THE PLANK NOVEMBER 28, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Samanth Subramanian is a staff writer for Mint in New Delhi.
So much is still so unclear about the mechanics of the Mumbai terror attacks that, even these hours later, we're left only with the images off the television--of the Taj Mahal Hotel on fire, of the devastated waiting hall at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, of the army maneuvering around south Mumbai. And, grabbed from security cameras, of a few of the terrorists--in their early 20s, clean-shaven, dressed in T-shirts and jeans, and armed to the teeth.
Many Indians of my generation, I think, had come to classify terrorists here as ancient fundamentalists with ancient grudges, or as imported troublemakers, or as representatives of the severely marginalized. But throughout 2008, as terror cycled through Jaipur, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, and New Delhi, it disturbed and saddened me most to find that the suspects were my peers by age, and often even from the so-called New India.
Among the callow recruits of the group known as the Indian Mujahideen, which made its regrettable debut this year, you'll find men like these: Mohammad Peerbhoy, a 31 year old principal software engineer for a Yahoo! subsidiary, who made Rs 1.9 million (around $40,000) a year; Mohammad Shakeel, a 24 year old enrolled in the final year of his Master's degree in economics; Abdus Subhan Qureshi, a 36 year old who worked for an IT company in Mumbai; and Usman Agarbattiwala, a 25 year old who holds, in the blackest of ironies, a post-graduate diploma in human rights.
I can only think of questions. What anger can fill a youngster almost overnight and convince him to cast his youth and his future aside to make his first kill? What is to be done if these men have exposed the lie beneath our shiny new Indian economy, which promised opportunities and progress for all? In the media, Peerbhoy was said to have undergone "sustained brainwashing"; how sustained does brainwashing have to be to craft a terrorist out of an upper-middle-class professional? Who failed whom? Did India fail, because she could inspire such matricidal sentiment so easily, or did her children fail, because they turned so thoroughly against a country that had seemingly been good to them?
It may yet turn out that the young man on the security camera grabs, in a T-shirt emblazoned "Versace," the last two letters hidden by the strap of a shiny blue knapsack, his hands cradling a gun and his eyes gleaming, is not from India at all, that he smuggled himself into Mumbai purely to cause the mayhem he did. But the uncomfortable questions will have to be answered, and for India's sake, sooner rather than later.
65 comments
It was an al queda, hizbullah operation. Shiite and Sunni together. Why? Because of Iraq, which happened to have accidently been a correct war for those very reasons. They need a foreign element to attack, which is Hindu India indirectly and Americans, Brits and Jews directly. Because Islam can't accomodate itself, in its sectarian animosity, its backwardness in the modern high-tech age, its feudal government structures, its oppression of individuality within its tribal hegemony, its hate of technology, but mostly its superiority complex, that represents a true psychosis. The author asks the question how these successful, academically minded people can become terrorists, the lowest form of life, beneath the amoeba, is because they are indoctrinated to believe that their failed religion is in fact superior, kind of like jumping in line. This is why the western, designer label dress is an ironic joke, like arbeit macht frei of the Nazis. They are happy with their barbaric stupidity, because when one is heavily armed, who is going to insult them. This is the only way the joke isn't on them, their pathetic scrawny ass souls are doomed to fail because they are born failures, because they are born Islam. There is nothing lower than a Moslem, amoeba's have higher ethical principles and culture.
- ponty
November 28, 2008 at 2:17am
ponty...I'm not sure who's more mindless, you or the terrorists. Anyone who paints an entire religion with one brush can't be much more thoughtful than a terrorist who is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face.
- jdthiessen
November 28, 2008 at 6:18am
jdthiessen: no, finding middle ground when a religious war is launched against diners and hotel guests is mindless and anyone who can't understand something as simple as this is worse than mindless. That is what you are, a pathetic joke of someone blind to reality hiding in their little mind of fair mindedness.
- ponty
November 28, 2008 at 6:39am
Whats really funny is that youre the type of person that finds organized religion distasteful, but rushes to defend Islam, the most barbaric organized religion to climb out of its hole with its bloody hands. Its funny you can't make up your mind what is more mindless, indecisivenes makes you a pathetic victim.
