The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[E.H. Ruddock]

kinda makes me wonder why they never go after leaders. If they could organize something like 9/11 or the Paris attacks, they could easily take down a head of state or a powerful businessman.

Maybe its all a false flag operation after all!

Barack Hussein Obama

[Birds in Hell]

Why it's only natural for Americans to care more about Paris than Beirut

In the days since the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, a lot of people have said a lot of obtuse things.

GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz thinks Barack Obama "does not wish to protect this country." Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders still believes that climate change is our biggest national security threat. And the president of the United States seems to be angrier at Republicans than he is at ISIS.

And then there are those who say Americans have been expressing too much support for France.

Almost immediately after the attacks, critics began to point to evidence of American double standards. ISIS bombed Beirut a day before Paris, and yet, that event produced nowhere near the outpouring of sympathy throughout the West that the Paris attacks elicited. Millions of people on Facebook superimposed the colors of the French flag over their profile pictures, and yet no one thought to do that after recent massacres in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Somalia.

Writer Amal El-Mohtar encapsulated this view as well as anyone in a series of angry (and now protected) tweets posted in response to news of France's retaliatory strikes on ISIS's stronghold of Raqqa, Syria:

I just want you to search yourselves, the depth of horror you felt for Paris, the violation — pain — ask why you don't feel that for Syria

Ask why it seems like the natural order of things for bombs to fall on Syria but a monstrous violation for bombs to detonate in France. Ask [Amal El-Mohtar]

If El-Mohtar is from the region, if (as other now-protected tweets seemed to imply) she has friends and family there, then I understand her indignation at the double standard. But that doesn't mean it's morally justified.

There is nothing surprising or shameful about spontaneous expressions of support for France among Americans. France is part of the West, and so are we. France is also America's oldest ally. Such sentiments — attachment and loyalty to those closer to us in time, space, culture, and history — are perfectly natural. They flow from our tendency to love, first and foremost, what is our own.

I love myself, which is why my instinct toward self-preservation is so strong. Next, I love my family and friends. Then my neighbors. Then those who share my religious, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, ideological, and national background. Then, and only then, can I begin to summon up a comparatively lukewarm love for a universal "humanity."

These concentric circles of attachment define our natural moral experience. Don't buy it? Imagine how you would feel at the death of your own child and then compare that to how you feel when you read about the death of a child on the other side of the world whose family, culture, language, and background are foreign to you. The second of these deaths cannot help but be felt abstractly.

Now, this obviously isn't the end of the story. Moral traditions that descend from Christianity and Kantian liberalism often think of moral obligation exclusively in universal terms. Kant maintained that each of us has an unconditional duty to treat every human being as an end and never merely as a means, and to disregard natural inclinations when determining how to act morally in the world. The most stringent forms of Christianity likewise demand that we actively love our neighbors, our enemies, and even all human beings, regardless of their worthiness of that love. Both moral systems would seem to require that I treat each child — my own and one from a family of strangers 7,000 miles away — as morally interchangeable.

Whether or not a universal moral system is possible or desirable, we need to recognize that it cuts against the grain of human nature, and that a more "natural" form of morality — one that builds on and refines our natural loves and inclinations rather than denying their legitimacy — isn't the outrage that universalists often presume it to be.

Some of the noblest human goods — goods like loyalty, solidarity, community, belonging, and self-sacrificing love — are incubated and flourish in particularistic forms of life. That they can also curdle into tribalism, parochialism, and close-minded bigotry doesn't take away from all they can be at their best, or eliminate the need for that incubation process. We learn how to love those furthest away from us by first learning to love those closest to us.

Even if we concede that local attachments need to be tempered by moral universalism, it's crucial to recognize how contrary to our nature it is to love indiscriminately, and how deeply ingrained it is for us to love what is our own more than what is not.

In expressing friendship and unity with our wounded friend, Americans have nothing to be ashamed of.

I know the discussion has moved on, and this topic was probably being addressed more in the Facebook thread than here, but this piece sums up a lot of how I feel about the "WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT etc." reactions following the attack.

[Birds in Hell]

While I'm at it, another long bunch of text.

Dalrymple is (as ever) illuminating:

Theodore Dalrymple: On the Need to Think Clearly
Reflections on Paris

One has to pity—a little—politicians obliged to react publicly to events such as those on November 13 in Paris. They can’t pass over them in silence: but what can they say that does not sound banal, hollow, and obvious? They can only get it wrong, not right.

