They all ought to be waterboarded, shot, and then pissed on.

I believe that we need to be more nuanced when it comes to tagging the entire sub-continent with the "desi" moniker. It is still unclear if there were any Indians in the coterie that was picked up by the Spanish authorities & even if there were, it is not clear if they were just inadvertently caught up in the sweep. Here are some links that shed some light on the evolving situation...
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/265316.html
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080039148&ch=1/21/2008+9:58:00+PM

Is it 1984 already?

"They had the will but not the means,"

"We can't take the risk of carrying out the investigation with suicide bombers and in any given moment there is an attack."

I'm glad the Spanish have adopted our 'shoot first, ask questions never, ostracize anyone who objects' tactics. Based on that article, there is unsubstantiated hearsay, no evidence, and hazy intent?

bake 'em away, toys.

Marl is onto something. Since when did all of S Asia become "des"? If just one of them is Indian then how come all are desi?

Because it’s the first bust-up I’ve seen where all the terrorists were desi -

Today (Jan 25) is the fifteenth anniversary of the murder of a CIA Agent by a Pakistani in Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_CIA_shootings. ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_CIA_shootings. The Pakistani terrorist was arrested in Karachi (and later put to sleep in 2002)

At least when it come terrorism in the west let us drop the South Asian moniker. Pakistani terror cells are nothing new. An all Indian terror cell would be news (although it will not surprising).

From the second article that Marl Balou linked to:

The Spanish police today linked all the arrested men with Pakistan-based Lashker-e-Taiba terror outfit.

Interesting...

Is it 1984 already?

"They had the will but not the means,"

"We can't take the risk of carrying out the investigation with suicide bombers and in any given moment there is an attack."

I'm glad the Spanish have adopted our 'shoot first, ask questions never, ostracize anyone who objects' tactics. Based on that article, there is unsubstantiated hearsay, no evidence, and hazy intent?

bake 'em away, toys.

AR - I read all the articles linked - where are you getting this from?

Oh shit, never mind, somehow I missed the first one that vinod linked.

Marl is onto something. Since when did all of S Asia become "des"?

In the phrase "Desi-born Desi (DBD)", the first "Desi" means India and the second "Desi" means a member of the diaspora.

In the phrase "American-born Desi (ABD)", "Desi" means a member of the diaspora.

So, "Desi" has two meanings, India and a member of the diaspora.

If we agree on "Desi" having two meanings, Vinod's post is OK.

In the phrase "Desi-born Desi (DBD)", the first "Desi" means India and the second "Desi" means a member of the diaspora.

Huh? The first 'Desi'/'Desh' refers to the subcontinent in general, I thought.

I think the point that Marl Balou was making was that if all of the desis happen to be of the same nationality, why not just point out that nationality specifically? Especially for international relations/political-related issues.

Though at least the original post didn't refer to them as 'desi's.'

It does sound to me like the guy from Mumbai and the guy from Hyderabad (my bet is on Indian Hyderabad) just got caught up in the sweep.

how about you change the 'desi' qualifier to 'LLM' - as in Look Like Me.
the viewpoints thus expressed would be easier to absorb.

how about you change the 'desi' qualifier to 'LLM' - as in Look Like Me. the viewpoints thus expressed would be easier to absorb.

what do you mean by 'viewpoints thus expressed would be easier to absorb'?

and i don't think i should offend the scythians by insinuating that short/dark/lemurian me looks anything like them...

what do you mean by 'viewpoints thus expressed would be easier to absorb'?

nothin' deep nala. just pointing out that national origin is hardly the central topic here.

I disagree... I agree it's pointless to nitpick over the use of 'desis' in the post, but national origin does matter... it already looks like one, possibly two, Indian guys got arrested along with the others, but got bailed out by the Indian consulate. And for other reasons as well, I would be surprised if there were to be discovered an international terror cell made up entirely of Indian nationals.

Mohamed Shoaib, Mehmooh Khalib,Imran Cheema, Maroof Ahmed, Mirza Mohammad,Ayud Elahi Bibi,Mohamed Tarik,QadeerMalik,Hafeez Ahmed,Roshan Jamal Khan,Sarosh Ali Mohammed
Gee...I wonder what connects all these people....HAS to be a common link,something that points towards a shared ideology, a casus belli.Try as I might, it still eludes me....
Damn..I give up. I cannot think of the connecting thread.
Guess these chaps are indeed all DESIS.

I am in no mood for an anti-South Asian/desi/umbrella moniker-thread; all of you have chosen to come to a blog which considers desi a term for all those from the subcontinent. If you are new to this blog, please visit our archives for that acrimonious battle vs. telling us why we are wrong.

Wear a button on your own time:

The hostility towards Japanese Americans led other Asian
Americans to take efforts to distinguish themselves, lest they become
targets. Many people took to wearing buttons declaring “I am
Chinese,” “I am Filipino,” or “I am Korean.” [link]

Back on topic, please.

SM Intern, I don't have a problem with the use of the term desi... I just disagreed with khoofia on the matter of nationality mattering/not mattering.

14 · nala said

I disagree... I agree it's pointless to nitpick over the use of 'desis' in the post, but national origin does matter... it already looks like one, possibly two, Indian guys got arrested along with the others, but got bailed out by the Indian consulate.

Nala, while you have wholesome concerns about this, others don't. Khoofia is right.

And I don't think that me thinking that nationality matters is equivalent to me condoning internment camps for people who look like me but aren't of the same nationality.

SM intern
I fully agree with you.
Nationality has nothing to do with it.

19 · nala said

And I don't think that me thinking that nationality matters is equivalent to me condoning internment camps for people who look like me but aren't of the same nationality.

Nala, I was not implying that and I'm sorry if it seemed as if I were. That wasn't for you.

Nala, I was not implying that and I'm sorry if it seemed as if I were. That wasn't for you.

It's cool... I see that this thread has already seen its fair share of, um, extreme thinking.

I think calling all these guys as desis takes away the spotlight from the historical reasons why Pakistan has become such a hotbed for terrorism. It also gives a fillip to people like Paramhansa above, who insist that the problem is with all muslims, and not embedded in historical or political issues.

I think calling all these guys as desis takes away the spotlight from the historical reasons why Pakistan has become such a hotbed for terrorism. It also gives a fillip to people like Paramhansa above, who insist that the problem is with all muslims, and not embedded in historical or political issues.

Well said... I agree 100%.

And I think arguing about "who gets to be a desi" is totally inappropriate and an easy way to get this thread closed. Sakshi and Nala, you are both bringing up nuance in a conversation which can easily sweep such thoughtfulness elsewhere.

I am just pointing to the moon.
Whether you look at the finger or the moon is entirely up to you.
I asked a frank question.
Let us have an honest discussion. Burying our heads in the sand will help neither you or me.

Sakshi and Nala, you are both bringing up nuance in a conversation which can easily sweep such thoughtfulness elsewhere.

Ok, let me add a teeny bit more nuance before bowing out. From the pov of minority solidarity in the US, it is a v wise move not to make such distinctions. But seeing South Asia as one blog is totally not the way to think about world issues. A country is not the same as its diaspora. A Pakistani American may feel they have a lot in common with an Indian American. But that does not mean that India and Pakistan would share the same vision.

Nor. My bad

But seeing South Asia as one blog

I meant one bloc.

27 · sakshi said

A Pakistani American may feel they have a lot in common with an Indian American. But that does not mean that India and Pakistan would share the same vision.

We totally agree, but keep in mind, we are a South-Asian American blog, written from a second-gen perspective, so we will approach things as Americans in the diaspora. It gets us nowhere to have to parse these terms constantly, or come up with fine print, exclusions and exceptions.

Paramhansha, if you can have this conversation without blanket statements or general condemnation which results in lumping in innocent people with terrorists, converse away.

23 · sakshi said

I think calling all these guys as desis takes away the spotlight from the historical reasons why Pakistan has become such a hotbed for terrorism. It also gives a fillip to people like Paramhansa above, who insist that the problem is with all muslims, and not embedded in historical or political issues.

Sakshi, some of us are not trying to troll but are genuinely stating our true opinions. Can you explain what are the political and historical issues that led to an attempt to bomb Madrid by Pakistanis?

Wow...everyday I'm learning how bias people are towards Muslims on this website(I'm talking about the readers who leave comments not the blog posters-all though some of you sometimes sound like you got shady intentions).

When did Pakistanis not become desi? You have to remember we are all a product of artificial borders. We use to live side by side-part of one country. How are the hindu SouthAsian's desi and the muslim one's not. We "desis" need to stop distancing ourselves from each other to please white people.Instead, we should be trying to get to the root of the problem and reconcile our differences. I didn't want to it bring to the Hindu-Muslim thing but my hand was forced and this site always claimed to represent desis but the majority of posts have been very Indian/Hindu centric....anyway I agree with SM Intern-I'm sure theres been some epic battles on this topic...so im sure you've heard this before. As Nala pointed out there are some hypocritical Mo-Fo's that read this website, this is my first and last comment. One

32 · Ali said

this is my first and last comment.

Can't win, but we keep trying.

FWIW, I'm a non-hindu, non-hindi speaker and yet more than comfortable grouping myself in the "desi" category...

31 · JGandhi said

Sakshi, some of us are not trying to troll but are genuinely stating our true opinions. Can you explain what are the political and historical issues that led to an attempt to bomb Madrid by Pakistanis?

Of course, the reasons behind this particular attack is not an immediate political and historical grievance. But there are v well-documented reasons for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan, involving Saudi petro-dollars, American interference in Pakistan due to the cold war and the myopic vision of the Pakistani army about its country's future. That's all I'll say on this, because I don't want to derail this thread.

35 · sakshi said

But there are v well-documented reasons for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan, involving Saudi petro-dollars, American interference in Pakistan due to the cold war and the myopic vision of the Pakistani army about its country's future. That's all I'll say on this, because I don't want to derail this thread.

I thought your comment was totally on topic. It's a far more desirable direction to head in than "Who is a desi?" or "All Muslims are terrorists." The reason why discussions about Islam don't stay open on this site are because of a lack of such honesty, historical context, fairness and nuance.