- ponty
November 28, 2008 at 6:51am
Ponty, that's the radical element, NOT the entire religion. Those guys with the guns paint Christianity and the West as homogeneous, and as the enemy in the same way that you are. Of course, there is this radical element, and we need to stand up to them. But fighting a religious war, a war of two societies, is what these sad, Islamist radicals want... you might want to think twice about signing on to THEIR world view.
Terrorism is about radicalizing people. Don't let yourself get caught up in it!
- thomasein
November 28, 2008 at 8:25am
Does TNR have minimal posting standards? Are there thresholds that can't be crossed without banning?
- mjhollerich
November 28, 2008 at 9:02am
"I can only think of questions. What anger can fill a youngster almost overnight and convince him to cast his youth and his future aside to make his first kill? "
Ever read Dostoyevsky's "The Devils?"
- jacksondyer
November 28, 2008 at 9:33am
ponty... You are absolutely right. I can't imagine what I was thinking. Thanks for setting me straight. Islam is, and always has been a completely bad religion. Christianity, on the other hand, is and always has been a completely good religion. I stand corrected.
- jdthiessen
November 28, 2008 at 9:37am
ponty said: "It was an al queda, hizbullah operation. Shiite and Sunni together. "
I don't think all Muslims are hate filled monsters but it only takes 20% of a billion of them to create havoc.
In any case, I too think there may be a Shiite connection to the attack. Iran has attacked Jewish centers elsewhere in the world.
But there is much that is still unknown about the attacks thus far.
- jacksondyer
November 28, 2008 at 9:38am
Yes, lets censure opinion to clean it all up, so that we can put a pretty bow on the mumbai massacre. It wasn't quakers murdering for fun, it is Islam. Islam is a radical religion. Any fool knows there is no moderate wing of Islam. It is the worship of death, they go by the moon calendar. The entire religion is a form of indoctrination. It has no positive aspects to it. I work with Moslems. They themselves don't have any opinion on their own religion, only to blindly obey. Sheep have more freedom of thought.
- ponty
November 28, 2008 at 9:39am
jackson:
Hi. Happy turkey day and all that.
The "Plank" isn't a regular forum for your opinions. We haven't exchanged views in quite some time. As you remember my views are diametrically opposed to your own on some matters. However, it was refreshing to read that even you think ponty just is a wee bit off.
Ponty's veiws are (wild) generalizations--and absurdities on speedballs. (The "moon calendar?" Islam is a form of "indoctrination?" I'm surprised anyone would think that any "religion" is a form of "indoctrination." "I work with Moslems." Huh? I know anectode is an element of empiricism, but not rationalism.)
Btw, do you seriously think Iran is involved? How? Funding? (Iran is Shiite, as you know.) Does Iran normally get involved in Pakistani/Indian (Kashmiri) issues? Plus, anytime I hear of Muslim terrorism in India , I think ISI. (That doesn't mean that must always be so, but you know what I mean. By the same token, the perpatrators of the Mumbai attacks may just be copying Shiite terrorists.) What to you think?
- tec619
November 28, 2008 at 10:20am
I can acknowledge the flaw is in some of the aspects resistant to change that is inherent in Islam but jeez Ponty do you go overboard. You seem to have no idea what religion is, which all promise salvation (of some sort) if one follows a defined set of rules. Christ is the shepard and we are his flock, believe in him or face eternal damnation. Not much freedom there, unless one wants to go to hell. Now does this lack of freedom mean Christianinity is terrible? That following the word of God as laid out in the bible makes us mindless? Of course not, submission to what people believe is a higher wisdom is not mindless, it is striving towards a higher meaning in life.
Islam has many moderate strains, if you took 1 hour out of your life you can learn this very easily, but profound ignorance is too comforting for you because it allows you to feel superior.
When I was young I found Hasidim funny, I lived nearby their camps in the poconos and as children we laughed at their funny clothes and hair, it was only as a young adult that through reading the works of Chaim Potok (among others) that I gained a profound appreciation for their lives and their faith. Education, not needless provocative idiocy, is the answer. None of these people have been shown to have a true education.
