger over the invasion of Iraq, anger over American support for Israel, disgust with corrupt regimes in home countries, and fanaticism. Because the Bush administration and the right are so devoted to the invasion and to being more pro-Israeli than most Israelis, they reduce themselves to sentiments like “Islam is inherently evil” or “they all hate us.” In that way, the right can indulge in its favorite weenie-boy gestures like “Wanted: dead or alive” or “bring it on” (to mention a couple of George Bush’s) without trying to figure out ways to stop making it worse.
Left-wing arguments have always been more nuanced on terrorism than those of the right.
More layers, too. Don’t forget the layers.
People on the left see multiple motivations to Islamic terrorism, including (in declining order of significance) anger over the invasion of Iraq, anger over American support for Israel, disgust with corrupt regimes in home countries, and fanaticism.
We get that, what we are interested in is you actually making a case for these things, instead of just accepting them as dogmatic truths because of all the pretty layers. And nuance. Also being careful not to only see cartoon images of your own creation when you look at opponents.
Because the Bush administration and the right are so devoted to the invasion and to being more pro-Israeli than most Israelis, they reduce themselves to sentiments like “Islam is inherently evil†or “they all hate us.†In that way, the right can indulge in its favorite weenie-boy gestures like “Wanted: dead or alive†or “bring it on†(to mention a couple of George Bush’s) without trying to figure out ways to stop making it worse.
See what I mean? If you would bother to actually do a little reading on this site you will not find much to reinforce those images. Or you could just keep charging those windmills, because frankly after spending some time reading at your site I really don’t see you offering much here.
Ric, does “nuanced” mean believe without any evidence? ‘Cause that is the only way to make your claim make sense.
Here’s a clue for the professor: It’s about the jihad.
Not Iraq, not Israel, not disenfranchisement and not disgust with their own dictators. It’s the jihad.
Always has been, always will.
They just see it Robin. It is like mystic visions and shit.
B Moe, less mystic visions and more the latter I suspect.
Ric is just trying to butter up his “weenie boy” wannabe meme. Unfortunately he can’t see the sticks for the stones.
yours/
peter.
I wanted to comment on this.
“See what I mean? If you would bother to actually do a little reading on this site you will not find much to reinforce those images. ”
This site is just as wretched as any other right-wing site. You guys hide it pretty well, but you buy into Michael Yon’s phony military romanticism and perpetual “we’re turning the corner just now” optimism. He thought things were getting a lot better in Mosul last year as well. Likewise, there were plenty of bigoted comments about women’s studies in replies to my “weenie boy” post earlier in the week. This is a hip version of right-wing crap, but the crap is still the same. It’s not making much impact either. The disapprove number on the Libby commutation in one survey today was 64%. In the same survey, 54% wanted to see the House begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney.
Wow. With data like that, there’s no stopping you guys. Ask me, the moon’s in the Seventh House and Jupiter’s aligned with Mars. We had a good run, huh?
and a majority of people used to think the earth was flat. your point is?
Here we go again–“Anger over American support for Israel.”
1948: Arabs start war. Lose. Bitch about it.
1956: Arabs start war. Lose. (U.S. actully supported Egypt diplomatically here.) World bitches about it until UK, France, and Israel withdraw.
1967. Arabs preempted in starting war. Lose (in spectacular fashion). Bitch about it.
1973. Arabs start war. Lose. Bitch about it.
Iran, in the mean time, sets up its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, who stop at NOTHING to provoke Israel into killing civilians so that tools like Ric can speak about Arab anger about U.S. support for Israel. I defy Ric or any other willfully historically ignorant or intellectually dishonest “nuancer” to demonstrate where Israel has ever wanted any thing other than secure borders with neighbors that recognize its right to exist. Because if it had–there would be a bitchin’ JOOOOOOO empire stretching from the Tigris to the Nile.
#
Comment by Ric Caric on 7/6 @ 10:59 pm #
I wanted to comment on this.
“See what I mean? If you would bother to actually do a little reading on this site you will not find much to reinforce those images. â€Â
This site is just as wretched as any other right-wing site.
Damn the objectivity! Full biaas ahead.
You guys hide it pretty well, but you buy into Michael Yon’s phony military romanticism and perpetual “we’re turning the corner just now†optimism.
Now you’re just being jealous. because you aren’t being accurate.
He thought things were getting a lot better in Mosul last year as well.
They were, for a little while.But the troops lacked your support to get the job done right.
Likewise, there were plenty of bigoted comments about women’s studies in replies to my “weenie boy†post earlier in the week. This is a hip version of right-wing crap, but the crap is still the same.
And what you spew isn’t? Oh! THAT”S what you mean by nuance! I get it now.
