Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Final Thoughts (I Hope) On Vileness and Insult In Discourse |
»
|
|
Thursday, January 18, 2007
A Mandatory Disaggregation
It has been said that not all Muslims are terrorists or supporters of terrorism.
Well, yes. And:
- Not all Imperial Romans were Coliseum gladiators or supporters of the Games;
- Not all sixteenth-century Spanish Christians were Inquisitors or supporters of the Inquisition;
- Not all antebellum Southern whites were owners of slaves;
- Not all Germans under Hitler were ardent Nazis or supporters of Nazi racial and eugenic policies;
- Not all Imperial Japanese subjects under Tojo were torturers or supporters of the torture of American prisoners of war;
- Not all Soviet subjects were Gulag guards or supporters of the Gulags.
None of those statements would have been useful during the eras when they were relevant, even though they were -- and are -- perfectly true.
Loud, angry demands that we conceptually disaggregate terrorists from Muslims can be heard around the clock, in every corner of the nation. For anti-terrorism purposes, this is not useful, strategically nor tactically. Yet another generalization -- that some Muslims do practice or support terrorism; indeed, that approximately 100% of terrorist acts these past forty years were committed by Muslims -- is condemned whenever it's raised. Clearly there's something the protestors don't want us to think about.
The utility of focusing suspicion upon the members of a particular group, which is most commonly called profiling, depends upon whether the relationship of membership in the group to the condemned behavior is causal or coincidental. If the relation is causal, the degree of its usefulness depends upon the power of such membership to shape the member's behavior. Many things factor into that analysis:
- Whether group membership is primarily voluntary, compulsory, or accidental;
- Whether the group imposes a hierarchy or cell structure upon its members;
- The ideological orientation of the group;
- The ability of the group to segregate its members from contact with non-members;
- Whether the group's overt doctrines are peaceful or violent;
- Whether the group's covert doctrines are peaceful or violent;
- The group's proclivity for elevating militants and compelling non-militants to support them;
- The group's proclivity for compelling orthodoxy and punishing dissenters.
Clearly, because of the risks to justice profiling involves, the decision to profile must always be made on the fullest possible information and with the greatest care.
Information about Islam is fairly easy to get. It's well known to anyone who's delved into it at all that the creed's doctrines are violently hostile to competing faiths; that it proclaims the death penalty for apostasy, heresy, or blasphemy; and that it commands its followers to regard "unbelievers" as the enemy, to be converted, subjugated, or slain. What's been harder to get is information about specific Muslim communities: to what extent they cleave to the full horror of Islam's jihad doctrines; whether they elevate militants by preference; whether they attempt to function as polities with coercive powers, rather than as congregations whose influence is limited to disapproval and voluntary association.
Some of the information that's recently come to light has been very disturbing. The British television special Dispatches: Undercover Mosque, which Charles Johnson has generously hosted on his Web server, paints a picture of British Muslim communities as militantly jihadist, ready and eager to spring an Islamic coup at the proper moment. If this portrayal is accurate -- and the voluminous protests from Islamic advocacy groups that have traceable links to terrorist organizations can only be interpreted as confirmations -- then Britain has clasped a serpent to its bosom by allowing copious immigration from Islamic lands.
No doubt even within those communities, whose imams have exhorted them to see themselves as "a state within a state," there are Muslims who dissent from jihad doctrine and want only to live in peace as loyal British subjects. But how many are there, what influence do they wield over other British Muslims, and what influence do their militant brethren wield over them? To puzzle out the proper attitude toward its Muslim residents, the British government must undertake to learn all of this. Given that there are political forces, at least as strong in Britain as in America, that condemn any objective investigation of Islam and Islamic institutions whatsoever, the British authorities face a dauntingly difficult task. To pursue it zealously will get them excoriated in the press and might get them turned out of office; to treat it laxly might surrender the country to shari'a. It would seem that things are even worse on the European continent.
Though the United States faces a qualitatively comparable problem, quantitatively the threat to our polity is far less. The typical American is far prouder of his country and its institutions, far readier to defend it, and far more capable of doing so, than the typical Briton or European. The American population is more thinly distributed than that of the Old World, which tends to dilute the influence of any creed that requires concentration and group mobilization. Our free society, our vibrant economy and the many satisfactions they offer tend to counteract the "attractions" of the joyless, pleasure-averse, misogynistic Muslim "lifestyle." (Funny how, when the Left wants to defend some creed or practice Americans find repugnant, they call it a "lifestyle.") So the possibility of an Islamic uprising in America must be regarded as remote; the prospects for success of such an insurrection would be bleak.
But that's not the end of the story. For, while we may deem ourselves safe from the possibility of a political upheaval, we are nevertheless the preferred target for terrorist assaults. Some of the assaults on us that have occurred to date have occasioned jubilance, even outright celebrations, among Muslims in America.
It remains imperative that American authorities, and Americans generally, treat anyone who calls himself a Muslim with suspicion. For the creed itself mandates jihad against the "unbeliever," and commands all Muslims to support their militant brethren unconditionally. Islamic mouthpiece groups invariably oppose anything our authorities do to impede further Islamic terrorism, and invariably refuse to condemn specific acts of terrorism or terrorist groups. The slightest hint of an association between Islam and terrorism in our Old Media, factual or fictional, brings storms of denunciation and threats from such groups. Sometimes the threats are of lawsuits, and sometimes they're threats of death.