- blackton
November 28, 2008 at 10:32am
Ach Gott - Ponty is back. No need to censor this idiot; s/he serves as a useful reminder of what ideology and muddled thinking can result in. Ponty, dear, it's the *blue* pills you should take, not the bright orange ones, when you feel bile coming up.
As for the main post, cf previous paragraph.
"What anger can fill a youngster almost overnight and convince him to cast his youth and his future aside to make his first kill? What is to be done if these men have exposed the lie beneath our shiny new Indian economy, which promised opportunities and progress for all?"
I have no idea what the second question has to do with the previous one, or with the post itself. In fact, the second question is directly undermined - or rather, easily answered - by the examples given: "opportunity and progress" have nothing whatever to do with presence or absence of violent zeal. The US bred McVeigh, the Saudis Mohammad Atta, and the Indians Peerbhoy. The common denominator in all of this is not lack of opportunity or failure of economic or educational progress, but rather the dominant presence of a hateful ideology.
And when that hateful ideology is untempered by any social restraints and, in fact, encouraged and glorified by the perpetrators' own community, and when the victims, or a significant minority of the victim population, seek to justify away the violence and the ideology rather than confront and defeat it, the ideology and the violence it brings spreads like a new virus among a prone populace.
That's the answer to the first question. What anger? The anger of ideology, and in this instance, Islamist, jihadist ideology. It is immaterial that Islam itself may or may not have condoned this kind of violence, just as it is immaterial that Marx or Rousseau might not have condoned Stalin or Mao. Objectively speaking, the terrorists are not only Muslim but also harbor faith in a violent interpretation of Islam. Objectively speaking, that interpretation has considerable currency in the Muslim world. Objectively speaking, religious leadership in the Islamic world, and many cultural, popular and political figures, not only do not object to this violence, but actively condone it. Objectively speaking, Islamic "thinkers" are more concerned about preserving the *image* of Islam and of Mohammad (observe the UNGA resolution on religion) than they are about protecting the allegedly peaceful core of Islam. Is it any wonder that young professionals turn violent?
In Ye Olde Countrie there is a wonderful proverb: "An ugly soul marks the looking glass, break/ yourself, shattering the mirror a sin will make." For as long as the Muslim world and self-hating Western liberals are busy breaking mirrors, there will be no end to the ugliness.
- icarusr
November 28, 2008 at 10:37am
Tec: there is next to no chance that Iran is involved in this. They are making enormous concessions in commercial contract after commercial contract for India's so-far nonexistent political support on the nuclear issue and after prostrating themselves for the past three years and having suffered all manners of official and economic indignity, the Iranians are not likely to destabilize their relations with India. In any event, Iran and Pakistan are major rivals and not allies, and Iranian-Indian ties are far deeper (culturally) than Iranian-Pakistani relations (strained for most of Pakistan's history).
While one cannot rule out the ISI's influence, I think there is an unseemly haste in looking for foreigners and foreign influences in all of this. For one thing, not even the ISI would be foolhardy enough to be implicated in an attack as violent as this; the risks of massive and immediate reprisal are just too great. For another, India is the second largest Muslim country in the world. India's history is not a shining example of peaceful coexistence; the fault lines between Hindu and Muslim populations run deep. If only one percent of India's adult Muslim males of a certain age are inclined to violence, that's already between three to five hundred thousand people. My vote, on the basis of nothing but a hunch, admittedly, is that this is homegrown. Which, in fact, makes it even more scary.
- icarusr
November 28, 2008 at 10:46am
The reference to Dostoevsky's posturing and ideologized fanatics and dreamers is apposite, much more so than the stupid bigotry of the initial poster. Modern terrorism's ideological and strategic origins are in late 19th c tsarist Russia. Add Georges Sorel, water, and stir. The result will fit a great variety of religious/political/nationalist movements of the last one hundred plus years. Radicalized Islam is just the latest manifestation. Which is not to minimize its destructive and destabilizing potential -- but taking the bait is precisely the point of such efforts. Kudos to blackton for reminding us, no doubt vainly, that publicity and panic are the oxygen on which they feed. I say starve the beast.