On that note, this might be a trivial thing to focus on, but one of the men is named Imran Cheema... I thought that 'Cheema' as a Pakistani surname was found only among Punjabis. I would guess that most of the Pakistani men would be from the NWFP, but I guess not in this case. Can anyone point out where in Pakistan these men might be from?

They all ought to be waterboarded, shot, and then pissed on.

Shouldnt Rudy be campaigning in Florida instead of leaving anonymous comments here.

35 · sakshi said

Of course, the reasons behind this particular attack is not an immediate political and historical grievance. But there are v well-documented reasons for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan, involving Saudi petro-dollars, American interference in Pakistan due to the cold war and the myopic vision of the Pakistani army about its country's future.

Doesn't this explanation reduce Pakistanis to puppets? Pakistanis are just like you and me, able to discern between good and bad and in such case morally responsible for their political and religious positions. A lot of these fundamentalist movements sprung from the grassroots(ie Deobandi school). I'm not sure why American interference in Pakistan causes a young Pakistani man in Spain or London to decide to blow up buildings and kill innocent people. The more plausible explanation is he is doing it because thats what he believes Islam compels him to do.

If we look at the demographics, these terrorists do not come from any of Pakistan's minority religious communities. they also don't come from the Shiite faction. These terrorists are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims. In addition this isn't an exclusively Pakistani phenomenon. Terrorists also come from Arabic countries and the Arab terrorists are also always Sunni Muslim.

I think the logical conclusion is that there is an extremely virulent form of extremism in Islam. This leads to any country with a Sunni Muslim population to inevitably suffer a terrorist attack and face a radical movement in their midst.

Calling these terrorists "Desi" while not even mentioning they are Muslim disguises this problem. The terrorist impulse is a function of these men's religious beliefs not their ethnicity.

All desis....until this transpires on the Indo-Pak border.

Jeeze, Vinod. I seriously cannot believe you made the "desi" slip like that. It's BROWNZ, man, don't you remember?

It's like it's 2004 all over again or something. I think this des-...er, brown has PTSD. Where's Razib, dammit?

SM Intern
I am slightly hurt by your statement. I am definitely not a bigot. The brush I attempt to paint with is a fine one.
My point is that there is a diaspora that I identify with (and am identified with),in the land that I live and work in. If some members of that diaspora have shown a tendency to attack their host society,due to whatever cause/perceived injustice/alienation, it must be identified, and that must be done with honesty, without resorting to denial or misplaced political correctness.
I am not uneducated enough to believe that all muslims (including some of my best friends) are extremists, nor am I naive enough to believe that religion has got nothing to do it.
If someone has a better explanation about the motives of these men, I am willing to listen with an open mind.
But I believe that the debate should be an open and honest one

41 · Salil Maniktahla said

It's BROWNZ, man, don't you remember?

WHEATZ!!!

We should be looking at why these men are becoming such extremists and what fuels their hatred. If they are so discontented that they can die while killing innocents then obviously something must be done fast to change this. And this is not a problem of religion, it is an issue of welfare of the society and the country's economy. When killing self leads to the family getting a suicide bonus, why not go for it? If a suicide bombing has no monetary benefits then will the men be still willing enough to die for a cause? We should understand the despair that makes it easier to commit suicide than to find a job and support a family.

All desis....until this transpires on the Indo-Pak border.

Yes, they're all desis. And they're all also (apparently Sunni) Muslims. From Pakistan.

Mohamed Shoaib, Mehmooh Khalib,Imran Cheema, Maroof Ahmed, Mirza Mohammad,Ayud Elahi Bibi,Mohamed Tarik,QadeerMalik,Hafeez Ahmed,Roshan Jamal Khan,Sarosh Ali Mohammed
Gee...I wonder what connects all these people....HAS to be a common link,something that points towards a shared ideology, a casus belli.Try as I might, it still eludes me....
Damn..I give up. I cannot think of the connecting thread.
Guess these chaps are indeed all DESIS.

They are all New England Patriots fans.

JGandhi is mankinds last hope against Islamo-fascism.

We should be looking at why these men are becoming such extremists and what fuels their hatred. If they are so discontented that they can die while killing innocents then obviously something must be done fast to change this. And this is not a problem of religion, it is an issue of welfare of the society and the country's economy. When killing self leads to the family getting a suicide bonus, why not go for it? If a suicide bombing has no monetary benefits then will the men be still willing enough to die for a cause? We should understand the despair that makes it easier to commit suicide than to find a job and support a family.

It's not simply a matter of economic despair... many of the 9/11 hijackers were trained as engineers. The British born-and-bred boys/men responsible for the attacks on the London tube in 2005 were from well-to-do families. After a certain point it is about religious extremism.

42 · Paramhansa said

t must be identified, and that must be done with honesty, without resorting to denial or misplaced political correctness.

Well, now I'm slightly hurt, so we are even. By the way, some of my best friends are Hindu.

I'm all for an open and honest discussion, as long as it is indeed open and honest. So far, so good.

JGandhi
Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery
"JGandhi is mankinds last hope against Islamo-fascism."
First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you.
Then you win

I am not uneducated enough to believe that all muslims (including some of my best friends) are extremists, nor am I naive enough to believe that religion has got nothing to do it.

there is no reason to fear speaking one's mind but there is much risk of this topic being hijacked by haters.

We ban for switching handles on the same thread. You may not be aware of that, so I'll let you have that one, "MKGandhi".

Is it 1984 already?

"They had the will but not the means,"

"We can't take the risk of carrying out the investigation with suicide bombers and in any given moment there is an attack."

I'm glad the Spanish have adopted our 'shoot first, ask questions never, ostracize anyone who objects' tactics. Based on that article, there is unsubstantiated hearsay, no evidence, and hazy intent?

bake 'em away, toys.

From the same article:

In a 72-page ruling, the judge said the cell was operational in terms of manpower and "very close to achieving full technical capacity in terms of explosive devices."

The cell allegedly had detonators and a small amount of explosives — not enough to carry out a major attack, but perhaps enough for "the teaching of how to handle homemade explosive devices that would limit risk to the safety of the handlers."

So the accusation isn't coming completely out of nowhere. And apparently they have a protected witness. Though the 'keeping them in jail while waiting to charge them formally' part has my spidy sense tingling.

49 · SM Intern said

Well, now I'm slightly hurt, so we are even. By the way, some of my best friends are Hindu.

Well played, SM intern. Your ever-so-subtle snarks and competence are remarkable; I am going to urge my intern to emulate you.

Forgot to add- but that's a far cry from 'shoot first, ask questions later, ostracize anyone who objects.' They even let two of the guys go after some dilly-dallying with the Indian consulate. That's a far cry from the USSR.

We ban for switching handles on the same thread. You may not be aware of that, so I'll let you have that one, "MKGandhi".

Who is MKGandhi :)

First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you.

Are 'they' the Islamo-fascists?

43 · Manju said

WHEATZ!!!

Hey, lemurians are desi too.

[This is portmanteau, btw.]

Hey, lemurians are desi too.

I'm confused - I thought wheatish did describe the more lemur-complexioned among us?

48 · nala said

It's not simply a matter of economic despair... many of the 9/11 hijackers were trained as engineers.

This is true and intersting. if i recall, there was a survey in the UK demonstrating a correlation between income, education, and radical islam...the correlation being the exact opposite of what we would assume.

This is true and intersting. if i recall, there was a survey in the UK demonstrating a correlation between income, education, and radical islam...the correlation being the exact opposite of what we would assume.

Do you have a link to this?

once you go wheat...oh never mind, once we get nala stared...

once you go wheat...oh never mind, once we get nala stared...

plz manju,
there was no need for that particular ruse.

So can anyone tell me WHY these men want to blow up innocent people? What is their justification for it?

This is true and intersting. if i recall, there was a survey in the UK demonstrating a correlation between income, education, and radical islam...the correlation being the exact opposite of what we would assume

There was this report out last year:

The unexpected profile of the modern terrorist: 26, from a caring family, married, with children, graduate

A study of 172 al-Qaeda terrorists conducted four years ago by Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA case officer in Pakistan, found that 90 per cent came from a relatively stable, secure background.

Three quarters were from middle-class or upper-class families, two thirds went to college and two thirds were professionals or semi-professionals, often engineers, physicians, architects or scientists. The average age for making an active commitment to violent jihad was 26, and three quarters of the terrorists were married, most of them with children. Only one in a hundred had shown any form of psychotic disorder. Two thirds became drawn towards a terror group while living in a country that was not their homeland.
link

63 · nala said

So can anyone tell me WHY these men want to blow up innocent people? What is their justification for it?

I think the simplest answer is the correct one here.

They want to blow people up because they believe that is what Islam teaches them to do. And indeed there is and extremist establishment within Islam that preaches such ideas. The extremist branch is in control of nations, universities, printing presses, mosques, grassroots militias and even television stations throughout the Islamic world. Does "moderate Islam" have anything comparable?

63 · nala said

So can anyone tell me WHY these men want to blow up innocent people?

Maybe they are tired of others speaking on their behalf and think this is the only way that they'll be heard. Dunno--just a guess. If you really want to know, you might start by asking them, themselves.

So can anyone tell me WHY these men want to blow up innocent people? What is their justification for it?

You don't know that? You're such a kafir!

That's a far cry from the USSR.

true, but holding people on unsubstantiated suspicion is not at all a far cry from the USA. Be careful with that 'it's not as bad as x, so it must be okay' argument. Yes, they let a few suspects go. That doesn't make everything okay.

The problem with this tactic is that alleged terror cells are now presumed guilty until proven innocent. I think maybe that's a bit backwards.

And for the love of whatever you hold sacred, can we please, PLEASE stop with the Islam bashing? It's getting a bit tired.

Maybe they are tired of others speaking on their behalf and think this is the only way that they'll be heard. Dunno--just a guess. If you really want to know, you might start by asking them, themselves.

What? I don't understand this. But please note that I said 'men who want to blow themselves up and kill innocent people' in my question, not 'Muslims.' I honestly am curious as to what political/religious/historical/psychological/socioeconomic factors would cause someone to do this.