That does not excuse inexactitude and evasion, however. French president François Hollande called the attacks cowardly, but if there was one thing the attackers were not (alas, if only they had been), it was cowardly. They were evil, their ideas were deeply stupid, and they were brutal: but a man who knows that he is going to die in committing an act, no matter how atrocious, is not a coward. With the accuracy of a drone, the president homed in on the one vice that the attackers did not manifest. This establishes that bravery is not by itself a virtue, that in order for it to be a virtue it has to be exercised in pursuit of a worthwhile goal. To quote an eminent countryman of the president, Pascal: Travaillons, donc, à bien penser: voilà le principe de la morale. Let us labor, then, to think clearly: that is the principle of morality.

President Obama was not much better. He made reference in his statement to “the values we all share.” Either he was using the word “we” in some coded fashion, in spite of having just referred to the whole of humanity, or he failed to notice that the attacks were the direct consequence of the obvious fact that we—that is to say the whole of humanity—do not share the same values. If we shared the same values, politics would be reduced to arguments about administration.

Politicians are not the only ones, however, to utter worse than clichés (which have at least the merit of being true): the Irish pop star turned guru, Bono, said that the events on November 13 were an attack on music. Mr. Bono might as well have said that this was an attack on restaurants, or even on Cambodian cuisine, or for that matter on football. Apparently, in his view, if only the French government outlawed music, the terrorists would achieve their ends and would therefore desist from future attacks.

On the night of the events, I followed the coverage in the Guardian, the British liberal newspaper whose website is one of the most popular of its type in the world. When the acknowledged toll of the attacks was still “only” 40, the paper published an article saying, en passant, that the vast majority of Muslims abhorred these attacks. I do not exclude the possibility that this is so, but we do not know, and can probably never know, that it is so: for if Queen Elizabeth had “no desire to make windows into men’s souls,” we have no ability to do so, certainly on this question. But the Guardian wanted it to be so, and therefore, to its own satisfaction, it was so. This is a kind of magical thinking that persists in a supremely scientific age, and is dangerous because completely ineffective.

If ever there were a time to keep Pascal’s words in mind, this is it.

[stip]

While I'm at it, another long bunch of text.

Dalrymple is (as ever) illuminating:

Theodore Dalrymple: On the Need to Think Clearly
Reflections on Paris

One has to pity—a little—politicians obliged to react publicly to events such as those on November 13 in Paris. They can’t pass over them in silence: but what can they say that does not sound banal, hollow, and obvious? They can only get it wrong, not right.

That does not excuse inexactitude and evasion, however. French president François Hollande called the attacks cowardly, but if there was one thing the attackers were not (alas, if only they had been), it was cowardly. They were evil, their ideas were deeply stupid, and they were brutal: but a man who knows that he is going to die in committing an act, no matter how atrocious, is not a coward. With the accuracy of a drone, the president homed in on the one vice that the attackers did not manifest. This establishes that bravery is not by itself a virtue, that in order for it to be a virtue it has to be exercised in pursuit of a worthwhile goal. To quote an eminent countryman of the president, Pascal: Travaillons, donc, à bien penser: voilà le principe de la morale. Let us labor, then, to think clearly: that is the principle of morality.

President Obama was not much better. He made reference in his statement to “the values we all share.” Either he was using the word “we” in some coded fashion, in spite of having just referred to the whole of humanity, or he failed to notice that the attacks were the direct consequence of the obvious fact that we—that is to say the whole of humanity—do not share the same values. If we shared the same values, politics would be reduced to arguments about administration.

Politicians are not the only ones, however, to utter worse than clichés (which have at least the merit of being true): the Irish pop star turned guru, Bono, said that the events on November 13 were an attack on music. Mr. Bono might as well have said that this was an attack on restaurants, or even on Cambodian cuisine, or for that matter on football. Apparently, in his view, if only the French government outlawed music, the terrorists would achieve their ends and would therefore desist from future attacks.

On the night of the events, I followed the coverage in the Guardian, the British liberal newspaper whose website is one of the most popular of its type in the world. When the acknowledged toll of the attacks was still “only” 40, the paper published an article saying, en passant, that the vast majority of Muslims abhorred these attacks. I do not exclude the possibility that this is so, but we do not know, and can probably never know, that it is so: for if Queen Elizabeth had “no desire to make windows into men’s souls,” we have no ability to do so, certainly on this question. But the Guardian wanted it to be so, and therefore, to its own satisfaction, it was so. This is a kind of magical thinking that persists in a supremely scientific age, and is dangerous because completely ineffective.