- mjhollerich
November 28, 2008 at 10:52am
iccy: I'm not convinced Iran is involved. Jackson suspects Iran. So I wanted to know the basis for his belief--beyond the fact that its previously been involved in bombings of Jewish embassies, etc.
As for the ISI--usual susprects right? But if the attackers actually sailed from Karachi. . . Who knows. Is any homegrown (i.e. Indian) Muslim terror actions conducted without the knowledge and support of the ISI. I'm not well informed on the subject of Muslim terrorism in Indian. What about you?
- tec619
November 28, 2008 at 11:03am
Tec: "nothing but a hunch." And what I read these days in the press.
As for Iran - the regime is malignant but not suicidal. They will do what they can get away with - Argentina being a good example - and are good at using proxies against enemies or opposing interests, but I know of no hint of Iranian involvement in previous Muslim attacks in India, and the weight of strategic interests suggests that they would not be operating there. At least, not right now, and not in so public a fashion. In any event, the internal power struggle in Iran is reaching dangerous heights; I doubt anyone in Iran has the time, energy or the resources to concentrate on a foreign adventure right now: each of the roughly dozen or so active factions needs all its resources in fighting the other ones.
- icarusr
November 28, 2008 at 11:23am
I am late to the conversation, but I am glad to see others standing up against Ponty's deranged rantings, particularly you, jacksondyer, with whom I do so rarely agree.
In related matters, I am quite concerned about what I just read at the tail end of a Washington Post article about the effect on Mumbai as a city: the funeral of a slain police officer concluded with fellow officers placing a banner over his body reading, "[He] has attained martyrdom in his encounter with terrorists. May his soul rest in peace."
Can that possibly be a good thing, to respond to terrorism by making it a battle of martyr against martyr? Let's compete to see who can best die for their beliefs in a way they think is heroic? How will that ever get us closer to an end to this nightmare?
(The article is at www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008112702709.html )
- janus
November 28, 2008 at 11:28am
mj: easier said than done. In fact, there is no chance of shutting down publicity, so this is not a credible suggestion. What do you and blackie propose the news media do in a case such as the Mumbai attacks? Suppress the news? Not report the attacks? Not mention who is doing it? Not to analyse what the Indians might do in the future? Even if sound in principle, "starving the beast" is not an option.
In any event, I don't think it is sound. There is that episode of Star Trek where two planets engage in virtual wars with real victims, to save the buildings. Kirk says that it is in the awfulness of destruction that peace is to be found. Every killed child and spilt innard should be pressed in the faces of the Muslim masses to bring the horror of their "martyr" philosophy into their homes. This isn't about "the Great Arrogance" or "capitalism" or "Zionism" or "72 virgins". It's about torn bodies and blood on the streets and weeping widows and orphaned children. Let each Muslim who is silent in the face of these attacks feel the full impact of their horror in his or her bones; perhaps, one day, they will awaken to the rings of their now-dormant consciences.
- icarusr
November 28, 2008 at 11:30am
"tec619 said:
iccy: I'm not convinced Iran is involved. Jackson suspects Iran. So I wanted to know the basis for his belief--beyond the fact that its previously been involved in bombings of Jewish embassies, etc."
"Jewish" embassies?
What are those?
- noga1
November 28, 2008 at 11:43am
icarus, I must salute your ability to combine geekery and adroit political analysis to present an important point quite poignantly. I am proud to merely post on the same board as you, sir.
- janus
November 28, 2008 at 11:47am
mjhollerich:
Do you think it is realistic to expect that 9/11 or Mumbai massacre-style attacks shouldn't receive extensive coverage? Granted, the wall-to-wall coverage given by cable news (which is usually sans any new or salient information and long on insipid jaw-jacking) to such events is galling. (Sometimes, I think cable news outlets are elated during times of extreme human tradegy.)
Now the panic factor, should be addressed. (Don't expect any help from--again--television news.) It is awfully easy for people to lose perspective. The Bushies handling of 9/11 is a perfect example.
Despite being a bit shell-shocked after 9/11 (I was temporarily living in NYC fter moving from the D.C. area) I still tried to conduct myself in a business-as-usual fashion. It was somewhat difficult: My employer closed our offices for two weeks. I worked a quarter mile from the WTC site which added to the strangeness.