It’s not making much impact either. The disapprove number on the Libby commutation in one survey today was 64%. In the same survey, 54% wanted to see the House begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney.
So we can put you down as being in favor of doing what is popular rather than doing what is right. Right?
I didn’t realize one could get a professorship in vacuousness.
I just wanted to comment on this.
Professor, you are even more of an idiot than most other left wing bloggers, and an utterly pretentious little bitch. If you ever had an independent thought, it would die of loneliness and if you ever had an original thought, you would die from the shock.
Yes, he sees improvement in Diyala. Likewise the price of corn is skyrocketing. What in the everloving fuck are you talking about, Ric? Does it not matter to you that you write with exactly zero logical coherency? And who are you to call Yon’s report “military romanticism and perpetual optimism”? What is the basis of your knowledge, and how are you any sort of authority on the subject?
Oh noz! Global warming is going to kill us! Save us Al Gore! As soon as the twice elected George W. Bush leaves office, that is. Ric, you need to go spend some time in the science departments and learn about how things actually impact upon each other. Then you should apologize to everyone you’ve ever instructed and retire to a quiet life of organic bean farming. Meanwhile, we’ll conduct a poll in Diyala and see how it’s denizens view the Libby commutation.
Rusty,
Absolutely right. See here.
To Rusty,
If you want to play the “if only we had more troops” game, you should have been playing it in 2004 when it would have made a difference. Of course, the only people who were saying that in 2004 were anti-war types and Bush administration leakers. Everybody on the right thought 130,000 troops was more than enough.
Yon’s basic argument is that the surge is succeeding because the Sunni population is more hospitable in some areas. But the primary goal of the surge is to secure Baghdad and push the Iraqi government into making necessary compromises. However, Baghdad is not secure or anywhere close to it and the situation in Diyala got so bad that 10,000 troops had to be taken out of Baghdad. If only we had more troops.
You’re also create a moral equivalence between my “weenie-boy” comments and the homophobic bigotry found on this web site. That’s the farthest thing from the truth. My “weenie boy concept” is designed to unmask an effective right-wing rhetorical strategy and to tease political opponents whose energy and creativity I respect. In fact, I make a concept of “the gift” for turning weeniness into the normative standard of political masculinity. One of the things I emphasize in my writing about Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter is what gifted people they are and how the particular nature of their gifts has to be understood if they are to be effectively opposed. I regularly refer to Tom DeLay as a genius and Mitch McConnell as the “smartest political figure in America” as well.
To the contrary, homophobia is like racism in that it postulates that its targets have a “defective nature,” presumes to deny gay people many of the basic privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals (marriage, family insurance, custody rights, certain kinds of jobs, and housing), and views gay people as legitimate targets of violence. And there’s a significant amount of that violence to be had where I’m from in Kentucky.
“Likewise, there were plenty of bigoted comments about women’s studies in replies to my “weenie boy†post earlier in the week. This is a hip version of right-wing crap, but the crap is still the same.
No professor, those are humorous responses to real pieces of crap like this:
http://frayedwriter.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-sex-killed-jesus-2nd-draft.html
You are a professor of history, and you attempt an analysis of what really happened at the passion based solely on the Bible? An analysis that doesn’t even mention the Romans? That ridiculous piece of self-aggrandizing fantasy is precisely the reason any academic is regarding initially with suspicion here. You want to know how real Biblical history is done? Read some John Dominic Crosnan, Karen Armstrong, or Bruton Mack, for starters. Then get down on your knees and thank God for tenure for light-weight, pandering poseurs like yourself.
By the way, general consensus among real historians is the Roman’s killed Jesus. Crucifixion was the execution method of the Roman government, to say any one else did it is like saying a lynch mob executed somebody in a gas chamber. The Roman’s killed him because the Temple was Roman property and Jesus attacked it, it was a fuck you, remember we own your ass to the rest of the Jews.
Rusty:”So we can put you down as being in favor of doing what is popular rather than doing what is right. Right?
From the good profs latest:
“But Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating over 60% despite the Lewinsky scandal and the Marc Rich scandal.”
http://red-state.blogspot.com/2007/07/one-more-permutation-ought-to-do-it.html
Morality doesn’t enter in to it. When I was a political neophyte, the end doesn’t justify the means was the rallying cry we used to demand Nixon’s impeachment. That sentiment eems to have fallen from favor among the modern left.
We give credit, too, professor. Like we are all the time saying how good a shyster John Edwards was, especially for a little faggot.
Let’s see your homework, Professor.
