bustardblog

Crashing Civilizations

My post of yesterday essentially condemned the ideas attributed to Pope Benedict, and especially those espoused by Jonah Goldberg regarding the Muslim world.

I received a few comments that helped me clarify my thoughts on the issue. The first comments suggested that I actually read a speech given by Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury -  a speech which has been described as supportive  of anti-Muslim arguments and of the comments made by the Pope.  In fact, the speech in no way confirms such a posture - quite the opposite.

Another comment was from the loyal Rick, who argued that we have long been in a war of civilizations; a war in which we are completely innocent, and that "Islam was spread at the point of a sword, and will be settled at the barrel of an Abrams M1 A1."  Although he is completely wrong in his arguments, I do admire Rick for his honesty in stating the logical conclusion to his statements. The Goldbergs and Malkins of the world merely pass out bromides about "standing up" to Islam, or "confronting" it. It would be even more impressive if Rick were to tell us how many Muslims would have to eliminated in order to stop them from conquering the West. Clearly, the spiral of death in Iraq only grows wider and larger the longer we are there. Rick sees the war as ongoing and unavoidable.

Goldberg, like so many on the right, and like Bush himself, gain personal rewards by being provocative. They earn money, maintain power, and stroke their egos by provoking Islam. It's deeply cynical, and if they believed what they said, seriously dangerous behavior.

Tricked Again - Part II

It comes from a different source, but the same thing is happening with the stupidity of the comments by Pope Benedict, then by Lord Carey, and supported by the Chicken Hawk in Chief, Lord Goldberg.  The right has managed to create a narrative in which a poor little innocent Pope's life is threatened, a nun killed, and Catholic churches destroyed because of the vicious Arab terrorists, who we Democrats would allow to destroy our freedoms - since we're Jihad Enablers.

The distortions that enable such a narrative are boggling. Benedict is a conservative, right-wing guy. As Cardinal he ran the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" formerly known as the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition." In his speech he implied that a reformation was essential in Islam. Yet he, currently, and the group he headed, historically, have fought every reform possible. His is the religion of the crusades, and of the Spanish Inquisition where Jews and Arabs who would not convert had to leave or be killed. The Inquisition was all about killing those whose conversions were not sincere enough. (The Jews (And Muslims) that fled Spain sought and received refuge in the Ottoman Empire) Is it surprising that the comments of a Catholic Pope would be scrutinized in the Muslim world?

Without a hint of irony, Captain Ed describes Lord Carey's position as one where "growth will never occur until Muslims go through a Reformation process that sets their faith apart from their government." (emphasis added)

 

Goldberg is not interested in the refuges Jews received from the Ottomans - "Spare me tales of Jewish accommodation in the 15th century', he writes. But he approves of the Pope's quoting a 14th century Byzantine, and of course bases his support for Israel in part on even more ancient history.

Because of our support for Israel, and because we had established a military base in Saudi Arabia, Osama attacked us. This despicable act is inexcuable. With justification, Bush attacked the country that had harbored Osama.

But we then invaded and have occupied another Arab country for over three years. In the process, its infrastructure has been destroyed, as well as possibly a hundred thousand innocent Arab lives lost. As Robert Pape has pointed out, there had never been an Iraqi suicide bomber,not one, until we invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda is stronger, and the Arab world more radical, because of  our unilateral attack on Iraq.

One of the reasons those of us who objected to that invasion, did so, was because of our certainty that it would bring instabilitly and increase hatred of the West in an enormously important region of the world. The left warned that the invasion of Iraq would cause more terrorist attacks

And it has.

The West now has over 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we have established a Jewish State on land that had been in Arab hands since the founding of Islam. The Arab world is pissed and sees us as its enemy. Would the Chicken Hawk in Chief please spare me the outrage.

This crash between civilizations, if it is one,  is entirely the fault of our President, who has been Driving While Intoxicated, and the real enablers are the Goldbergs, the Bill Kristols, and our corporatized media that dare not speak the truth.

9/12/2001

Yesterday I posted two photos which prove the lie of the Bush Administration's meme that the events yesterday were non-political. While the two Democratic Senators from New York were not invited to participate in Bush's charade in Manhattan, the two Republican Senators from Pennsylvania were invited to view the show in Shanksville. Republican Governor of New York was asked to participate, while the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania was not.

