I’ve been refraining from commenting on the Boston Marathon bombings because I feel like don’t yet have enough information. Dr Delacroix speculates here. Law professor and Russian immigrant Eugene Kontorovich has more on Chechens and Boston’s fall here.
I have found this piece by Clark over at Popehat to be the most illuminating yet. I can’t excerpt the good parts because the whole thing is really, really good.
Update: the Wall Street Journal has a great profile up on the Tsarnaev brothers.
Dr. Delacroix takes me to task over my dismissal of Islam’s inherently violent penchant. I think violence on grand scales, including war and terrorism, are always and everywhere a product of politics and institutions. Dr. Delacroix argues that Islam itself provokes violence. He writes:
A French citizen with a Muslim name goes on vacation to the tribal areas of Pakistan and to Afghanistan. Latter on he goes on a shooting rampage. The probabilities are such that he has to have sought his victims. The first set of victims were Muslim soldiers in the French army. Of course, for a jihadist such soldiers are traitors. The second set of victims were Jewish children and an adult in a Jewish school. You have to look for a Jewish school in France. I wouldn’t know how to find one. It’s not as if the killer wanted to kill children and then he went to as school that happened to be Jewish.
None of this means anything according to Brandon. Of course, this anecdote is only one of of several I presented in support of the idea that Islam has a violent penchant. Brandon dismisses “anecdotes” as evidence. He seems to say that if I had presented a thousand anecdotes, I would have accomplished nothing. I imagine he believes it’s enough to say “not so” for his negative thesis (no violent penchant) to be considered true.
Strange mental world!
I did not say anything about what is responsible for terrorism in the Middle East. I only took exception to a small statement of faith of Brandon’s in a larger development.
Why was the French citizen in Afghanistan and Pakistan? I ask because both states are in the middle of an international conflict (along with France, I might add). Continue reading
I just recently came across a very, very good book on the history of the Middle East. As far as theory goes, it is lacking, but it is readable enough that the intelligent layman can pick it up and learn new things from it. Written by historian Eugene Rogan, it’s titled The Arabs: A History and it has won numerous awards. Be sure to check it out. One new fact that I learned is that while terrorism as a tactic in the Middle East did not appear on the radar until the 1920s, it was undertaken on behalf of Jewish interests, not Muslim ones. Rogan explains:
The terrorists had achieved their first objective: they had forced the British to withdraw from Palestine. Though their methods were publicly denounced by the leaders of the Jewish Agency [the pre-state government], the Irgun and Lehi [terrorist organizations] had played a key role in removing a major impediment to Jewish statehood. By using terror tactics to achieve political objectives, they also set a dangerous precedent in Middle Eastern history-one that plagues the region down to the present day.
Now, I am not “blaming the Jews” for terrorism in the Middle East, nor is the historian. What I would like to do is point out that the theories and excuses about Islam’s violent penchant produced by Western analysts are horribly wrong. In a similar vein, Arab culture is not to blame for the violence in the region, either. Terrorism is entirely a product of politics.
What we have in the Middle East is simply a problem of statecraft. A conceptual turn away from cultural and religious explanations for the violence in the Middle East and towards one that looks at political and legal institutions and the economic consequences that arise from them would do wonders for the region (and the world). If we cannot even agree on the fundamentals of what is wrong with the Middle East institutionally, we sure as hell are not going to agree upon anything else. This goes for domestic and regional factions in the Middle East as well as for Western ones.
Israel exists. It is a state in the Middle East, and a highly successful one at that. This may well explain why terrorism has been used so often, as a political tactic, for almost a century in the Middle East. It also helps to explain – conceptually – why terrorist attack rates were so high in Sri Lanka until the defeat of the guerrilla insurgency a few years ago, and why Latin America has suffered from chronic terrorism. Arab culture and Islam, on the other hand, do not explain terrorism in other parts of the world. I see no reason why we should make an exception to the rule for terrorism in Middle East. This is an institutional problem, not a cultural one.
The backlash that did not happen after 9/11 is taking place now because of Muslim stubbornness, arrogance, or simple lack of articulateness. Americans are tolerant and patient to the point of gullibility but there is a limit. When it comes to the establishment of an explicitly Muslim-anything near Ground Zero, many feel they have been deceived, that their good nature has been taken advantage of. To cap it off, the liberal media accompany some American Muslim spokespersons, and some ordinary Muslims in accusing them of the mysterious sin of “Islamophobia.” (Siddiqui: American anti-Muslim prejudice goes mainstream – thestar.com circa 8/26/10)
I am referring to the majority of Americans who have expressed some degree of opposition to the plan to establish a Muslim cultural center including a mosque near the site of the 9/11 jihadist massacre. I am one of those so accused.