If ever there were a time to keep Pascal’s words in mind, this is it.

This was a good article until the moronic last paragraph. A few hundred years ago David Hume demonstrated that you could never prove causality. It's possible that philosophy has overcome this problem. But Hume also went on to say, quite sensibly, that you could nevertheless assume a high probability of causality, and that it was necessary to make that assumption to live a life.

It is impossible for us to know what every Muslim thought about the attacks until we ask every single one of them. But based on a number of assumptions it is reasonable to make we can probably assume that people in general are not supportive of murdering innocent people for political gain.

Unless of course, they are Muslims. Now I'm not saying the vast majority of all Muslims support terrorism. Maybe they don't. I'm just saying, in the spirit of inquiry that we don't know. And I would, of course make the same epistemological point about western or Christian opposition to terrorism.


Just like we don't KNOW that this guy is a bigot for this nonsense. But it is probably a reasonable assumption

[Birds in Hell]

Having read much of Dalrymple's writing, muddled expression would seem to be a particular bugbear of his.

Now I'm not saying the vast majority of all Muslims support terrorism. Maybe they don't. I'm just saying, in the spirit of inquiry that we don't know.

Isn't this the exact point he is making?

When the acknowledged toll of the attacks was still “only” 40, the paper published an article saying, en passant, that the vast majority of Muslims abhorred these attacks. I do not exclude the possibility that this is so, but we do not know, and can probably never know, that it is so.

[stip]

Why it's only natural for Americans to care more about Paris than Beirut

In the days since the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, a lot of people have said a lot of obtuse things.

GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz thinks Barack Obama "does not wish to protect this country." Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders still believes that climate change is our biggest national security threat. And the president of the United States seems to be angrier at Republicans than he is at ISIS.

And then there are those who say Americans have been expressing too much support for France.

Almost immediately after the attacks, critics began to point to evidence of American double standards. ISIS bombed Beirut a day before Paris, and yet, that event produced nowhere near the outpouring of sympathy throughout the West that the Paris attacks elicited. Millions of people on Facebook superimposed the colors of the French flag over their profile pictures, and yet no one thought to do that after recent massacres in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Somalia.

Writer Amal El-Mohtar encapsulated this view as well as anyone in a series of angry (and now protected) tweets posted in response to news of France's retaliatory strikes on ISIS's stronghold of Raqqa, Syria:

I just want you to search yourselves, the depth of horror you felt for Paris, the violation — pain — ask why you don't feel that for Syria

Ask why it seems like the natural order of things for bombs to fall on Syria but a monstrous violation for bombs to detonate in France. Ask [Amal El-Mohtar]

If El-Mohtar is from the region, if (as other now-protected tweets seemed to imply) she has friends and family there, then I understand her indignation at the double standard. But that doesn't mean it's morally justified.

There is nothing surprising or shameful about spontaneous expressions of support for France among Americans. France is part of the West, and so are we. France is also America's oldest ally. Such sentiments — attachment and loyalty to those closer to us in time, space, culture, and history — are perfectly natural. They flow from our tendency to love, first and foremost, what is our own.

I love myself, which is why my instinct toward self-preservation is so strong. Next, I love my family and friends. Then my neighbors. Then those who share my religious, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, ideological, and national background. Then, and only then, can I begin to summon up a comparatively lukewarm love for a universal "humanity."

These concentric circles of attachment define our natural moral experience. Don't buy it? Imagine how you would feel at the death of your own child and then compare that to how you feel when you read about the death of a child on the other side of the world whose family, culture, language, and background are foreign to you. The second of these deaths cannot help but be felt abstractly.

Now, this obviously isn't the end of the story. Moral traditions that descend from Christianity and Kantian liberalism often think of moral obligation exclusively in universal terms. Kant maintained that each of us has an unconditional duty to treat every human being as an end and never merely as a means, and to disregard natural inclinations when determining how to act morally in the world. The most stringent forms of Christianity likewise demand that we actively love our neighbors, our enemies, and even all human beings, regardless of their worthiness of that love. Both moral systems would seem to require that I treat each child — my own and one from a family of strangers 7,000 miles away — as morally interchangeable.

