Good article by Christopher Hitchens

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting article, Mike. Thanks for the link.

I agree with much of what he says, and he makes some good points. But I must agree with SU in that he is over the top (I found it ironic that SU was the most critical of Hitchens the atheist). IMO, the main flaw in his analysis is that it focuses almost excusively on religous/cultural arguments with little discussion of politics or recent mideast history. That doesn't mean that the religion angle is not valid (it most certainly is); it just means that he only telling half of the story, and exaggerating that half to boot. For example, how can a discussion of this type not say ANYTHING about the Arab-Israeli conflict?

There is quite a bit more I want to add, but I think I will save it for another thread.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So if they support, finance, and shelter terrorists, that's not a big deal I guess.

I'm afraid that argument will not get you very far.

We are not yet at war with radical Islam. If we ever are, it will approximate a genocide. Because entire nations will be destroyed. Not everyone in all these nations. But lots of people and all the meaningful infrastructure. These countries will become southern Lebanon.

No, we are truly not at war. Knowing they will return to the stone age is the only thing that holds them back. If they had the advantage, trust me, they would press it.

We should support moderate and liberal Muslims. But let's not kid ourselves. We should fight radical Islam with our full might and force.

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I just said that the ones who are doing this are relatively small in number. More important, I said that this isn't the same kind of threat to our security and well being as were the Nazis and the Soviets. Let's retain some perspective. Hitchins' fear mongering is appealing to many Westerners because to many Westerners it feels really good to hate, just as it does to Muslims. The author of the book Hitchins is reviewing is apparently a Christian, and needless to say religious people are famous for falling prey indeed reveling in this kind of hate. But now we see atheists are not imune from it either.

We could start tomorrow and killl a billion Muslims by next week. So what? What would that solve? We'd just create more monsters, unless you want to start trying to exterminate them. The objective is to win and not lose our souls; retain what has made our civilization great. What makes our civilization great is tolerance for the very kind of plurality Hitchins is trying to whip up hatred against. This greatness--liberty in a word--is indeed the source of even our awesome miltitary capability.

We won't fight the kind of war you describe against Islam because what we are fighting is more a worldwide crime wave. Until Iran or somebody likes it starts building up a military capability a la Germany in the 1930's I'll remain convinced it's just a big crime wave. But I'm going to need some convincing. I'm not falling for this WMD fear mongering so easily next time.

Part of me thinks the best thing that can happen to us is to have them pouring into Europe and their kids seduced by Western materialism and popular culture. So they're pissed off that their kids are having sex with Westerners? Get used to it. Welcome to our world.

I read Hitchins' article and I get a chill, to be quite honest. His rant against Muslim attire, for example, does sound fascist, though he hollowly tries to disavow any sympathy with such hate ideologies. Interesting that Sam Harris does not shy away from saying the fascists are speaking most wisely about Muslims. Pretty appalling if you ask me. Here is concete evidence if you want to make a case that atheism begets Stalinist horrors. Hitchins advocates selecting Muslims for special maltreatment because this involves making distinctions based on religious affiliation and not race. Say what? I'm sure that doesn't make any Jew or Mormon with a sense of his own ethnic history feel any better. The guy is off his rocker.

And now to Lebewski's excellent point. What is the biggest current problem the West has to solve vis-a-vis Islam? The Iraq war. Bush delivered us to the Islamo fascists. They've got us where they want us. They can't kill us in New York with any regularity, so they got us over there and are doing it to us in Iraq. Hitchins is hell bent on redeeming his support for this misadventure and he's become warped in the process.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So if they support, finance, and shelter terrorists, that's not a big deal I guess.

I'm afraid that argument will not get you very far.

We are not yet at war with radical Islam. If we ever are, it will approximate a genocide. Because entire nations will be destroyed. Not everyone in all these nations. But lots of people and all the meaningful infrastructure. These countries will become southern Lebanon.

No, we are truly not at war. Knowing they will return to the stone age is the only thing that holds them back. If they had the advantage, trust me, they would press it.

We should support moderate and liberal Muslims. But let's not kid ourselves. We should fight radical Islam with our full might and force.

You took the words right out of my head. Scary for you I know, lol.....but in short I agree with you completely.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

You took the words right out of my head. Scary for you I know, lol.....but in short I agree with you completely.

I agree. Scary for Mike, and I bet this would cause Hitchins to reflect if he knew Rocky. I rest my case.

[MikeWaters]

Does Islam lend itself to multiculturalism?

Clearly not. Look at the Islamic countries. Look at the freedom of religion. Look at the consequences for people who decide to leave Islam.

Is Islam trending towards Western ideals or Taliban ideals? I would suggest that the correct answer is the latter.