I received a comment from a reader, Farmer Mark. who wrote that he

found most of public commemorations to be inadequate ways to deal with the memorializing and processing functions necessary to such a recent, raw event and think someone should try to come up with a ritual that is appropriate, meaningful and unique to this occasion.

I happen to know that he personally was directly, seriously harmed by 9/11. I totally agree that the pompous rites engaged in by our political leaders were pathetic, even cynical, but what else can be expected from such "leadership?" Just as they used 9/11 as an excuse to act on their long held desire to invade Iraq, they once again tried to use yesterday to sell their misbegotten war.

On September 12 of 2001, I was still in shock, and very worried about the people that I loved in New York. I felt some first twinges of optimism in seeing initial reactions around the world. True, some residents of the occupied Palestinian territories were dancing in the street. But the Arab world was hugely united in condemning the terrorism, and especially unanimous when it came to the civilian casualties.

France's Le Monde ran the famous headline "Nous sommes tous Americains." Iran, for the first time in 22 years, was not saying "Death to America." A few days after 9/11, there was a moment of silence to honor our innocent dead in an international soccer game being played in Tehran. Newspapers throughout the country condemned the attacks, as they did throughout the Muslim world. Indonesia, like Jordan, froze bank accounts of those suspected of working with Al Qaeda. I could go on and on. The amount of goodwill Bush squandered is stupefying.

There was quite a small group of Muslims who did applaud the attacks - but the vast majority of this minority did so on the basis of our government's behavior. Primarily  they condemned our having a military base in Saudi Arabia (the holiest of their lands) and of our support for Israel. There were other reasons, but virtually no one supported the attacks because of our "lifestyle"- our acceptance of homosexuality, our treatment of women - or our freedom. It is only washed up wing-nuts like D'Souza, Hitchens, Falwell and Bush who speak such nonsense. The Arab world was amazingly unanimous in condemning the loss of civilian life: whatever the gender, race, religion or sexual identity of that life.

In looking at international reactions to the tragedy of 9/11, I came across a prescient response to Bush's speech of 9/20/2001. In that speech, Bush stated that "we will use every necessary weapon of war," that "Americans should... expect ... a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen," and he told "every nation" that "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

Parts of the response:

An objective and calm friend should advise the United States government against throwing the young American soldiers into an uncertain war in remote, isolated and inaccessible places, like a fight against ghosts, not knowing where they are or even if they exist or not, or whether the people they kill are or not responsible for the death of their innocent fellow countrymen killed in the United States.

...

After the shock and sincere sorrow felt by every people on Earth for the atrocious and insane terrorist attack that targeted the American people, the most extremist ideologists and the most belligerent hawks, already set in privileged power positions, have taken command of the most powerful country in the world whose military and technological capabilities would seem infinite. Actually, its capacity to destroy and kill is enormous while its inclination towards equanimity, serenity, thoughtfulness and restraint is minimal.

These were parts of a speech given in Havana by President Fidel Castro on September 22 ,2001.

If only we could expect a fraction of such wisdom from our own "leadership."

Lying about Lebanon

The Prime Minister of Lebanon has announced that over 900 Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israel's invasion of that poor country. Yesterday, Juan Cole reported a number closer to 500. Whatever the actual number, it is far too many, and an utterly inexcusable response to the killing of 8 soldiers and the kidnapping of two.

The right has done its utmost to muddle the facts on this issue, using strategies that could have been lifted directly from the play book of those who deny the Holocaust. It is as if Hutton Gibson, Dad of Mel and Holocaust denier, was issuing marching orders to Michelle Malkin, Allan Dershowitz, et al.

One of the best ways to sow confusion is to sew doubt. You start by making up facts. Lies.  Sites like Little Green Footballs pointed out that in most Islamic terror attacks "the death toll increase[s] over several days" and asks why in Lebanon, "the trend is exactly the opposite." Although stated as if it were fact, it is not. For example, initial reports of 9/11 spoke of deaths in the tens of thousands.  The number that actually died in that attack was thankfully much lower than initially expected. First estimates are always wrong, that's one reason that they are called estimates.  But, like holocaust-deniers, those who want to trivialize death in Lebanon must create confusion about the number of dead.