But, the truth is, in most countries, particularly the U.S., terrorism attacks are rare. And let's face it: Despite the large number of Muslims in NYC, the transit system didn't experience any incidents of suicide bombings. What does that tell us?
- tec619
November 28, 2008 at 11:56am
noga1:
Right. Correction: Israeli embassies and Jewish centers. I'm rushed and usint too much shorthand.
- tec619
November 28, 2008 at 11:58am
iccy:
What Janus said. Btw, are you trying to be the Seinfeld of the Plank threads? Star Trek?? You're killing me. :-D
- tec619
November 28, 2008 at 12:02pm
tec, so far as news coverage goes, it's certainly useful in trying to keep ourselves informed, but particularly during yesterday's coverage, we have to filter through a lot of postmodern garbage where the reporters, lacking anything else new to present to the viewer, start talking about their own feelings and reactions, and sometimes go a bit crazy with it. Or a lot crazy.
One of the anchors on MSNBC yesterday was talking to a reporter reporting from Mumbai, and turned the conversation to comparing the reactions of reporters to regular citizens in the course of experiencing "extreme news events." I understand that reporters have to maintain a certain distance and objectivity, much like (to a much greater extent) doctors do, but...seriously? Describing a city under siege as an "extreme news event?"
- janus
November 28, 2008 at 12:31pm
Just a couple of comments on the basis of what I've gleaned from various TV and newspaper sites, as well as NPR: firstly, there is something about the combination of fake statements and an otherwise disturbing silence from the perpetrators' side that reminds me of an Al Qaeda operation. I'm not even sure that the "suicide" element can be counted out here as it looks like all the terrorists were/are prepared to go down in firefights, even if not self-immolated in explosions.
Secondly, I find the argument over local vs. external origins distracts from the reality that in a porous and globalized world the distinction (as in the case of the London bombers) between home-grown apocalyptic hatreds and resentments and international direction and supply of such hatreds and resentments is a fuzzy one. If this was an entirely home-grown Indian affair, why the singling-out of Brits and Americans? Why the attack on the Jewish community house?
Thirdly, one should also deal firmly with blowhards like ponty by pointing out that major acts of terror such as, for example, the destruction of the Air India 747 in 1985 had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims but was carried out by Sikh extremists -- one could ask, does this then make the Sikhs uniformly a culture of savage barbarians? Is it a competition between them and the Muslims? And what should I think about the guy who burst into a Unitarian church five minutes by car from my house and opened fire, killing two people before he was luckily brought down by some brave members of the congregation, and who believed it was his Christian duty to attack the churchgoers as they have a gay and lesbian center once a week, ocassionally attended by teenagers? Is he not also a terrorist informed by a grotesque theological legacy, as he presumably was planning to kill more people (who were expecting to be gunned down at church as little as the people in the Mumbai hotels were expecting an armed attack during dinner) if he had been given the opportunity?
- ironyroad
November 28, 2008 at 1:34pm
I credit TNR posters with understanding that I'm not advocating a pointless and impossible censorship.
My position is that we can't afford to take the terrorists' bait. Initial analysis of the Mumbai attacks indicates a) that destablizing Pakistani-Indian relations (this would not be incompatible with participation by the Pakistani ISI) was a prime motive, b) that Americans and Brits were targeted (cf. Iraq and Afghanistan), and c) that a Jewish community center was also targeted (cf. Israel). It is easy to infer both a deranged ideological inspiration at work -- e.g. anti-Semitic hatred, which has given new lease on life to propaganda like the Protocols; also, genuine hatred of the U.S. and "the west" and everything associated with it in the form of personal emancipation (not hard to see how this has intellectual filiations with anti-modernist Islamist movements) -- and a coldly calculating political desire to rekindle the enmity between India and Pakistan, which has the advantage of changing the subject in Pakistan, stirring the pot in India, and messing up U.S. efforts.
I worry about two things: over-reactions that play into the hands of the terrorists; and the self-defeating characterization of the issues as a war against Islam. That's why I reacted so strongly to the initial poster's maunderings.
- mjhollerich
November 28, 2008 at 1:35pm
Ironyroad:
Details on the attack at the Unitarian church? Not aware of it -- I guess I should be.