You don't know that? You're such a kafir!

Well I am a kafir, but I don't understand the significance of this point either...?

true, but holding people on unsubstantiated suspicion is not at all a far cry from the USA. Be careful with that 'it's not as bad as x, so it must be okay' argument. Yes, they let a few suspects go. That doesn't make everything okay.

I know, I was just trying to inject some, er, nuance into the discussion. Besides, why you gotta go and demean my beloved Oceania?

69 · nala said

What? I don't understand this.

You asked somebody reading this site to explain the motivations of these would-be "terrorists." I am suggesting that you sidestep the middle-men and ask the would-be "terrorists" themselves. Unfortunately, the infantilizing mainstream media probably assumes that you and the unwashed masses cannot "handle the truth," so I wouldn't expect CNN to be broadcasting statements from would-be "terrorists" any time soon (such statements might contain "coded messages" or some other such bollocks, after all.) So your next best bet would be to find out who these guys owe their allegiance to and research their leader's statements/sermons/etc.

Get it? Seek primary sources. The rest is just conjecture, at best.

You asked somebody reading this site to explain the motivations of these would-be "terrorists." I am suggesting that you sidestep the middle-men and ask the would-be "terrorists" themselves. Unfortunately, the infantilizing mainstream media probably assumes that you and the unwashed masses cannot "handle the truth," so I wouldn't expect CNN to be broadcasting statements from would-be "terrorists" any time soon (such statements might contain "coded messages" or some other such bollocks, after all.) So your next best bet would be to find out who these guys owe their allegiance to and research their leader's statements/sermons/etc.

Get it? Seek primary sources. The rest is just conjecture, at best.

I agree, primary sources are a good place to go to. But it's hard when they've blown themselves up... and that would kind of defeat the entire purpose of academia. Aside, why is "terrorists" in quotation marks? I don't necessarily mean the men in this story, since we don't know the entire story here yet, but men who follow this general pattern of blowing themselves up and killing innocent people (WTC/Pentagon, Madrid train bombings, Bali, London tube, etc.) for whatever reason(s).

Is a "terrorist" like a "progressive"- something that's been maligned too often on SM's comment threads?

Nala,
Wherever there is rigidity in the socio-political sphere, intolerance is born. This could be a simple fear of the 'other',a loyalty towards inherited prejudices,a deep resentment against perceived historical injustices, a religious duty to dominate and proliferate, or all of the above.
In Britain I realized the power of the 'pan national religion' against ties of nationality, ethnicity and language, which I used to think always trumped all others.
Maybe things are different in America. I hope so.
Anyway, I hope sanity prevails.

So can anyone tell me WHY these men want to blow up innocent people? What is their justification

Regarding why some might attack Spain, Al Qaeda has announced that they want to regain Spain, because it was once ruled by Muslims.

39 · JGandhi Terrorists also come from Arabic countries and the Arab terrorists are also always Sunni Muslim

Err--no. Hezbollah consists mainly of Shiite Arabs from southern Lebanon.
Plus leadership of Syria are not Sunni and have terrorized Lebanese politicians.
Plus, of course, there are non-Middle East terrorist groups if you look around. For example, to name just a few that come to mind, in South America FARC & Shining Path, in Europe IRA, and in east Asia you had the Japanese Red Army faction.

The unexpected profile of the modern terrorist: 26, from a caring family, married, with children, graduate
A study of 172 al-Qaeda terrorists conducted four years ago by Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA case officer in Pakistan, found that 90 per cent came from a relatively stable, secure background.

Three quarters were from middle-class or upper-class families, two thirds went to college and two thirds were professionals or semi-professionals, often engineers, physicians, architects or scientists. The average age for making an active commitment to violent jihad was 26, and three quarters of the terrorists were married, most of them with children. Only one in a hundred had shown any form of psychotic disorder. Two thirds became drawn towards a terror group while living in a country that was not their homeland. link

Well, I imagine they'd have to be relatively emotionally stable to be trusted to reliably carry out their missions. They'd have to be technically proficient too, so the science background makes sense, and (based on my experience of hard science types) also makes them more likely to be conservative (married), and perhaps rigid in personality than someone in the humanities or social sciences. So, I guess I don't see those findings as all that ironic - they make sense as selection rather than causal factors.

On the other hand, I'd love to hear a psychoanalyst profile the psyche of the average terrorist. Anyone familiar with philosopher Charles Taylor's ideas on the impact of modernity, identity politics and loss of honor culture? I feel like that figures in there somewhere because it is a stilted, politicized, identitarian notion of Islam that they parrot.

75 · rob said

39 · JGandhi Terrorists also come from Arabic countries and the Arab terrorists are also always Sunni Muslim

Err--no. Hezbollah consists mainly of Shiite Arabs from southern Lebanon.Plus leadership of Syria are not Sunni and have terrorized Lebanese politicians.Plus, of course, there are non-Middle East terrorist groups if you look around. For example, to name just a few that come to mind, in South America FARC & Shining Path, in Europe IRA, and in east Asia you had the Japanese Red Army faction.

Rob, I think JGandhi is just trying to point out that the common link between *Muslim* terrorists is Islam

So can anyone tell me WHY these men want to blow up innocent people? What is their justification for it?

Well, their definition of "innocent people" is slightly different from the usuall, for these men non-muslims are not innocent:

Killing of Non-Muslims is Legitimate

Focus: Undercover in the academy of hatred

Zachariah preached that the non-believers were dispensable: They are kuffar. They are not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state.

He explained that his lament for the innocent applied only to Muslims. It was a linguistic sleight of hand which he summarised as: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar.

I hope those links help answer your question.

79 · SBD
Well, their definition of "innocent people" is slightly different from the usuall, for these men non-muslims are not innocent:

Yes, true. It's worth noting too that Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists also kill Muslims that don't toe their political line--like Hariri in Lebanon, plenty of Iraqi and Algerian civilians and politicians, Sadat, etc.

I guess Hariri wasn't killed by Islamic extremists, though the Syrian government has ties to such groups. But the Syrian government is more of a European-inspired ideology--Baathism.

I think "progressives" legitimately open themselves to criticisms of stifling debate with the bogey of political correctness if the only acceptable theories are those that venture exclusively non religious claims, and ignore the pathological interpretations of faith and ideology that are responsible for behaviors like these. However, the regressives (no quotes) who lose no opportunity to paint all Muslims with a broad brush stroke of primitivism would be at least a tad more credible if they were willing to look inward to the intolerance of by their co-religionists, without always making apologies and claiming nuance for those behaviors - I mean, your belief and justifications of those behaviors must be really deeply set if you are unable to bring yourself to condemn them even on a web forum where talk is cheap.

And while Islam might be a particularly attractive target right now, I think the long run of history lends itself to a much more non-denominational explanation of these atrocities.

82 · Rahul
However, the regressives (no quotes) who lose no opportunity to paint all Muslims with a broad brush stroke of primitivism would be at least a tad more credible if they were willing to look inward to the intolerance of by their co-religionists, without always making apologies and claiming nuance for those behaviors - I mean, your belief and justifications of those behaviors must be really deeply set if you are unable to bring yourself to condemn them even on a web forum where talk is cheap.

Great point, Rahul!
While I don't think you group me with the regressives, I'll start--I am very much opposed to the LTTE. They terrorize Tamil families by kidnapping children to fight, killing Tamils who dissent from their dictatorial rule, and also kill non-Tamil civilians and politicians. Bad guys.

While I don't think you group me with the regressives

No, I don't.

While I don't think you group me with the regressives, I'll start--I am very much opposed to the LTTE. They terrorize Tamil families by kidnapping children to fight, killing Tamils who dissent from their dictatorial rule, and also kill non-Tamil civilians and politicians. Bad guys.

The LTTE is an ethnic-based group, not a religion-based one. Though they are the ones that started it all re: suicide bombing.

85 · nala The LTTE is an ethnic-based group, not a religion-based one.

So, the Tamil-speaking Muslims they expelled from Jaffna are a different ethnicity?
(You can say yes--it's not a rhetorical question.)

I think "progressives" legitimately open themselves to criticisms of stifling debate with the bogey of political correctness if the only acceptable theories are those that venture exclusively non religious claims, and ignore the pathological interpretations of faith and ideology that are responsible for behaviors like these.

I agree. I only brought up the term "progressive" though, because I didn't understand why "terrorist" was in quotation marks. The notion that 'terrorism' is really 'freedom fighting' is repulsive to me.

82 · Rahul said

However, the regressives (no quotes) who lose no opportunity to paint all Muslims with a broad brush stroke of primitivism would be at least a tad more credible if they were willing to look inward to the intolerance of by their co-religionists, without always making apologies and claiming nuance for those behaviors

i agree with you in principle, rahul, and nuance is often the last refuge of the scoundrel...but asking the hindu or christian right to look inward during times like this strikes as equivalent to asking blacks to also address black racism in the early 60's. context and degree matter.

reminds me of high school when we were taught about communism, immediately followed by mccarthyism to balance things out.

The LTTE is an ethnic-based group, not a religion-based one. Though they are the ones that started it all re: suicide bombing.

In the 20th Century, it was the Japanese military that refined suicide(Kamikaze) bombing as a combat tactic. The LTTE seems to follow this style too.

The ritual act of self-sacrifice during combat appeared in a large scale at the end of World War II with the Japanese kamikaze bombers. In these attacks, airplanes were used as flying bombs. Later in the war, as Japan became more desperate, this act became formalized and ritualized, as planes were outfitted with explosives specific to the task of a suicide mission. Kamikaze strikes were a weapon of symmetric war used by the Empire of Japan chiefly against United States Navy aircraft carriers. link

So, the Tamil-speaking Muslims they expelled from Jaffna are a different ethnicity? (You can say yes--it's not a rhetorical question.)