Elaborate, 'conspiracy' type theories are essential in rewriting history. Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg are great at implying events in Qana were "staged." Goldberg quotes unamed, unsourced reports that "refrigerated trucks were reportedly brought in before the media could visit the site, perhaps delivering corpses." As if Israel would not know if refrigerated trucks were on the road to Qana. Free and Justice made use of the time honored deceipt: "Reports that Hizbullah staged it [Qana] could not be confirmed nor denied."  Of course, as of this writing, reports that Michelle Malkin has been arrested on numerous occassions on charges of spousal abuse, could not be confirmed nor denied either.  Wing Nuts like the Confederate Yankee are so obsessed by the supposed time lapse between the bomb hitting the house in Qana and the collapse of the building, that one wonders what they made of the shorter, but actual, time between the plane hitting the WTC and its collapse.

It is true that the reported number of civilians killed in Qana has been lowered to 28 dead and 13 missing. When gatewaypundit reports this he justifies the deaths by writing that "Leaflets were dropped on the town weeks before the attacks warning people of the likelihood of violence."  This is of a piece with Alan Dershowitz's despicable argument that some cvilians are more like civilians than others.

I mean if Israel tells you to leave your home, failure to comply with their instructions justifies your death.  But as that radical Voice of America reported long before the Qana attacks," People who want to leave are also having trouble finding fuel for the journey."  Israel had blown up the gas stations.  They also blew up bridges and roads. As the  BBC wrote on the 22 of July

"Israel has ordered the civilians of southern Lebanon to leave their homes and thousands of families are heeding that advice - at least they are trying to. 

But the Israeli military onslaught around the southern city of Tyre is so fierce, the trip is too daunting for many inhabitants.

Even if it were physically easy to leave, it is not easy for a farmer to lose his livestock, and probably his harvest. The Lebanese also fear that Israel will decide to occupy the lannex their land as a part of Israel (as it has done in Jerusalem), give their homes and farms to Israeli citizens (as in the West Bank), and because they fled during an uprising, deny them the right of return to their homes and villages (as you can see in Palestine refugee camps). And of course Israel has "accidentally" bombed a convoy of civilian cars leaving the south.

Despite all of this, we all saw that: All over the ruined streets of southern Lebanon, families from border villages that have been cut off by 20 days of Israeli bombardment are desperately trying to flee, using the respite offered by a 48-hour halt to most air strikes.

Strapping white sheets to their cars in an attempt to stave off Israeli strikes, tens of thousands of Lebanese have fled the south, taking side roads to avoid ruined bridges, driving around bomb craters and leaving many villages deserted.

This attempt to distort the reality of the deaths of innocents in Lebanon is morally unconscionable. Blaming the victim also serves to dehumanize the victim, a trick of which the actual perpetrators of the holocaust were also fond.

Please know that I consider myself a friend of Israel, and I know that the situation today in Lebanon is nothing like the Holocaust. But I also know that when any actions of Israel are defended using the same kinds of twisted tricks that were used to both justify and deny the holocaust, the country has completely lost its way.

 

Despicable Derbyshire

The people at the National Review are nice people. Really.

John  Derbyshire: "the spectacle of Middle Eastern Muslims slaughtering each other is one that I find I can contemplate with calm composure."

The Times Screws Up

The New York Times is a tad tone deaf.

For a few years now it has been educating me about the deep humiliation that Muslims experience when seen, or particularly photographed, when naked or nearly so. Remember Abu Gharab?

"The Holy Prophet Mohammad, peace and blessings be upon him, has said on the topic of modesty: 'Verily modesty and faith are related to each other; when one of them is taken away, the other also is taken away.'" (link)

So please look at today's front page. A few Muslims who work in the neighborhood confirmed to me this morning that this is deeply offensive. And the best part is that it's totally unnecessary to the story. (In the paper copy of the paper the photo is on page one)

"Satr is another important code to understand when considering the implications of the prison abuse scandal.... Muslims must keep their bodies from the navel to the knees covered in front of others. The only exception to this rule is one's spouse." (link)