I tend to look seriously at any serious accusation thrown at me seriously. Often, it does not tell me anything about me and my behavior but it gives me an insight into the ways of thinking of the insulter. So, I will look at Islamophobia, the dislike and fear of Islam and, by extension, of all things Muslim, from the standpoint of what I know and then, from that of what I don’t know for a fact but that is plausible. I try to keep the factual and the plausible, the speculative, separate.
In the end, I want to know what I am guilty of, if anything, as an Islamophobic American. I don’t discount the possibility that I am guilty as charged. Continue reading
Blogging is very time consuming. It’s cutting seriously into the life of leisure for which I am so obviously gifted. I am certainly not trying to achieve fame. I renounced that particular kind of folly many years ago: It’s not worth it because you are likely to fail. It’s not even worth it when you succeed according to many tabloid stories.
I can’t even say I am terribly successful in terms of effect achieved.
Only 26 people at most read my most recent ambitious posting, “Fascism Explained”. Writing it took me the better part of two or three half-days. Its sequel, “How about Communism?” captured only a little less of my free time and it was read by the same small number of people at best.
My two biggest hits ever, “The Inauguration; the Hamas Victory” and “Advice to Pres. Obama on Manhood” were each read by 56 people maximum.
Why am I alienating my free time that way? Why this fairly futile effort on my part? I could be on my pretty boat on Monterey Bay catching suicidal and cognitively challenged fish. Or, I could simply be reading one of the books I have been wanting to read for weeks. I might even rub my wife’s feet instead. (She is a talented artist and a conservative who thinks Attila the Hun was kind of a girlie man. The only thing that reaches her nowadays is hard foot massaging.)
There is an answer to this multiply-worded single question above: Continue reading
I am floating on air. I had recently added Dr. Jacques Delacroix (Ph.D. Sociology, Stanford) as friend on Facebook, as I had come across his insightful writings in the pages of Liberty, a libertarian publication. I was especially amused by his article on UCSC LUG’s, and was pleasantly surprised to see that he was a mutual friend of a fellow Santa Cruz libertarian.
He is an immigrant from France, and, as you can see through his writings, he bears much resemblance to another Frenchman who once wandered through our curious and inventive Republic.
A rare breed not only because he immigrated here from France (and loves it), Dr. Delacroix is also, quite curiously, a libertarian hawk. That is, he believes that the United States military can and will effectively run an operation that eliminates the threat of terrorist networks aimed at destroying the Republic.
I was fortunate enough to have piqued his interest one day, and the exchange that ensued led him to reply, quite thoughtfully, to my responses. In other words, I am swimming with the big fish now!
Because Dr. Delacroix is much wiser than I, the burden falls on me to convince him of the error of his thought. It has often been said that the older you get, the less likely you are to change your thoughts or your “ways”. I don’t expect to change Dr. Delacroix’s mind (not because he is “old”, either!), but because his mind is still very, very sharp (which is why I am so perplexed at his hawkishness on this issue), I must respond and give the best response that I can.
Below you will find my first argument from the Facebook exchange in italics, followed by Dr. Delacroix’s arguments (which will be indented and in bold), and my replies will follow. I hope y’all learn something from this. I know I have. Continue reading
I have this ongoing discussion by email, Facebook, and occasionally on this blog, with a female friend, a young woman I know pretty well. She is a Lutheran from a foreign country, and a hard-working person. I suspect she never reads though.
My friend claims that Lutherans are persecuted in America and in other countries. She thinks there is a deep-rooted anti-Lutheran prejudice causing the persecution. Of course, I tend to take her at her word: “Prejudice” means “prejudgment,” evaluation in advance of hard facts or, by extension, in the absence of hard facts. But facts matter and they do influence the judgment of people who are rational, intellectually honest, and unprejudiced.
My friend will easily emote on Facebook because of restrictions some countries officially place on some Lutherans’ clothing predilections. The restrictions are usually mild, applied to minors, or enacted only when police or security matters are in play, as in photographs on driver’s licenses. It turns out, the only country applying systematically restrictions on female attire, specifically, that country is 95% Lutheran.
Of course, when crazy, or simply fanatical, individuals commit individual crimes against Lutherans, my friend cries out bitterly. Yet, when a crazed non-Lutheran attacked a Jewish memorial site in Washington DC and murdered an innocent security guard of unknown religious identity, she expressed neither outrage nor sympathy. Continue reading
Notes On Liberty 