What percentage of Muslims support the goals and aims of Osama Bin Laden? A scarily large percentage.

Westerners that aren't given significant pause by this are worse than ignorant. They become complicit through inaction.

I know there is a danger of overstating the danger. And Iraq has harmed the argument.

But don't mistake misgivings about Iraq for misgivings for the first against radical Islam.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What percentage of Muslims support the goals and aims of Osama Bin Laden? A scarily large percentage.

Westerners that aren't given significant pause by this are worse than ignorant. They become complicit through inaction.

I know there is a danger of overstating the danger. And Iraq has harmed the argument.

But don't mistake misgivings about Iraq for misgivings for the first against radical Islam.

Yes, a good percentage of Muslims "support" Osama Bin Laden. But it's not purely for religous reasons. Have you ever read Al Qaeda's list of demands? Almost all are based on perceived insults against the Islamic world by the west. Muslims (rightly in some cases, wrongly in others) have a deep sense of persecution that causes this message to resonate. Countering the influence of Muslim culture as suggested by Hitchens does little to address any of these political issues. And in the long run I can't help but wonder if it would simply serve to deepen the sense of persecution and exacerbate the problem.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes, a good percentage of Muslims "support" Osama Bin Laden. But it's not purely for religous reasons. Have you ever read Al Qaeda's list of demands? Almost all are based on perceived insults against the Islamic world by the west. Muslims (rightly in some cases, wrongly in others) have a deep sense of persecution that causes this message to resonate. Countering the influence of Muslim culture as suggested by Hitchens does little to address any of these political issues. And in the long run I can't help but wonder if it would simply serve to deepen the sense of persecution and exacerbate the problem.

If this were a fruitful plan, then you would let me know who the great Mulsim world leaders are.

Given that there are none, that should tell you something about what you are dealing with.

Every nation has historical grievances. The question is what do you do about them? Given that Muslims seem more than happy to shit where they sleep, a plan to expand their influence and power seems at best foolhardy, and at worst, suicidal.

And I would mention this also: they support OBL, knowing full well what the consequences of that support are: no peace with the West. Support of OBL is support of Jihad, which is war against the West.

Let's not kid ourselves.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If this were a fruitful plan, then you would let me know who the great Mulsim world leaders are.

Given that there are none, that should tell you something about what you are dealing with.

Every nation has historical grievances. The question is what do you do about them? Given that Muslims seem more than happy to shit where they sleep, a plan to expand their influence and power seems at best foolhardy, and at worst, suicidal.

We must not be communicating well. I have absolutely no idea what you meant by that or what it has to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

And I would mention this also: they support OBL, knowing full well what the consequences of that support are: no peace with the West. Support of OBL is support of Jihad, which is war against the West.

Let's not kid ourselves.

True. But terms such as "support of OBL" and "war against the West" are overly simplistic. Many muslims are sympathetic with his stated aims, but strongly disagree with this tactics. Many are just too poorly educated to know any better.

As for Jihad, the Koran lists specific circumstances under which Jihad is not only allowed, but is mandated. The most predominant of which is occupation of Muslim lands by non-Muslims. That is why so many Muslims from many different countries flock to Iraq to fight U.S. forces and why such a high percentage of Iraqis (even the pro-democracy crowd) want us out. Ditto for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, etc. And of course, this is a major problem for Israel and the West Bank. We are in a catch-22. You can argue that we need to be there to fight terror. But our very presence there is what fuels the hysteria that leads to the terror.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

We must not be communicating well. I have absolutely no idea what you meant by that or what it has to do with what I said.



True. But terms such as "support of OBL" and "war against the West" are overly simplistic. Many muslims are sympathetic with his stated aims, but strongly disagree with this tactics. Many are just too poorly educated to know any better.

As for Jihad, the Koran lists specific circumstances under which Jihad is not only allowed, but is mandated. The most predominant of which is occupation of Muslim lands by non-Muslims. That is why so many Muslims from many different countries flock to Iraq to fight U.S. forces and why such a high percentage of Iraqis (even the pro-democracy crowd) want us out. Ditto for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, etc. And of course, this is a major problem for Israel and the West Bank. We are in a catch-22. You can argue that we need to be there to fight terror. But our very presence there is what fuels the hysteria that leads to the terror.

I am not a Qu'ranic scholar, but I believe you are oversimplifying the implications of jihad within the Qu'ran. We could turn to the Surah to which you refer and then consult scholars to understand its application better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am not a Qu'ranic scholar, but I believe you are oversimplifying the implications of jihad within the Qu'ran. We could turn to the Surah to which you refer and then consult scholars to understand its application better.

Be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_jihad