I'm a Catholic who worries about the lunatic fringe in my own church.
- mjhollerich
November 28, 2008 at 1:53pm
mjhollerich :
Don't worry. No one should have thought you were advocating censorship because your post was fairly clear. It suggested keeping thing in perspective. No?
janus: I'm sure the silly exchange on MSNBC prompted a lot of eye-rolling and sighing. :-D
- tec619
November 28, 2008 at 2:07pm
Great thread, everybody, except for ponty.
And as usual, Ick, you are in fine form.
- scrubbyoak
November 28, 2008 at 2:49pm
ironyroad:
Such an optimist. (Not that anything is wrong with that.) :-D But I don't think ponty is suseptible to facts and reason.
Hope springs enternal.
- tec619
November 28, 2008 at 3:16pm
mjholl:
It was back in late July.
www.equalityloudoun.org
tec:
Oh, optimism! But one has to counter the blowhard. The blowhard must be given no quarter.
- ironyroad
November 28, 2008 at 3:33pm
Thanks for the kind words. You know what they say, as goeth Star Trek, so goeth life. ;-)
- icarusr
November 28, 2008 at 3:50pm
You are all apologists for terrorism. Using singular events to make a generalization that all religions is to blame or equally culpable is ludicrous. But I don't expect any better from the PC and moral relativism of the liberal New Republic, that has lost any critical acumen or ability to judge. I wonder if you had the wherewithal to have condemned the Columbine Massacre because this was nothing less, insane and indoctrinated, wanton hate manifesting itself in mass murder and pleasure in the act of destruction. It is sad to see the effort to whitewash the evidence of pure evil that exists in this world as something else. The censure worries about taking the wrong message from this event as if his opinion on this page is important, but he should worry that he and the others with identical opinions evidenced here are the people others should be worrying about. The angry people who understand the depth of the depravity and its inhuman character are the true humanists, not the pretenders found here. DO you morons think that these inhuman monsters had a legitimate or even coherent reason for their acts? No more than the Columbine murderers. It is sad how limited you all are.
- ponty
November 29, 2008 at 12:41pm
What should worry you or wake you up from this stupor of moral relativism, that will only lead to further atrocities, is what is evidenced here on this page, the danger of group think, the self-congratulatory tone and reinforcement of similarly held beliefs, that are nothing more than beliefs and opinions. In an environment such as this are the seeds of moral blindness, indifference and callousness that can be easily transformed into what happened in Mumbai. This was a dress rehearsal for the next escalation eventually leading to the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists. This moral relativism and apologetics is a slippery slope to oblivion and my suspicion that there is a secret delight in this possibility found here. I don't think the apocalypse is understood by the people here , in fact it may be the only thing that can end their stupor. alas but too late.
- ponty
November 29, 2008 at 1:21pm
ponty fulminates: "Using singular events to make a generalization that all religions [are] to blame or equally culpable is ludicrous. But I don't expect any better from the PC and moral relativism of the liberal New Republic, that has lost any critical acumen or ability to judge."
Sorry, but aren't you the one most enthusiastically using singular events to make a generalization? If you read others' commments carefully, you'll see that they are broadly skeptical of dramatic generalizations about religion (the fact that you don't even grasp that is very revealing).
Basically, mon ami, you are not a very good ambassador for your own "acumen" or indeed for your "ability to judge." If you can't write a paragraph without larding it with personal insult and invective, that doesn't strengthen your argument.