Whether or not a universal moral system is possible or desirable, we need to recognize that it cuts against the grain of human nature, and that a more "natural" form of morality — one that builds on and refines our natural loves and inclinations rather than denying their legitimacy — isn't the outrage that universalists often presume it to be.

Some of the noblest human goods — goods like loyalty, solidarity, community, belonging, and self-sacrificing love — are incubated and flourish in particularistic forms of life. That they can also curdle into tribalism, parochialism, and close-minded bigotry doesn't take away from all they can be at their best, or eliminate the need for that incubation process. We learn how to love those furthest away from us by first learning to love those closest to us.

Even if we concede that local attachments need to be tempered by moral universalism, it's crucial to recognize how contrary to our nature it is to love indiscriminately, and how deeply ingrained it is for us to love what is our own more than what is not.

In expressing friendship and unity with our wounded friend, Americans have nothing to be ashamed of.

I know the discussion has moved on, and this topic was probably being addressed more in the Facebook thread than here, but this piece sums up a lot of how I feel about the "WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT etc." reactions following the attack.

It's accurate, insofar as the author is correct in that the biggest problem with universal moral theories is that we are tribal in terms of our lived experiences. Love, solidarity, etc. are small, private, and familiar emotions.

Having said that, I think the author is wrong to say that the more visceral response to something that is familiar is morally justifiable. It is not surprising, and it is inevitable, but the moral system we adopt IS universal. The Declaration of Independence or Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everyone. The Bible doesn't say 'thou shalt not murder Jews'. Even if, as he correctly points out, we fail to uphold those ideals perfectly within our lived experience, they remain both aspirational and the standards we use to critique our behavior. Morality embodies who we want to become, as much if not moreso than who we are,

We all presumably are horrified by the idea of honor killings. This guys article starts to clear the space to justify that kind of private, tribal morality. We oppose these things because we think they are wrong, across time, space, and culture.

The author softens his stance towards the end of the article, but I'd be careful how much I'd embrace it. It's an explanation for why we do what we do, but it's also an excuse, and I wouldn't call it moral.

(I also agree, BiH, that the 'don't you care about...argument is tiresome. There are only so many hours in the day, and an impossible amount of atrocities committed every 24 hours Forgetting to care about one doesn't undermine the validity of caring about the other. I just wouldn't make a virtue of that forgetting)

[stip]

Having read much of Dalrymple's writing, muddled expression would seem to be a particular bugbear of his.

Now I'm not saying the vast majority of all Muslims support terrorism. Maybe they don't. I'm just saying, in the spirit of inquiry that we don't know.

Isn't this the exact point he is making?

When the acknowledged toll of the attacks was still “only” 40, the paper published an article saying, en passant, that the vast majority of Muslims abhorred these attacks. I do not exclude the possibility that this is so, but we do not know, and can probably never know, that it is so.

Yes. Except I was sarcastically pointing out that this is the way smart people code their bigotry.

[Birds in Hell]

Having read much of Dalrymple's writing, muddled expression would seem to be a particular bugbear of his.

Now I'm not saying the vast majority of all Muslims support terrorism. Maybe they don't. I'm just saying, in the spirit of inquiry that we don't know.

Isn't this the exact point he is making?

When the acknowledged toll of the attacks was still “only” 40, the paper published an article saying, en passant, that the vast majority of Muslims abhorred these attacks. I do not exclude the possibility that this is so, but we do not know, and can probably never know, that it is so.

Yes. Except I was sarcastically pointing out that this is the way smart people code their bigotry.

Perhaps but I think you're seeing something that I don't feel is there. The criticism is focused on the poor expression used in the newspaper report (following that at the beginning of the piece of Hollande and Obama's remarks).

[stip]

Thomas Jefferson's one book has a section where he speculates about the inherent biological inferiority of black people. It's a disgusting section. But he justifies it by saying 'look, I'm a scientist, so maybe someone will prove me wrong. I'm totally open to that idea. This is all done in the name of inquiry. It has nothing to do with my own racism.' This, despite the patent absurdity of his arguments, the thinly veiled desperation behind his attempts to justify his own hypocrisy, and the fact that he negates all of his own logic and methodology elsewhere in the book when he talks about Indians.


This is pretty much the same thing. And it is so discouraging to watch people turn off their brains and look for ways to justify anti-Muslim bigotry without having to just come out and admit it to themselves that this is what they're doing. Actually, I take that back. You have to turn on your brain to do it.