Yes, this is profiling. It's the constructive use of the best information we have to date, which indicates that peaceably inclined Muslims, however numerous they may be, are unable to restrain their jihad-inclined brethren. Worse, the flow of funds from American Muslims to terrorist organizations, while it has been attenuated by federal counteraction, is still substantial.
Americans don't want to profile. We're aware that, like justice, an inclination to violence is an individual matter; one cannot justly condemn all for the crimes of some. But since Islam calls itself a religion, and has erroneously but widely been conceded that categorization, it has equipped itself with one of the most reliable shields a cult can have against unfriendly scrutiny. Thus, our hand is forced:
- Until Islam in America becomes considerably more transparent,
- Until its imams cease to preach that Islam must become the sole accepted religion and source of all law,
- Until it ceases to erect barriers that forbid close relationships between Muslims and "unbelievers,"
- And until its spokesmen cease to reflexively align it with individuals, organizations, and governments that are overtly hostile to America and its interests,
...simple self-protection, and the protection of our nation, require us to regard Islam and Muslims as untrustworthy aliens, whose loyalty belongs to a "nation" that regards itself as at war with us. It's a disaggregation driven not by skin color, ethnic background, or the name by which we address God, but by a difference in allegiance: Muslims to the Qur'an, shari'a law, and their vision of a reborn Caliphate; Americans to freedom, pluralism, and the Constitution of the United States.
Comments
It all comes down, finally to this: islam is the enemy. No ifs, buts or maybes.
Muslims must be regarded as the enemy simply because to do otherwise is to commit societal suicide, since it’s impossible to separate those muslims who wish us ill from those who don’t.
Moderate muslims who are sufficiently disgusted by the acts being carried out in the name of the prophet will leave the ideology for one less murderous. Those who don’t must be assumed to be at least in tacit agreement with the goal of a worldwide caliphate.
Not warm and fuzzy but then, neither is a suitcase nuke in downtown N.Y. or Sydney or London.Posted by Keith on 01/19/2007 at 01:18 AMRe: Fairness Doctrine (for those less than 30 years old):
There would be less concern about the Fairness Doctrine (FD) were it known to provide access upon demand to Establishment media for someone like our Curmudgeon. No matter how much we turn away from it, old media remains the quickest, easiest way to reach and influence large numbers of people.But FD wasn’t used this way back in its heyday. Indeed, the rise of conservative talk radio would have been less successful had FD been as fair as its newspeakish label claims. Only rarely would one actually hear a voice dissenting from the editorial opinion of a major outlet. That voice might come from some long established organ whose opinion was already well-known (and inflexible) so that the Left could simply keep fighting the same old battles and “winning.” Or the voice might come from some obscure group with a typically inarticulate spokesman. Or, worst of all, from some self-identifying fringe group whose effluent would later be used to tar by association any and all who disagreed with the leftist position. (Then as now, even a position that is self-parodying on its face but repeated and repeated without rebuttal as if undeniable. E.g.: “its wrong to tell children not to do something because they have minds of their own and should be left ‘unmolested’ as to their choices.”)
And then the blackout ended just around the same time that the Berlin Wall fell. It remains my speculation that Rush Limbaugh’s success would be more clearly understood were it revealed that he gained access to the all the unpublished letters-to-the-editor file at the Sacramento Bee or other Leftist dominated media. Look at the many good writers on the web today and you’ll understand. All those writers who had been frustrated for years, having written very good counter-opinions only to see their local newsrag publish some moron’s inanities were granted a fresh blast of air. All those who had been denied wide access to expound their ideas to a wider audience suddenly heard or heard of someone broadcasting their thoughts. “You sound like Rush,” was how I learned of him. I know I am not alone.Now I’ve heard some people aplaud this. They think that bringing back the FD would be a double-edged sword. That it would allow some very elegant spokesmen of the Right to gain access to the Establishment media and that it would require that they will finally get a fair shake.
I don’t believe it. Such people would have to have far more money (for lawyers) than good spokesmen for the rest of us would be given a fair chance to rebut the Opinions of MSM ON MSM.
Before any of the new FD is bickered over and passed, tell me which of the two parties is going to fight for the freedom for conservative views to appear on MSM at the same level that at least one party will fight for Leftist views insertion into talk radio? If you think you have a reliable party in mind, let alone believe that even the few good in that party have much of a chance, you are likely part of the problem.
And there’s more. The biggest threat may not come from FCC regulations.
The smaller outlets could never withstand all the legal maneuverings that such a law would open over “right to respond” not being given adequately. And it’s the smaller outlets that have given new voice to the Right.
The larger outlets could fall back on their old reliable standbys such as Establishment groups of “the Right,” inarticulate spokesman for obscure groups, and known racists and lunatic fringies.
I normally expect Our Curmudgeon explain all of this. But this time I felt he left too wide a chasm even for a Friday short. By his leaving so noticeably unexplained what the FD was—an explanation I think helps one foresee how it would be this time around—I thought some more information was needed for younger readers. I’d lived through the prior period and quite frankly I believe our country hasn’t recovered yet from the bad influences spread back then.
The above opinion is based on my impressions from that experience. Hope it helps.
Posted by Pascal (the derivative) on 01/20/2007 at 12:20 AMWell done, Francis! This was a great essay and I enjoyed it.
As I noted some time ago, it’s not a `war on terror’, whatever that means..it’s a War against Jihad.
And it’s high time we realized it.
Posted by Freedom Fighter on 01/24/2007 at 07:00 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