- ironyroad
November 29, 2008 at 1:27pm
I wouldn't expect you to understand that Columbine is not a singular event but an example of the banality of evil, that a thought process can be developed where evil and good are reversed, where destruction is understood as constructive. This is the problem, that nothing can be gained through the indiscriminate murder of people, where not even a political motive is evident or deemed relevant by the perpetrator. People who can't discern the difference are unfortunates and with all the seeming brain power reputed to be found here, this can only lead one to conclude a form of moral blindness found here. The holocaust, that only occurred just over sixty years ago, should be understood as the beginning of the era we live in. It must be remembered or be given new life because it indicated that modernism isn't a solution to the problem of evil and post-modernism and moral relativism is only indifference to the existence of evil. The holocaust ushered in the new era of a world without God, where a world without moral certainty devalues life, leading to murder as survival of the fittest. Liberals don't realize that their secularism, their embrace of democratic values and beliefs are no longer relevant in this morally uncertain world. This makes the quest for moral certainty indispensable in coping with this world of devalued life. It is ironic that post-modernism and moral relativism is a kind of throwback to modernism. It is too late. Nietzsche's analysis of modern life was the same thing, a clarion call for the Superman to lead the search to moral certainty, not the opposite that is commonly assumed. He understood what a world without God meant. Nobody is courageous enough to see reality the way he did and that is whats wrong with liberalism today and the people here.
- ponty
November 29, 2008 at 2:07pm
They talk about the Mumbai assault and massacre as India's 9/11. People wonder how a city of thirteen million could be occupied by a handful of Islamicist murderers. The reason is obvious, India was unprepared the same way America was, financial security gives one the illusion of personal security, a feeling of invincibility. Hopefully, this lesson will be understood and learned. This illusion of security is the kissing cousin of moral relativism and post-modernism.
- ponty
November 29, 2008 at 2:30pm
Evil by definition is evil as an end in itself, not for any other purpose or goal. Hitler's effort to impose authoritarian rule on the world was motivated by a feeling that the world was out of control, when it was his own insanity, his own lack of control and terror over it projected onto the world. Islam is in a similar period, the balance of power between the east and west changed with the fall of communism and created a vacuum that Islam has sought to fill. The lack of any obvious moral clarity of the modern and secular western world is interpreted by the Islamic world as a sign of weakness and this weakness is their own projected onto the world, the same as Hitler. Islam is a religion with no moral values, made obvious by its blood lust and anti-modern hostility. It was a military movement with a unifying message that realized the rise of other social systems would handicap its ability to compete in the world. Islam is only capable of uniting tribal groups, but through forced indoctrination. It is its lack of liberalism that makes it paranoid and dangerous. The liberals think somehow their belief system can be implanted. The Bush doctrine sought to do so through intervention militarily and forcefully and the liberals found here think Obama can do so through dialogue. The problem is not understanding the nature of Islam, a militaristic religion based on the mood god of Mecca. The only way of ending the vacuum is through the development of a sense of moral certainty that can calm the beast and this won't be achieved through a call to arms or by pretending the problem isn't real either.
- ponty
November 29, 2008 at 3:03pm
Evil by definition is evil as an end in itself, not for any other purpose or goal. Hitler's effort to impose authoritarian rule on the world was motivated by a feeling that the world was out of control, when it was his own insanity, his own lack of control and terror over it projected onto the world. Islam is in a similar period, the balance of power between the east and west changed with the fall of communism and created a vacuum that Islam has sought to fill. The lack of any obvious moral clarity of the modern and secular western world is interpreted by the Islamic world as a sign of weakness and this weakness is their own projected onto the world, the same as Hitler. Islam is a religion with no moral values, made obvious by its blood lust and anti-modern hostility. It was a military movement with a unifying message that realized the rise of other social systems would handicap its ability to compete in the world. Islam is only capable of uniting tribal groups, but through forced indoctrination. It is its lack of liberalism that makes it paranoid and dangerous. The liberals think somehow their belief system can be implanted. The Bush doctrine sought to do so through intervention militarily and forcefully and the liberals found here think Obama can do so through dialogue. The problem is not understanding the nature of Islam, a militaristic religion based on the mood god of Mecca. The only way of ending the vacuum is through the development of a sense of moral certainty that can calm the beast and this won't be achieved through a call to arms or by pretending the problem isn't real either.
- ponty
November 29, 2008 at 3:03pm
Anyone want to head out for a beer?
- ironyroad
November 29, 2008 at 3:22pm
Beer not nearly strong enough. I'm hitting my '68 Cognac ...
- icarusr
November 29, 2008 at 4:46pm
panty said: "This illusion of security is the kissing cousin of moral relativism and post-modernism."