There is simply no earthly reason to include that section you just highlighted other than to imply that the vast majority of Muslims may support terrorism. He is just couching it in a nonsensical philosophic point to protect himself from accusations of simple minded bigotry. 'Guys, I didn't say I AGREE with this - just that we can't know.'

I am disappointed that you don't find this to be utterly transparent.

[stip]

Having read much of Dalrymple's writing, muddled expression would seem to be a particular bugbear of his.

Now I'm not saying the vast majority of all Muslims support terrorism. Maybe they don't. I'm just saying, in the spirit of inquiry that we don't know.

Isn't this the exact point he is making?

When the acknowledged toll of the attacks was still “only” 40, the paper published an article saying, en passant, that the vast majority of Muslims abhorred these attacks. I do not exclude the possibility that this is so, but we do not know, and can probably never know, that it is so.

Yes. Except I was sarcastically pointing out that this is the way smart people code their bigotry.

Perhaps but I think you're seeing something that I don't feel is there. The criticism is focused on the poor expression used in the newspaper report (following that at the beginning of the piece of Hollande and Obama's remarks).

That part of the article was fine - then he goes on to equate the reasonable assumption that Muslims are generally horrified by the murder of innocent people as wish fulfillment on the part of the paper. And it is his take away point.

This was also not a piece of journalism. It was an argument. Conventional reporting has you start with the most important facts and they get progressively less important as you read (at least less important in the eyes of the author). The assumption is reader may not read to the end, so you want to make sure they get the essential stiff first. Whereas this kind of writing builds to a conclusion. The place you end up is what you really want the reader to walk away with. The preceding paragraphs are meant to help lay the groundwork for your conclusion.

[stip]

You know, I can't even say the rest of that article was fine. Other than pointing out the self aggrandizing absurdity of bono's claim it was basically him being a pedant until he got bored with it and leapt right into bigotry. He's just good at hiding it, which is why it is so dangerous.

[Birds in Hell]

There is simply no earthly reason to include that section you just highlighted other than to imply that the vast majority of Muslims may support terrorism.

Yeah, I genuinely disagree with this.

His point is that it was imprecise of the Guardian to insist that most Muslims abhor the attacks when they have no way of truthfully establishing this. Yes, that may be pedantry, but as I said, muddled expression is something of a recurring theme in his writing (you may not see much value in that as a vein of criticism but I do). In effect, his charge is that the paper is doing virtually exactly what you're suggesting here where the statement made reflects the author's preconceived bias.

I know that our perspective is different on this given I've read a fair bit of the author's work previously and so I'm probably more forgiving and aware of his idiosyncrasies as a writer but I simply don't see what you're seeing.

That issue aside, which we'll probably have to agree to disagree on, the part of the piece that I was really drawn to is his querying of why we so often refer to terrorists or suicide bombers as 'cowards' when, in fact, they display incredible courage in service to evil aims.

[track11]

I have no beef with hezbollah. They are the state of Lebanon at this point as they are by far the most powerful force. Yet, lebanon is also one of the most free countries in the world: alcohol? Sure! Bikinis? Who cares? Free speech? Say what you want. The only rule: do not do anything to try and split lebanon again. They keep that powder leg of a country stable while allowing a completely free society; and that is pretty darn impressive.

[stip]

There is simply no earthly reason to include that section you just highlighted other than to imply that the vast majority of Muslims may support terrorism.

Yeah, I genuinely disagree with this.

His point is that it was imprecise of the Guardian to insist that most Muslims abhor the attacks when they have no way of truthfully establishing this. Yes, that may be pedantry, but as I said, muddled expression is something of a recurring theme in his writing (you may not see much value in that as a vein of criticism but I do). In effect, his charge is that the paper is doing virtually exactly what you're suggesting here where the statement made reflects the author's preconceived bias.

I know that our perspective is different on this given I've read a fair bit of the author's work previously and so I'm probably more forgiving and aware of his idiosyncrasies as a writer but I simply don't see what you're seeing.

That issue aside, which we'll probably have to agree to disagree on, the part of the piece that I was really drawn to is his querying of why we so often refer to terrorists or suicide bombers as 'cowards' when, in fact, they display incredible courage in service to evil aims.