I don't know, I'm not really sure why that happened - I know some members of the LTTE blame 'organizational mishaps' or something for that, and have since invited those Muslims back (which very few have done). But I mean that in the general sense that the Tamil Tigers' root 'cause' is ethnic, not religious, in nature, i.e. they don't have anything against Buddhists, but against the Sri Lankan government (/Sinhalese)... I don't want to say too much about this though, because it's kind of over my head and I don't want to upset/anger anyone with my ignorance. (Not that the 'root' cause really matters that much, terrorism is terrorism, but if you want to condemn terrorism by your co-religionists that's done for religious purposes, the LTTE isn't it, and if you're aiming to get to the 'root cause' of it I don't think you'd find as much stock in religious-based ideology as you would with Muslim terror outfits).

Nala,
You are right for sure that it's certainly not just a "religious" conflict.
But, there's an overlap of language/religion/ethnicity that makes it simplistic, too, to say it's "just" ethnic. Maybe more ethnic than religious, ok, but you cert. won't find too many Muslims or Buddhists in the LTTE--Hindus and Christians, yes. But I like to think of their leaders as European socialist-inspired atheists!

However, the regressives (no quotes) who lose no opportunity to paint all Muslims with a broad brush stroke of primitivism would be at least a tad more credible if they were willing to look inward to the intolerance of by their co-religionists, without always making apologies and claiming nuance for those behaviors

i agree with you in principle, rahul, and nuance is often the last refuge of the scoundrel...but asking the hindu or christian right to look inward during times like this strikes as equivalent to asking blacks to also address black racism in the early 60's. context and degree matter.

I actually find this kind of funny - in discussions about how Muslims are persecuted in India, some people say things like 'why don't you talk about all the Hindus being persecuted in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, etc.' Is this the reverse of that? We can't condemn or talk about terrorist acts condemned by people of different religions without first qualifying that we condemn the attacks committed by people of the same religion as well?

In the 20th Century, it was the Japanese military that refined suicide(Kamikaze) bombing as a combat tactic. The LTTE seems to follow this style too.

yes - but that was in war. not expressly intended to kill civilians and disrupt public life.

reminds me of high school when we were taught about communism, immediately followed by mccarthyism to balance things out.

btw - i'm glad you were able to filter out the liberal nonsense being pushed on you by your textbooks, manju. ;)

You are right for sure that it's certainly not just a "religious" conflict. But, there's an overlap of language/religion/ethnicity that makes it simplistic, too, to say it's "just" ethnic. Maybe more ethnic than religious, ok, but you cert. won't find too many Muslims or Buddhists in the LTTE--Hindus and Christians, yes. But I like to think of their leaders as European socialist-inspired atheists!

True... I'm just saying that when it comes to terrorists using religion to justify their actions, I don't the analogy of Al Qaeda and the groups it supports, like Lakshar-e-Taiba, to the LTTE is really viable, unless you consider 'Muslim' an ethnicity.

94 · nala True... I'm just saying that when it comes to terrorists using religion to justify their actions, I don't the analogy of Al Qaeda and the groups it supports, like Lakshar-e-Taiba, to the LTTE is really viable, unless you consider 'Muslim' an ethnicity.

Fair enough.
I guess my instinct, though, is to wonder why, if we're talking about terrorism, to limit the discussion to terrorism that's religiously-inspired?
We could, of course, but that seems too arbitrary to me.

I guess my instinct, though, is to wonder why, if we're talking about terrorism, to limit the discussion to terrorism that's religiously-inspired? We could, of course, but that seems too arbitrary to me.

Well I know what the grievances of the LTTE are - they want a Tamil Eelam. What I don't understand about the religious rhetoric of Al Qaeda over the past decade or so, though, is why they recruit men (like this alleged terror cell) from different countries in the Muslim world and send them to kill Westerners. Or why some of those terrorists even grew up in the West (London tube bombers) but still become terrorists. And I thought it was clear that my original question wondering about what would motivate terrorists, that the parameters were already set around those who are influenced by/working with Al Qaeda and similar groups. Part of this also more self-centered - I live in the U.S., and I don't see groups of men that the LTTE claims as part of them that have expressed anti-Western rhetoric and then proceeded to commit terrorist acts because of it, with the intent of killing civilians and destabilizing those countries.

96 · nala said

I guess my instinct, though, is to wonder why, if we're talking about terrorism, to limit the discussion to terrorism that's religiously-inspired? We could, of course, but that seems too arbitrary to me.

Well I know what the grievances of the LTTE are - they want a Tamil Eelam. What I don't understand about the religious rhetoric of Al Qaeda over the past decade or so, though, is why they recruit men (like this alleged terror cell) from different countries in the Muslim world and send them to kill Westerners. Or why some of those terrorists even grew up in the West (London tube bombers) but still become terrorists. And I thought it was clear that my original question wondering about what would motivate terrorists, that the parameters were already set around those who are influenced by/working with Al Qaeda and similar groups. Part of this also more self-centered - I live in the U.S., and I don't see groups of men that the LTTE claims as part of them that have expressed anti-Western rhetoric and then proceeded to commit terrorist acts because of it, with the intent of killing civilians and destabilizing those countries.

Oh, well, that's easy--LTTE's goals are modest on a global scale, and Al Qaeda's/Islamic extremists aren't--the latter want to take over, for example, Spain, Egypt, Algeria . . . . To do the latter, they think attacks on the west which destabize it helps their cause.

Oh, well, that's easy--LTTE's goals are modest on a global scale, and Al Qaeda's/Islamic extremists aren't--the latter want to take over, for example, Spain, Egypt, Algeria . . . . To do the latter, they think attacks on the west which destabize it helps their cause.

And their claim to sovereignty lies in the notion of an Islamic caliphate - e.g. wanting to take over Spain because it was once ruled by Muslims - and in their religious beliefs, which they believe to be incompatible with Western values/influences...

98 · nala And their claim to sovereignty lies in the notion of an Islamic caliphate - e.g. wanting to take over Spain because it was once ruled by Muslims - and in their religious beliefs, which they believe to be incompatible with Western values/influences...

Yep. If you read their stuff (as per Harbeer!), this is exactly what they say. Not only current Muslim-majority areas, but they also want Spain, Isreal, the Balkans, India. . . .

yes - but that was in war. not expressly intended to kill civilians and disrupt public life.

Therein lies the crux of the matter with regards to this generation of terrorists. To them this is war. They define who are "civilians" in the conflict. When you hear double speak like "we do not kill innocent people" you know that it is they who define your innocence. If you pay taxes to support a government they don't like, if you are of a religion they detest, if you support a political system they hate, then you aren't either "innocent" or a "civilian".

Yep. If you read their stuff (as per Harbeer!), this is exactly what they say. Not only current Muslim-majority areas, but they also want Spain, Isreal, the Balkans, India. . . .

I guess it's more difficult to understand because the notion just sounds so ludicrous, especially because it's on such a large scale.

Aside... I think radical Islam (as expressed by local imams, leaflets, etc.) really preys on the insecurities of Muslim kids in Western countries who have to struggle with being Muslim in the West. I dunno, I find it troubling whenever people from any religion compete to see who is 'more [insert religion here].'

Let's just keep in mind that the best way to beat the extremists is to support "regular" Muslims--think Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, Anbar Awakening groups in Iraq, Hariri et al in Lebanon, etc. It's really wrong, silly and counter-productive to turn it into an anti-Muslim thing tout court.

101 · nala said

Aside... I think radical Islam (as expressed by local imams, leaflets, etc.) really preys on the insecurities of Muslim kids in Western countries who have to struggle with being Muslim in the West.

Don't Hindus and Sikhs face the same struggles? And don't racial minorities such as Blacks face even more stigma in the West? How come youths from these communities don't embrace terrorism?

Nala:

Though they are the ones that started it all re: suicide bombing.

Nope: the shias did in Beirut, and quite spectacularly

103 · JGandhi Don't Hindus and Sikhs face the same struggles? And don't racial minorities such as Blacks face even more stigma in the West? How come youths from these communities don't embrace terrorism?

Well, let's be glad they/we don't--some might, under different circumstances.
You would have been wrong to demonize all Irish people back when the IRA setting off bombs in London, no?
Let's not make the enemy bigger than they are by trying to demonize all Muslims. We need the help of the non-extemist ones--they are best-positioned to eliminate the extremists.

102 · rob said

Let's just keep in mind that the best way to beat the extremists is to support "regular" Muslims--think Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, Anbar Awakening groups in Iraq, Hariri et al in Lebanon, etc.

Problem is that even these "regular" Muslims have views that are incompatible with Western democracy (Hariri and Sunni bourgeosie in Beirut is an exception). These groups support pretty fundamentalist inerpretations of the Koran even if they stop short of supporting Al Qaeda.

Moderate Muslims in the West seem disinterested in combating extremist Islam and more interested in condeming Western society for how they react to extremist Islam. I don't see moderate Muslims taking back control of mosques or madrassahs. They're more likely to criticize people like Ibn Warraq and Ayan Hirsi Ali than criticize the actual terrorists.

106 · JGandhi on January 25, 2008 09:47 PM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)

Problem is that even these "regular" Muslims have views that are incompatible with Western democracy (Hariri and Sunni bourgeosie in Beirut is an exception). These groups support pretty fundamentalist inerpretations of the Koran even if they stop short of supporting Al Qaeda.

Yeah, but so what?
It's not a first-order concern of mine that countries have "Western democracy," as long as they're not sending extremists to attack other peoples.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

i agree with you in principle, rahul, and nuance is often the last refuge of the scoundrel..

I certainly agree there are differences in scale (although the massacred Christians and Muslims in India might disagree). I guess it is my atheist variant of the glass houses principle and what you bear moral responsibility for, since you have a proximate ability to change it. That, and the fact that if you choose to turn a blind eye to the same strains of illiberalism in your own religion, while railing about the manifestations in others, you ignore the trajectories of history that have shown that all religions have been fully capable of atrocities when they've felt threatened.

As for whether Hindus and Sikhs face the same strugges of "being Muslim in the west" (!!!), I certainly hope that we don't have to face the results of the fear mongering alluded to in all those questions about "why do these people who do evil have to look like us?" that constantly rear their head in these discussions.