“military romanticism” – Sir, have you actually ever read any of Mr. Yon’s writings? “Romanticism” is the very last thing he could be accused of… He tells the good, the bad, the brave and the sad. He has been pessimisstic, optimistic and at all times very guarded in what he feels. He also tell us what is opinion and what he is simply passing along as fact – you know, all nuancey and such.
Bah.
If war, and by extension, the military, are absolute evil and never justified, then any one defending any aspect of war or the military as worthwhile or constructive is romanticizing. Is that what you mean, professor?
No. Ric. The comment wasn’t about troop strength, but commitment to their mission. They aren’t Bushes troops, but they are our troops. I’m nuanced that way.
The surge is succeeding because the indigenous population is sick and tired of getting killed by AlQueda. No. not just to secure Bagdad, but the whole country. But hey. At least you’re not comparing it to vietnam anymore. We got that going for us.
So you’re a general now?
I have no idea where the hell you got that homoerotic stuff from, but if you look at the top of the page the topic is ‘root causes’ of islamic jihad. If you’re trying to make the case that they are disenfranchised homosexuals, I think you have an uphill grind.(No pun intended.)( Oh. hell. Yeah. Pun intended.)
When one is able to define “homophobic bigotry” as “not following the policy prescriptions that I favor for homosexuals,” of course there is a degree of “homophobic bigotry” on this site.
But what you don’t seem to get, professor, is that the people like me — who have done the academic thing and are quite well versed in its attempts to shame and place opponents on the defensive as a way to derail argument — aren’t fooled for a moment by such studied schtick.
I have written extensively about my support for civil unions, and my reluctance to support same sex marriage. My arguments have been made and are open to criticism and rebuttal. And, in fact, if you were to read the last few threads on the topic, you’d see that many regulars here disagree with me (though I’m sure, to your way of thinking, they maintain their “homophobic bigotry” by sheer dint of who they may have voted for in the most recent presidential election).
In short, you know nothing about this site — and yet you make blanket assumptions about it, including how it tracks with all other rightwing sites.
Though I shouldn’t have to state the obvious to an educator (ah, were it truly so!), there is nothing inherently “homophobic” about disagreeing with a policy that would alter the traditional definition of marriage — particularly when the person making the argument has supported same sex civil unions and would support the kinds of partnership protections granted to those viewed by the state as married.
Similarly, there is nothing “racist” about opposing race-based affirmative action — except in the bizarro world of progressive politics, where institutionalized racial consciousness in the aid of ending racial consciousness (when it manifests itself as racism; the story is different, evidently, when it manifests itself as Crayola-brand “diversity”) counts as being race neutral, and being racially “colorblind” counts as being “racist.”
As I noted the other day, I’m available to debate you on any of these issues. But be aware that if you’re used to getting by on simply trotting out academic language and then doing a bit of strategic name dropping, you’ll find me unimpressed. Similarly, you’ll find that, having now explained to you the intellectual emptiness of what are transparent attempts to turn policy disputes — which by nature are open questions — into ontological deficiencies in your opponents’ moral fiber, I’ll not be forced, in the future, to have to defend myself against your first (and, I suspect, your favored) line of attack.
What you see as the fact of my “homophobia” is undercut by my willingness to treat homosexuals the same way I treat everyone else — and not as exotic plants that need special foods and lighting conditions to thrive. You might think of homosexuals as exhibits to be entered into contests — who has raised the most colorful and healthy gay person, and what does that say about just how much the grower cares — but I think of them simply as other people who happen to enjoy different sexual arrangements than I do.
And, given that I’m not a misanthropist and don’t hate everyone, the fact that I treat homosexuals as I would any other group member suggests that, far from being homophobic, I am far more comfortable with the fact of homosexuality than are people of your ilk in whose interests it is to keep “them” exotic.
With progressives like you, professor, it is never about the group you claim to champion. Instead, it is always about the light that championing throws on you — on the fatuous thinking that the causes you favor necessarily reflect on your own moral and social worth.
Now. I’m ready. Let’s begin, shall we?
Your move.
Jeff,
Swoon. Take me. Take me now.
Of course he does, Jeff. It saves him the time and trouble of having to read anything that might threaten his preconceived notions or cause him to do any independent thinking. Ric lives by the narrative and he’ll die by the narrative. Ain’t no stupid reality gonna get in the way of his blinkered, and dare I say hateful, existence/worldview.
In short: “Screw you, you filthy Reichwinger” is the best you ought ever expect out of this one. While it would be nice to be pleasantly surprised, I wouldn’t count on it. This one is too utterly convinced of his own righteousness and omniscience which, if I surmise correctly, is granted along with tenure.
Why are you bothering to converse with someone who sees all he declares “right-wing” as a cancer? He’s just biding his time, fantasizing about chemotherapy.
Yeah, professor. That’s what I thought.