I quite liked that part as well.

but otherwise this guys point is nonsense at best, seductively hateful at worst. Human communication is not possible without making the assumptions he is decrying. How tiresome would it be if every single post on RM had to begin with the qualifier 'in my opinion'. Every single hurestic device that interaction depends on would be negated if you took this seriously. This is not a question of misusing words like cowardly. It is challenging, in the name of the kind of simple minded pedantry only smart people are capable of, the idea that human interaction is possible since we can never KNOW with certainty what other people think.

It's also not an impressive or new point. The epistemological accuracy of what he is saying was demonstrated hundreds of years ago (if not earlier) and the guy who did then advised we ignore his conclusions or the world falls apart.

That aside, his framing matters. Note the places he is focusing on. Shared values of decency don't exist because some Muslims (surely not only Muslims )reject them. He doesn't challenge whether or not westerners are united in opposition (maybe some of us are glad those self righteous frogs got what was coming). Instead he calls into question the already qualified assumption that most Muslims may be opposed to this. In fact, he concludes he article by calling the assumption not only potentially wrong, but dangerous (he's not talking about Bono or the cowardly point anymore).

The fact that he dressed this up in an ostensibly neutral language doesn't change the message. It is well done in that he never comes out and baldly states what he thinks. Instead he just lets it sit there and has the reader infer it all within the disengenuius logic of his arguement.

[Simple Torture]

stip, are you on sabbatical this semester or what?

[LoathedVermin72]

You know how "smart" people really show their bigotry about this right now? By treating Islam with kid gloves in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism when those same people have no problem bashing Christianity. The left is just as racist as the right on this issue - it's just expressed the opposite way.

[track11]

Is it possible for you to be incorrect? The argument from the so-called "smart" people is that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, but rather it has to do with bombed out, destitute countries bought and sold into barbaric civil wars that allow opportunist countries/actors to enact their wishes. ISIS kills regardless of creed; you are either with their cause (which is creating their own state) or not. Equating critiques of Huckabee-esque Christianity in the USA to measured responses to the role of Islam with ISIS is horribly out of place. A more apt comparison would be if those "smart" people blamed Christianity for right-wing terrorist attacks. But those "smart" people don't, other than to bring the example in arenas such as this. To equate the "bashing" of Christianity in the USA to the bashing (no quotes here, it is bashing) that is occurring of all muslims is utterly hilarious.

It's one thing to disagree with people. It's another to mock them and call them bigots, when the argument is very easily turned right back to yourself.

[LoathedVermin72]

Is it possible for you to be incorrect? The argument from the so-called "smart" people is that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, but rather it has to do with bombed out, destitute countries bought and sold into barbaric civil wars that allow opportunist countries/actors to enact their wishes. ISIS kills regardless of creed; you are either with their cause (which is creating their own state) or not. Equating critiques of Huckabee-esque Christianity in the USA to measured responses to the role of Islam with ISIS is horribly out of place. A more apt comparison would be if those "smart" people blamed Christianity for right-wing terrorist attacks. But those "smart" people don't, other than to bring the example in arenas such as this. To equate the "bashing" of Christianity in the USA to the bashing (no quotes here, it is bashing) that is occurring of all muslims is utterly hilarious.

It's one thing to disagree with people. It's another to mock them and call them bigots, when the argument is very easily turned right back to yourself.

You seem to keep inferring a lot from what I say. Once we again, you jump to the "all Muslims" crap, which I never once said.

You bet your ass Christianity is responsible for loads of violence and hatred in the west. The left has no problem acknowledging the problems with Christianity. People feel free to casually talk about, even criticize and insult, the ideology of Christianity without having to worry about being called a bigot. But if you try to do the same regarding Islam? Well, you yourself just implied I was a bigot.

I think it's hilarious and, again, delusional to say that ISIS "has nothing to do with Islam." Just as it's hilarious and delusional to say that the Westboro Baptist Church has nothing to do with Christianity. Of course they fucking do! We can't just distort reality and pretend that the REAL Muslims and the REAL Christians are just the nice people we like. That is solipsistic nonsense. These religions give stupid people a mandate to be hateful, and yes, even violent. It gives them justification for their anger and discontent. It gives them an ideological framework from which to hurt and kill. We need to stop pretending these things aren't linked. That is disingenuous, a huge obstacle in the way of discourse or progress.

[E.H. Ruddock]

stip, are you on sabbatical this semester or what?

I laughed

[stip]

stip, are you on sabbatical this semester or what?

I became administration so they make me show up every day (even Fridays and summers!). It's why I don't post much anymore. In about another day or two I'll realize I don't have time for this and stop