Don't Hindus and Sikhs face the same struggles? And don't racial minorities such as Blacks face even more stigma in the West? How come youths from these communities don't embrace terrorism?

Uh - well there's only been case (that I know of) of Muslim kids raised in the West who carried out terrorist acts (London tube bombings). There's an organized network of extremely conservative Islam that has lots of oil money that it throws at mosques all over the world, so that might be one reason why that ever happened, though the connection between Wahhabism and terrorist groups isn't set in stone either. I agree with some of your points, but I think when you generalize it to statements like 'how come youths from these communities don't embrace terrorism' the conversation doesn't go anywhere.

105 · rob said

Well, let's be glad they/we don't--some might, under different circumstances.
You would have been wrong to demonize all Irish people back when the IRA setting off bombs in London, no?
Let's not make the enemy bigger than they are by trying to demonize all Muslims. We need the help of the non-extemist ones--they are best-positioned to eliminate the extremists.

No one said "all Muslims" are terrorists. But it seems that the extremist Muslims are the loudest and most active segment. Very few Muslims as a percentage of the population carry out suicide bombings. But a larger (yet still small) percentage sympathize with suicide bomings. And an ever larger percent sympathize with the goals of Al Qaeda (Islamic domination over most of the world). CNN has the polls here showing how more than 40% of Pakistanis approve of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorist, but a very large percentage are sympathetic to radical Islam.

Nope: the shias did in Beirut, and quite spectacularly

Except that was also not targeted at civilians...

The Middle East would benefit more from some more "bourgeois" than from some democracy in the short run, IMHO.
Think development paths of S. Korea, Taiwan . . . .

Wow, I am starting to channel Jeane Kirkpatrick!

108 · Rahul said

I guess it is my atheist variant of the glass houses principle and what you bear moral responsibility for, since you have a proximate ability to change it.

I haven't seen you condemn the atrocities of your fellow atheists.You demand Hindus who discuss radical Islam condemn the intolerance other Hindus:

However, the regressives (no quotes) who lose no opportunity to paint all Muslims with a broad brush stroke of primitivism would be at least a tad more credible if they were willing to look inward to the intolerance of by their co-religionists

But you seem to attack Hindus everyday for extremism while never condeming the atrocities of your "coreligionists" (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot). Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

But you seem to attack Hindus everyday for extremism while never condeming the atrocities of your "coreligionists" (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot). Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ah, the standard religious misdirection, that claims that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were motivated by their atheism. I see they teach you well in god school, JGandhi.

I certainly agree there are differences in scale (although the massacred Christians and Muslims in India might disagree).

So would the Hindus of Kashmir and Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya, as well as the lower-caste Hindus that were killed by Muslim mobs during the Gujarat riots. ...I don't want to get into some bizarre pissing match, and I agree with you on a lot of things. My only point in bringing this up is to wonder why you can't just agree without this snideness?

That, and the fact that if you choose to turn a blind eye to the same strains of illiberalism in your own religion, while railing about the manifestations in others, you ignore the trajectories of history that have shown that all religions have been fully capable of atrocities when they've felt threatened.

I agree. But all religions don't have the same rhetoric or reasons for that rhetoric.

As for whether Hindus and Sikhs face the same strugges of "being Muslim in the west" (!!!), I certainly hope that we don't have to face the results of the fear mongering alluded to in all those questions about "why do these people who do evil have to look like us?" that constantly rear their head in these discussions.

Islam is a lot more stigmatized post-9/11 than Hinduism or Sikhism ever were in the U.S., but it can be isolating to grow up as a member of the latter two religions as well. I'm not sure what the exclamation marks are for?

115 · Rahul said

Ah, the standard religious misdirection, that claims that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were motivated by their atheism. I see they teach you well in god school, JGandhi.

Whats up with nuances and evasive responses? Hmmm...you still haven't condemned your fellow atheists. Oh and I don't recall any condemnations of Congress party massacring Sikhs, Nadigram and the persecuation of Falun Gong. It seems to be atheists are wreaking more havoc than the Hindutva movement yet you expect me to condemn my coreligionists and at the same time balk at condemning yours.

And of course you do know that Hindutva movement was founded by an atheist? Wow, you better get started. You got a whole lot of condemning to do.

but it can be isolating to grow up as a member of the latter two religions as well.

In a lame attempt to channel the sadly-missing Razib, let me say, "yeah, but it's pretty isolating to grow up anywhere as a non-tard, too."

I think we should listen to what the so called "terrorists" demand rather than peddling our own assumptions. This is a nice link describing the history of statements by Bin Laden and Al-qaeda.
link

I read Osama bin laden's declaration of "jihad" of 1996. The surprising thing is that (if I remember right) he mentions 'Muslims' are persecuted all over the world and mentions Assam of India.

In a lame attempt to channel the sadly-missing Razib, let me say, "yeah, but it's pretty isolating to grow up anywhere as a non-tard, too."

True. :)

Whats up with nuances and evasive responses? Hmmm...you still haven't condemned your fellow atheists.

JGandhi, what can I say? I find it hard to condemn Pol Pot because I actually worship the images of Pol Pot that I keep in the network of underground tunnels that I have dug in my backyard.

Oh and I don't recall any condemnations of Congress party massacring Sikhs, Nadigram and the persecuation of Falun Gong

You should check your recall then.

And of course you do know that Hindutva movement was founded by an atheist?

A religious nationalist by any other name is still a religious nationalist, and still stinks.

My only point in bringing this up is to wonder why you can't just agree without this snideness?

I was just making the point that scale is great, but a few thousands is not a negligible absolute number either.

But all religions don't have the same rhetoric or reasons for that rhetoric.

Ok.

Islam is a lot more stigmatized post-9/11 than Hinduism or Sikhism ever were in the U.S., but it can be isolating to grow up as a member of the latter two religions as well. I'm not sure what the exclamation marks are for?

I was countering the response to your statement, with which I agree. You specifically talked about the stigma of being "Muslim" in the west, not being brown, which is what the response seemed to be for.

I think Bin laden was referring to the Assam' 1983 massacre of bangladeshi migrants by ULFA.

I don't think of any reason to attack Spain, (after the last attack they have removed their troops from Iraq), unless it is for re-establishing "Al-andalus". Arab Moslems conquered Spain and ruled over it from 712 to late 1400s.

Here is a link to Al-Qaeda's goal of (re)taking Spain.

Whats up with nuances and evasive responses? Hmmm...you still haven't condemned your fellow atheists

You might also want to consider at your leisure why I am not asking "my fellow Hindus" to condemn the LTTE or the naxalites but rather the Hindutva nutjobs, or what Nandigram and the Falun Gong have to do with religiously motivated intolerance.

I was just making the point that scale is great, but a few thousands is not a negligible absolute number either.

If we can't forget absolute numbers, can we go digging into the past and find fodder for the persecution complex espoused by Hindutva then? Not that I think that the number of lives makes a difference when it... what makes a difference is how much power, on an international scale, the people who care about you have. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the number of people killed by religious violence in India in the past 20 years alone outnumbers the number of people killed by terrorist attacks in Western countries in the same time period. But the latter matter more geopolitically because they're less expected, and their lives matter more on that level. (Sad, but true). Anyway, my initial objection to your statement was because I felt like you were bringing it up in a flippant manner.

Anyway, my initial objection to your statement was because I felt like you were bringing it up in a flippant manner.

Ok, that wasn't my intent but I see that how it came across that way.

And I understand why some conflicts might be considered more important than others because of the geopolitical impact, that is not what I am complaining about.

If we can't forget absolute numbers, can we go digging into the past and find fodder for the persecution complex espoused by Hindutva then?

I have never made the argument that the Islamic terrorists are justified or that past wrongs vindicate current revenge and vigilantism, or using the numbers to justify any such claim.

Shit, what I meant to say was, 'Not that I think that the number of lives is insignificant'

I have never made the argument that the Islamic terrorists are justified or that past wrongs vindicate current revenge and vigilantism, or using the numbers to justify any such claim.

Didn't mean to indicate you were - I was thinking more of how right-wing Hindus justify their hatred with stories of persecution of Hindus from centuries ago. We rightly think it's loony, as we should the claims for an Islamic caliphate stretching to Iberia because it used to be ruled by the Moors.

To tell the truth (which is politically incorrect), these folks are making the lives of many brown people (at least young males) who live in the west (irrespective of whether they are DBDs or ABDs or EBDs (European born desis)) quite difficult. I don't think there is any immediate solution to the problem. Let's just hope that none of these guys get through.

I was thinking more of how right-wing Hindus justify their hatred with stories of persecution of Hindus from centuries ago.

One way to turn them off is to ask if it is OK for the Dalits to take their revenge. :-)

it used to be ruled by the Moors

I always thought it was the Moops.

I don't think of any reason to attack Spain, (after the last attack they have removed their troops from Iraq), unless it is for re-establishing "Al-andalus". Arab Moslems conquered Spain and ruled over it from 712 to late 1400s.

The reasons and justifications for attacks always change to suit the Islamic terror groups. It wouldn't matter at this point if all Western troops were withdrawn from Iraq. Reasons are always available from their vast array of "mix and match" injustices against the Islamic world from the present or a 1000 years ago.

I don't know... I just don't think we should get into this 'Don't condemn acts of violence committed in the name of other religions before you condemn those committed in the name of yours first'... for one, it actually kind of reduces the terrorist acts committed by Al Qaeda & related groups to religious acts, when there are other factors at play, and more importantly, it's something that affects society as a whole... would we really ask Muslims horrified by how Muslims are treated in India to first condemn this act of terrorism, and that act of terrorism, committed in the name of Islam, before letting them feel horrified? I'm horrified by how Hindus are treated in many Islamic countries, but I know that Hindus aren't perfect either (you just need to look at India as an example).

And what about atheist neocons like Manju? Who would they have to condemn first? :)

it actually kind of reduces the terrorist acts committed by Al Qaeda & related groups to religious acts, when there are other factors at play

Yes!!
This is just the latest cynical power-play by a bunch of thugs (think communism, fascism, KKK)--there have been plenty of Muslim eras/kingdoms/countries in the past 1300 years that haven't felt the need to do this sort of stuff.

it actually kind of reduces the terrorist acts committed by Al Qaeda & related groups to religious acts, when there are other factors at play

Like what?. Can you explain the other factors behind Pakistanis who have settled in Spain to indulge in a suicide attack against Spain?.

136 · Ponniyin Selvan Like what?. Can you explain the other factors behind Pakistanis who have settled in Spain to indulge in a suicide attack against Spain?

Sure, that's easy. It's not just religion, b/c most Muslims in the world (by a huge margin) wouldn't do that. The few who do hew to a political fantasy that the "weak," "decadent" West is ripe for the picking, and that the spoils will be theirs. No particlarized grievance, really, just the age-old (all-to-human) lust for power dressed up with some quasi-religous carrying-on. No reason to sympathise with it, just because it's explainable.

Nala, the reason I put "terrorists" in quotes is the same reason I'd put "war" and "innocent civilians" in quotes. These are highly loaded terms which change meaning depending on who is using them and in what context and to what political end, which makes them essentially meaningless. Let's not forget that we pay taxes to the only government which has ever dropped an atomic bomb, which maintained 10 years of sanctions that were responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, and arms, trains, and finances paramilitaries that terrorize the countryside and does contain people who explicity state their intent to dominate the world.

(A pax upon thee, indeed.)

Look, if you look over the span of human history, it's not unusual for various groups, or sub-parts of groups, to go "crazy" over (in historical terms) short periods of time. Why is S. Korea rich and pleasant and N. Kora poor and nasty? It's not b/c of centuries-long diffences between the cultures of the different ends of the Korean penninsula. It's because short-term political events have had decades-long consequences. If you parachuted down to Earth and started thinking every current socio-political-economic difference is due to some fundamental cultural differences, you would be pretty whacked-out in your analysis of Korea. So too with Islamic extremism. Of course, none of this means the Islamic extremists of today aren't dangerous and in need of being pulled and/or pushed into irrelevance.

It's not just religion, b/c most Muslims in the world (by a huge margin) wouldn't do that. The few who do hew to a political fantasy that the "weak," "decadent" West is ripe for the picking, and that the spoils will be theirs. No particlarized grievance, really, just the age-old (all-to-human) lust for power dressed up with some quasi-religous carrying-on.

Can you explain?. I just wanted to know the "other" factors behind Pakistanis settled in Spain to attack Spain. Your above statement is vague and does not really offer an insight outside of religion.

106 · JGandhi said

Moderate Muslims in the West seem disinterested in combating extremist Islam and more interested in condeming Western society for how they react to extremist Islam.

Let's not forget that the US is not just reacting to extremist Islam, the US gave birth to it.

109 · nala said

the connection between Wahhabism and terrorist groups isn't set in stone either.

But there is a demonstrable link between Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and the American oiligarchy.

Let's not forget that the US is not just reacting to extremist Islam, the US gave birth to it.

That's right. When they were fighting the Soviets, the same "jihadis" were the good guys. Since "1984" has already been referred to in this blog, this looks like a classic case of "Eurasia" and "Eastasia" fighting "Oceania". :-)

140 · Ponniyin Selvan Can you explain?. I just wanted to know the "other" factors behind Pakistanis settled in Spain to attack Spain. Your above statement is vague and does not really offer an insight outside of religion.

Some small group of political agitators has decided (wrongly, I think, but that doesn't mean that they haven't decided it's right) that now is a good time to "strike" Spain in order to precipitate (they think) some sort of massive political/demographic shift in the short-term, that will be in their interests. Look, don't get mad because that sounds like a fantasy--read their stuff--this is what they say. They're working off of a historically-invoked quasi-religious template in which--in a technogically quite backward era, mind you--the Arabs burst out of Arabia, taking Damascus in 635 AD and less than 80 years later (!!) were in Spain. Who, sitting around the hearth in their cottage in 620 AD would have believed that?

Again, that doesn't seem like a factor "outside of religion". Sorry to be nit picking.

Let's not forget that the US is not just reacting to extremist Islam, the US gave birth to it.

yes, we've heard that one before . The model followed in Afghanistan was what the O.S.S (the WW II precursor to the CIA) used against the Japanese:

OSS Detachment 101

The unit was in existence from April 14, 1942 to July 12, 1945. During most of that time, it funded and coordinated various resistance groups made up of the Kachin peoples of northern Burma. One resistance force was known as the Kachin Rangers and was under the command of Carl F. Eifler though often the term Kachin Rangers has been used to describe all Kachin Forces raised during the war by the Americans in Northern Burma.

In July of 1942 twenty OSS men moved in and set up headquarters in Assam. No operations of any significance occurred until the end of 1942. Starting in 1943, small groups or individuals were parachuted behind Japanese lines to remote Kachin villages, followed by a parachute supply drop. The Americans then began to create independent guerilla groups of the Kachin people, calling in weapons and equipment drops. Once settled, the groups undertook a variety of unconventional missions: ambushing Japanese patrols, rescuing downed American pilots, and clearing small landing strips in the jungle. They also screened the advances of larger allied forces, including Merrill's Marauders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSS_Detachment_101

A lot of the CIA's Cold War strategies used O.S.S techniques. Some would argue that the CIA still uses outmoded Cold War/WW II thinking in fighting a uniformless/stateless enemy like Islamic terror cells. To keep quoting that the US created the Taliban doesn't give the whole picture as historically those techniques had worked in WW II. But creating the Taliban was unlike creating resistance fighters in WWII. Yes, am sure there are plenty of people now who wish that we had let the Soviets have free reign in Afghanistan. More than a few ex-Soviet Generals must have been smiling on 9/11.

145 · Ponniyin Selvan Again, that doesn't seem like a factor "outside of religion". Sorry to be nit picking.

No problem--we both seem to be sincere, but speaking past each other in some fashion.
I guess I take it as a given that the political conquest of much of the historical cradle(s) of human civilization in less than 100 years is an inherently political/economic event, while you seem to think it's reducible to religion.
Tell me more about what would, for you, count as factor(s) "outside of religion" and perhaps we can bear down on a mutually intelligible (the fault lies as much with me as with you, I'm sure) discussion. :-)

Nala, the reason I put "terrorists" in quotes is the same reason I'd put "war" and "innocent civilians" in quotes. These are highly loaded terms which change meaning depending on who is using them and in what context and to what political end, which makes them essentially meaningless. Let's not forget that we pay taxes to the only government which has ever dropped an atomic bomb, which maintained 10 years of sanctions that were responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, and arms, trains, and finances paramilitaries that terrorize the countryside and does contain people who explicity state their intent to dominate the world.

Ok - I'm not exactly gung ho America, but this is a little bit too much relativism for me to stomach. I don't believe that those terms are essentially meaningless. Various international bodies recognize most countries as countries, and so when those countries' militaries engage in combat they're at war. But when terrorist groups who have been recognized as such by various international bodies (that includes the EU condemning the LTTE, the UN Security Council & NATO condemning Al Qaeda) launch attacks on noncombatants on 'enemy' soil, that's by definition terrorism. I know that even various international bodies are not objective and influenced by geopolitics, and that their decisions are politically tinged, and I know that the U.S. government is certainly guilty of a lot of things. But I don't think that it should have to mean that the U.S. as a country loses its sovereignty and all groups become equal actors on a world stage. It's an established democratic country, people responsible for war crimes should be on trial, but it doesn't make terms like 'terrorist' meaningless...

If regular Americans are culpable for the actions of the U.S. government because they pay taxes to it, does that make regular Muslims spiritually culpable for the actions of Islamic terrorists because they worship the same god? What if they donate money to a religious organization and that money gets sent which way and that and finally gets used to help buy some explosives to kill "innocent" "civilians"?

It's an established democratic country, people responsible for war crimes should be on trial, but it doesn't make terms like 'terrorist' meaningless...

Fair enough, but let's be sure to not use placeholders like "democracy" or "terrorism" to obscure underlying reality. I could imagine a situation in which a "terrorist" attack against a "democracy" might be morally justified. I think you could, too. That said, I don't think any of today's "terrorist" groups are near that line, in my opinion.

Let's not forget that the US is not just reacting to extremist Islam, the US gave birth to it.

A fairer statement might be that extremist Islam is the bastard child of many fathers. The Cold War combatants, socio-economic challenges in the Arab states where oligarchs got wealthier and the poor have little opportunity despite college educations and where opportunistic leaders using the mantle of Islam seized upon the general malaise and discontent to create a movement for their own benefit. Really no different than many other movements throughout history that justified murder using an ideology to move the masses while securing power for a few.

The implications are interesting and many.

Based on this article, the foiled Spain attack may spawn a heightened alert level in the U.S. come election time.

Fair enough, but let's be sure to not use placeholders like "democracy" or "terrorism" to obscure underlying reality. I could imagine a situation in which a "terrorist" attack against a "democracy" might be morally justified. I think you could, too. That said, I don't think any of today's "terrorist" groups are near that line, in my opinion.

I recognize that there are many different definitions for terrorism and the only basics involved in all of them are violence or threat of violence, but the one I use when I talk about terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians in order to reach some political goal, which in my opinion is never justified. Hamas is free to try to take on the Israeli army, Lakshar-e-Taiba is free to take on the Indian army, but blowing up innocent people should have nothing to do with it. (And yes, both armies have also committed human rights violations, the perpetrators of those crimes should be punished, but that doesn't invalidate their countries' sovereignty)

149 · nala said

If regular Americans are culpable for the actions of the U.S. government because they pay taxes to it, does that make regular Muslims spiritually culpable for the actions of Islamic terrorists because they worship the same god?

First of all, I am not claiming that "regular Americans" are culpable for anything except having a short-attention span and ignorance of history's impact. However, if I wanted to get into this argument you've presented, I'd have a *much* easier time defending the first position than the second because Gawd is a hoax but the fact that your money supports short-sighted violent campaigns is a provable fact.

I recognize that there are many different definitions for terrorism and the only basics involved in all of them are violence or threat of violence, but the one I use when I talk about terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians in order to reach some political goal, which in my opinion is never justified

Really? Say that the Sri Lankan army was committing genocide in Jaffna. Tamils couldn't defeat the army militarily. But, by killing 1000 civilians w/ a bomb in Colombo they could bring down the current government, and the new government would stop the genocide. (Please don't fight the hypothetical.) You wouldn't pull the switch?
(I'm taking the spirit of my example, but not the particulars, from a good book I read about terrorism, but I can't find it in my stacks right now, or I would cite it--sorry.)

151 · Jangali Jaanwar said

socio-economic challenges in the Arab states where oligarchs got wealthier and the poor have little opportunity despite college educations and where opportunistic leaders using the mantle of Islam seized upon the general malaise and discontent to create a movement for their own benefit.

Again, the US had (has) a hand in supporting those oligarchs with weapons, training, and money, which has led to the socio-economic challenges you mention and, as a result, strengthened support for opportunistic "religious" leaders.

I'm not trying to convince anybody that America is horrible (I don't even believe that) or that "terrorists" are justified but if we don't stop for a moment, acknowledge our complicity, and take the long view before we head off on another short-sighted misadventure we will be stuck in this cycle indefinitely.

148 · nala said

It's an established democratic country, people responsible for war crimes should be on trial

What about the people responsible for putting those war criminals in power (i.e. the electorate). We don't have kings in this country.

First of all, I am not claiming that "regular Americans" are culpable for anything except having a short-attention span and ignorance of history's impact. However, if I wanted to get into this argument you've presented, I'd have a *much* easier time defending the first position than the second because Gawd is a hoax but the fact that your money supports short-sighted violent campaigns is a provable fact.

Sorry, that's what I interpreted this statement as: (I see now that you're not stating that 'regular Americans' are culpable for anything, but it was preceded by a statement about how 'terrorism' is a meaningless term, so I guess I saw it as a follow-up to that...)

Let's not forget that we pay taxes to the only government which has ever dropped an atomic bomb, which maintained 10 years of sanctions that were responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, and arms, trains, and finances paramilitaries that terrorize the countryside and does contain people who explicity state their intent to dominate the world.

Though I agree with the Gawd being a hoax thing. :)
But just to stretch the argument - you could say that currency is a hoax too, what makes it valuable is that the U.S. Treasury prints it and deems it valuable, but the end result is the same... dead people.

Really? Say that the Sri Lankan army was committing genocide in Jaffna. Tamils couldn't defeat the army militarily. But, by killing 1000 civilians w/ a bomb in Colombo they could bring down the current government, and the new government would stop the genocide. (Please don't fight the hypothetical.) You wouldn't pull the switch? (I'm taking the spirit of my example, but not the particulars, from a good book I read about terrorism, but I can't find it in my stacks right now, or I would cite it--sorry.)

Hmmm... I don't know. :) It's a good thing I'm not a politician...
Wasn't this the same kind of logic used to justify bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And what is the certainty that bombing Colombo would cause the government to stop the genocide?

What about the people responsible for putting those war criminals in power (i.e. the electorate). We don't have kings in this country.

No, but we don't have a direct democracy either...

154 · rob said

I recognize that there are many different definitions for terrorism and the only basics involved in all of them are violence or threat of violence, but the one I use when I talk about terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians in order to reach some political goal, which in my opinion is never justified

Really? Say that the Sri Lankan army was committing genocide in Jaffna. Tamils couldn't defeat the army militarily. But, by killing 1000 civilians w/ a bomb in Colombo they could bring down the current government, and the new government would stop the genocide. (Please don't fight the hypothetical.) You wouldn't pull the switch? (I'm taking the spirit of my example, but not the particulars, from a good book I read about terrorism, but I can't find it in my stacks right now, or I would cite it--sorry.)

Wasn't this the same kind of logic used to justify bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And what is the certainty that bombing Colombo would cause the government to stop the genocide?

Yes, it is the same kind of logic. And it usually isn't a good description of the real world, which is why terrorists are almost always condemnable. However, in my hypothetical, I was positing that it would cause the gov't to stop the genocide. You are right to be extremely skeptical of the justifications that terrorists offer (see, e.g., LeT, LTTE, Hezbollah, etc.) but I just wanted to caution you against digging in too deeply on the "never justified" assertion you made.

159 · muralimannered

I wouldn't really consider it a choice at all, if you consider a choice to be a situation in which you have at least one favorable outcome possible

Well, fair point, but--call it a "choice" or no--still--would you pull the trigger on the bomb?

but I just wanted to caution you against digging in too deeply on the "never justified" assertion you made.

Well I guess even if innocent deaths aren't justified, the motives behind them are...

Again, the US had (has) a hand in supporting those oligarchs with weapons, training, and money, which has led to the socio-economic challenges you mention and, as a result, strengthened support for opportunistic "religious" leaders.

I don't disagree. I just wanted to clear an impression that extremist Islam is solely a creature of US policy. (which I realize you weren't trying to say).

but if we don't stop for a moment, acknowledge our complicity, and take the long view before we head off on another short-sighted misadventure we will be stuck in this cycle indefinitely.

I guess it really depends on what you think the long view is and what is in our power to change the dynamics that allow extremists or extreme ideologies to flourish. People have been asking that question for ages and haven't yet found a solution, especially where that solution can create more problems. E.g. US efforts to counter communist occupation/domination in Afghanistan leads to the support of the precursor to the Taliban.

I guess it really depends on what you think the long view is and what is in our power to change the dynamics that allow extremists or extreme ideologies to flourish. People have been asking that question for ages and haven't yet found a solution, especially where that solution can create more problems. E.g. US efforts to counter communist occupation/domination in Afghanistan leads to the support of the precursor to the Taliban.

Yes, this is the toughest question of all! Should the U.S. really be supporting Mubarak in Egypt? It's easy to say if you take a non-consequentialist position, but damned near impossible to answer with any confidence if you take account of consequences, especially if you open up the options of supporting him but being able to negotiate for changes X, Y or Z.

148 · nala said

Nala, the reason I put "terrorists" in quotes is the same reason I'd put "war" and "innocent civilians" in quotes. These are highly loaded terms which change meaning depending on who is using them and in what context and to what political end, which makes them essentially meaningless. Let's not forget that we pay taxes to the only government which has ever dropped an atomic bomb, which maintained 10 years of sanctions that were responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, and arms, trains, and finances paramilitaries that terrorize the countryside and does contain people who explicity state their intent to dominate the world.

Ok - I'm not exactly gung ho America, but this is a little bit too much relativism for me to stomach. I don't believe that those terms are essentially meaningless. Various international bodies recognize most countries as countries, and so when those countries' militaries engage in combat they're at war. But when terrorist groups who have been recognized as such by various international bodies (that includes the EU condemning the LTTE, the UN Security Council & NATO condemning Al Qaeda) launch attacks on noncombatants on 'enemy' soil, that's by definition terrorism. I know that even various international bodies are not objective and influenced by geopolitics, and that their decisions are politically tinged, and I know that the U.S. government is certainly guilty of a lot of things. But I don't think that it should have to mean that the U.S. as a country loses its sovereignty and all groups become equal actors on a world stage. It's an established democratic country, people responsible for war crimes should be on trial, but it doesn't make terms like 'terrorist' meaningless...

Terms like "terrorist" tend to lose their power when people who were demonstrably terrorists and war criminals are given simple detention or even asylum by western lib-democracies like the UK and US. One cannot credibly position oneself as an arbiter of who is a terrorist when one is also dividing the room into "with us" and "against us" while harboring the same human stains that one is decrying.

that said, i do agree with your definition of a terrorist.

Karuna actually waltzed into the UK with a valid diplomatic passport from the government of Sri Lanka after having been implicated in child-soldier recruitment and umpteen murders, disappearances and the like.

163 · Jangali Jaanwar said

I guess it really depends on what you think the long view is

At this point I'd consider anything beyond "the next election cycle" the long view. Baby steps. We'll work our way up to seven generations eventually.

165 · muralimannered

that said, i do agree with your definition of a terrorist.

Maybe you think utilitarianism is a facially stupid theory (which is a respectable position held by some very smart people), but if you don't, keep in mind that (a few) terrorist acts could be justified within a utilitarian framework (nearly all terrorism in our world, of course, fails even a utilitarian calculus, b/c it doesn't accomplish anything).

I think that others have said this before, but I am personally not sympathetic to people that "blame" the US for inciting 9/11, while absolving the terrorists of responsibility. These are just excuses used by Islamic militant leaders to whip people up into a frenzy, and additionally, these "first cause" explanations always blame the other party for the provocation (there was a really cool psychological study about this a couple of years ago, people always clearly remember the other person's statement that led to the escalation of the argument, but rarely their own). That said, it is important that the long term implications of these actions are part of the national consciousness so that political leaders are forced to factor these implications in their foreign policy decisions (for example, the convenient supporting of Mushie because "he's the best option for Pakistan" and is the bulwark against Islamic fundamentalists has eerie overtones of the US propping up of Saddam - of course, entire tomes can be written about the crimes against humanity of Reagan).

And nala, you are right that most, if not all, the organizations that international bodies currently declare as terrorists deserve that label, the reason for skepticism is that there are many actors who fully deserve that label who are not brought to account in any way, shape or form. Examples include Kissinger, at least some folks in the current Bush government, as well as the ones that muralimannered pointed out.

And nala, you are right that most, if not all, the organizations that international bodies currently declare as terrorists deserve that label, the reason for skepticism is that there are many actors who fully deserve that label who are not brought to account in any way, shape or form. Examples include Kissinger, at least some folks in the current Bush government, as well as the ones that muralimannered pointed out.

Isn't a lot of this (those actors who fully deserve that label not brought to account for it) because of the failure of the courts in their own countries? (I don't mean the U.S.) And they're allowed into Western countries like the U.S. and the UK because whatever crimes they committed don't factor into the current geopolitical scheme?

PAfD, you're hilarious!

JGandhi is mankinds last hope against Islamo-fascism.

Never underestimate a robust ABD Hindu true believer.

171 · Rahul said

Never underestimate a robust ABD Hindu true believer.

You're right about the robust and true believer part. But I'm way sexier than the guys in those pics you linked to.

I dunno - I can't get myself to stop looking at the guy doing the Hindu squat. Damn you Rahul... it's mesmerizing at 3 in the morning.

But I'm way sexier than the guys in those pics you linked to.

I really appreciate your letting me know. I only hope, for your sake, that this opinion has more of a basis in fact than your other ones.

I dunno - I can't get myself to stop looking at the guy doing the Hindu squat.

Much better than Hindu women doing the squat, it would seem.

Much better than Hindu women doing the squat, it would seem.

yeesh. women in general are down on their luck when it comes to that sort of thing anyway.

Tell me more about what would, for you, count as factor(s) "outside of religion" and perhaps we can bear down on a mutually intelligible (the fault lies as much with me as with you, I'm sure) discussion

The "Naxalites" have a cause that working class and the poor are exploited and indulge in violence. We have Tamils fighting for a separate homeland in Srilanka on the basis of their language (I think it is the same case with Kurds in Iraq). So "language" and "class" struggle are factors "outside of religion".

I don't see a similar non-religious factor behind a Pakistani Muslim trying to blow things up in Spain. Unless you bring in a theory that Spanish local government has caused enormous suffering on Pakistani people by its trade embargoes etc.. etc. I don't see any other way that the motives of Pakistanis can be explained by factors outside of religion.

167 · rob said

in mind that (a few) terrorist acts could be justified within a utilitarian framework (nearly all terrorism in our world, of course, fails even a utilitarian calculus, b/c it doesn't accomplish anything).

utilitarians believe in rights too; most modern utilitarians use rights as side constraints. you may not increase aggregate utility if a set of specified rights (usually coincides with constitutional/human rights) is violated. and terrorism clearly is an act that involves infringing on the rights of others, so it is incompatible with utilitarianism.

176 · Ponniyin Selvan

The "Naxalites" have a cause that working class and the poor are exploited and indulge in violence. We have Tamils fighting for a separate homeland in Srilanka on the basis of their language (I think it is the same case with Kurds in Iraq). So "language" and "class" struggle are factors "outside of religion".

I don't see a similar non-religious factor behind a Pakistani Muslim trying to blow things up in Spain. Unless you bring in a theory that Spanish local government has caused enormous suffering on Pakistani people by its trade embargoes etc.. etc. I don't see any other way that the motives of Pakistanis can be explained by factors outside of religion.

Yes, ok, I see your point. There's not such an obvious class (in the case of the Naxalites) or ethnic (as in the case of the LTTE) grievance in the case at point (although a guess a real Marxist might say it is class--but, I see what you're saying, for sure). I guess my point is that the Islamic extremists who want to (re)take Spain and India on religious grounds are, at the end of the day, also after economic and political power just as much as (or more than!) they are after religious "rights" in the Western liberal sense. I'm not suggesting you're denying that; but I'm implicitly focusing on precisely that--so, I think we ultimately are just describing different parts of the elephant (i.e., on the same page), but please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your view.

I guess my point is that the Islamic extremists who want to (re)take Spain and India on religious grounds are, at the end of the day, also after economic and political power just as much as (or more than!) they are after religious "rights" in the Western liberal sense

I think that's called as "jihad" against "kafirs" and has "religious" sanction. Political and economic domination is part and parcel of the "jihadi" ideology. If you read the literature of "Al-qaeda", or their opinion leaders like Maulana Maududi that's what you'd find.

177 · portmanteau

utilitarians believe in rights too; most modern utilitarians use rights as side constraints. you may not increase aggregate utility if a set of specified rights (usually coincides with constitutional/human rights) is violated. and terrorism clearly is an act that involves infringing on the rights of others, so it is incompatible with utilitarianism.

You are right that a lot of utilitarians say that they believe in rights. But such "rule-utilitarianism" (which is that view) is intellectually untenable. The position was (famously! and conclusively!) demolished by David Lyons--please read his "Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism" (you will find it a delightfully short book (in contrast to, say, law review articles, which you have correctly griped about the length of)). Modern adherents to the rule-utilitarian (e.g., side-constraints to act utilitarianism) are thick on the ground if you want to count numbers, but they are anti-intellectual backsliders. . . .

179 · Ponniyin Selvan

I think that's called as "jihad" against "kafirs" and has "religious" sanction. Political and economic domination is part and parcel of the "jihadi" ideology. If you read the literature of "Al-qaeda", or their opinion leaders like Maulana Maududi that's what you'd find.

I don't disagree with that at all. I just want to high-light that a lot of what they fold into the umbrella of "religion" I call "politics" and "economics."

161 · rob said

159 · muralimannered

I wouldn't really consider it a choice at all, if you consider a choice to be a situation in which you have at least one favorable outcome possible

Well, fair point, but--call it a "choice" or no--still--would you pull the trigger on the bomb?

Simple answer is no. (and to think I didn't need someone whispering from the sidelines to get the answer!) Mainly because situation in which the killing of a 1,000 civilians will win a war doesn't really exist--from the rebel side or the UN-recognized government. The collateral damage from the American misadventure in Iraq has far outstripped that figure, yet the general populace is far from cowed. In much the same way, if the Tigers detonate a bomb in Colombo which kills a 1,000 people, I doubt villagers in the south will feel like dropping their support for the chauvinist parties which agitate for war the most?

sorry, i meant to add this link in reference to the whispering comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4J__lq3db0

182 · muralimannered

Simple answer is no. (and to think I didn't need someone whispering from the sidelines to get the answer!) Mainly because situation in which the killing of a 1,000 civilians will win a war doesn't really exist--from the rebel side or the UN-recognized government. The collateral damage from the American misadventure in Iraq has far outstripped that figure, yet the general populace is far from cowed. In much the same way, if the Tigers detonate a bomb in Colombo which kills a 1,000 people, I doubt villagers in the south will feel like dropping their support for the chauvinist parties which agitate for war the most?

Your surmise about the empirics is almost certainly correct. But, you are guilty of "denying the hypothetical," in which the civilian deaths would (in an empirically unlikely manner, admittedly) lead to an end to the genocide. The hypothetical is meant only to deny the strong claim that terrorism is "never" justified. I am with you as to its "real-world" analysis in almost all cases.

180 · rob said

"rule-utilitarianism"

i did not mean rule utilitarianism, rob; i mean your garden-variety utilitarianism (greatest good for the highest number), and hence, the word, "side constraints." [eg rawls uses "do not violate liberty" as a side-constraint in applying the difference principle]. maximize utility, but do not violate a, b, and c, which is not really rule utilitarianism.
sorry, if that wasn't clear; gotta go. i do agree, however, that rule ut. is untenable.

174 · Rahul said

But I'm way sexier than the guys in those pics you linked to.

I really appreciate your letting me know. I only hope, for your sake, that this opinion has more of a basis in fact than your other ones.

I dunno - I can't get myself to stop looking at the guy doing the Hindu squat.

Much better than Hindu women doing the squat, it would seem.

C'mon, there's much to be said for the theory of martial races. Let our precocious Curzon-In-Training continue on this merry pseudo-intellectual journey.

185 · portmanteau

i did not mean rule utilitarianism, rob; i mean your garden-variety utilitarianism (greatest good for the highest number), and hence, the word, "side constraints." [eg rawls uses "do not violate liberty" as a side-constraint in applying the difference principle]. maximize utility, but do not violate a, b, and c, which is not really rule utilitarianism.
sorry, if that wasn't clear; gotta go. i do agree, however, that rule ut. is untenable.

If you're trying to maximize aggregate utility, how do you justify the "side constraints?" I.e., what happens if utility maximization in a particular case demands neglecting or overriding the "constraint"? (E.g., to be extreme, world will end unless you violate the side constraint--now, you can't claim that respecting the side constraint, leading to the end of the world, maximize aggregate utility, can you?) You can't always maximize utility and satisfy the constraints, no? They can conflict. Maybe the literature has made big advances that I am not up to speed on, but isn't Rawls a (the!) big critic of utilitarianism? I am confused that you are invoking him (please try to explain more to me about why he is not a rule utilitarian--your description of him seems, to me, to be a canonical example of rule utilitarianism (don't overlook the possibility that I may be missing something obvious)).
Maybe we're just disagreeing about labels--I don't mean to, but I hope you can see my point.

169 · nala said

Isn't a lot of this (those actors who fully deserve that label not brought to account for it) because of the failure of the courts in their own countries? (I don't mean the U.S.) And they're allowed into Western countries like the U.S. and the UK because whatever crimes they committed don't factor into the current geopolitical scheme?

In the case of Luis Posada Carriles it's because he was acting on behalf of the United States.

The implications are interesting and many.

Yeah. Sales of Vaseline and other anal lubes should go up in the sub-continent. All "desis" travelling outside India will be a good target segment. Perhaps, south asia becomes the largest market for vaseline worldwide.

134 · nala said

And what about atheist neocons like Manju? Who would they have to condemn first? :)

Robespierre

bush invaded iraq for political reasons. iraqis can take a deep breath of gratitude.

reminds me of high school when we were taught about communism, immediately followed by mccarthyism to balance things out.

Don't worry, Manju, balance is alive and well!

(I also realize I didn't address your analogy to black racism well. There are two points I wanted to make: First that Hindu religious fundamentalism in India has the ability to wield significant detrimental power - which is what I lazily referred to in the statement that nala took offense to, and second, while you might disagree, it is extremely dangerous to creeping danger of illiberalism in societies that actively cultivate their self image of democracy, rights and freedom, because the myth won't change even as the facts do.)

41 · Salil Maniktahla said

Where's Razib, dammit?

118: >

In a lame attempt to channel the sadly-missing Razib

Razib is busy enjoying the fame of his name/blog appearing on page 69 of the Jan/Feb issue of SEED magazine ( which might have been itself worthy of the news tab but couldn't find a web link )

http://www.nagalandpost.com/Leisuredesc.asp?sectionid=54798