"Evil by definition is evil as an end in itself, not for any other purpose or goal. Hitler's effort to impose authoritarian rule on the world was motivated by a feeling that the world was out of control, when it was his own insanity, his own lack of control and terror over it projected onto the world." [Which reason is it??]
The above statements are certainly made from the product of kissing cousins. That incoherent drivel is surely the product of a mind that resulted from inbreeding depression.
Eh, panty. What is your contribution to our national defense? Apart from febrile scary talk.
Any military service? Or you can't find the time between stocking your underground bunker and wallpapering your walls with aluminum foil?
- tec619
November 29, 2008 at 4:56pm
panty's febrile, wild-eyed, fear-mongering rantings are an example of what mjhollerich was talking about.
My cereal is soggy! Run, hide. Al Qaeda did it! Omg! A haji behind every [olive and date] tree!!
- tec619
November 29, 2008 at 5:02pm
tec, hah. too funny.
- blackton
November 29, 2008 at 5:27pm
I try blackie, but you know I'm an also ran compared to iccy. You know I haven't any patience for people who've completely lost perspective. Panty and his ilk are Chicken Littles who are--really chicken. It's always I read books or papers or seen on television, this that or the other. (Or in panty's case, anecdote extrapolated. "I work with Moslems. They themselves don't have any opinion on their own religion, only to blindly obey." What--ever.)
Of course, my comments in no means suggest that I'm not outraged by the terrorists attacks (and saddened by the loss of life) in Mumbai--or anywhere else where "any" terrorists attacks occur. It just means, I'm not prepared to wage war against every Muslim nation and kill every Muslim on planet earth.
The yelping of the panty types is infuriating. It's never: When I was in the sandbox (i.e., Iraq; like I was, panty)-- we had to do this or that. I killed x-number of those Muslim, haji, imperialist fuckers. My fire team busted into this house and the fuckers were right there assembling IEDs.
Or when I was a secret agent in the Middle East, I introduced myself as:"Waste, Ponty Waste."
No, The Cassandras are always yelling to the top of their lungs. Admonishing us of dangers they don't inted to defend us against. Their small minds making gross generalizations and painting the world with the only the only two pigments on their narrow palette: Manichean black and Manichean white.
Yawn. I think they should get a life. Or better yet, if they are soooo concerned. Get a job. The army is recruiting. Iraq and Afghanistan are guaranteed deployment destinations.
But, following the Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith model, I'm sure panty will stay away from the uniform.
- tec619
November 29, 2008 at 6:04pm
I was in the army, a driver with the armored corps. I also drove patrols at night with an intelligence unit. I have been in combat. My daughter is finishing her second year in the army. It just further ilustrates what a know nothing blowhard can be found in the pages of the New Republic. I know from which I speak and believe me no stupid arab wants to mess with me on the battlefield.
- ponty
November 30, 2008 at 10:34am
If what you claim is true panty--I'm shocked. (Combat where?) But I'm unimpressed. Yawn. I've been to Iraq. However, your gross generalizations, and chicken little bullshit is still. . .dumb, dumb, dumb.
Your malleable, apocalyptic, eschatological mindset is exactly what those in power, who usually have ulterior motives, rely on to send young people to their deaths.
Your comments reveal a person who has completely loss perspective. Fear-mongering is a method of controlling the masses. And ugly stereotyping is a step away genocide. Your fevered, manichean imaginations are clouding your ability to reason.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Islam. The "keep the bitches down," and near total infiltration of the religion in society. (As you can imagine, I'm not a fan of the Christian Right.) Then, I'm not a fan of any religion. Despite the number of times I've been to the Middle East, the sight of women in abayas still creeps me out.
So while you should be outraged terrorism and religious hate, don't forget that many, if not most religions use theological justifications to kill. The Islamic fringe is a wrong now as the Christian fringeand what used to be the Christian mainstream and Islamic mainstream. (You can substitue other religions, if you wish.)
Take my advice, reread your postings and take a relaxing walk. You should be safe. Somehow I doubt a member of al Qaeda will jump out and challenge you to go mano a mano.
- tec619
November 30, 2008 at 11:43am
tec619:
You are a joke. You think you are so smart and so sensible but deep down you are a coward. What you don't understand is that there are ideals more important than life, that evil exists in the world, it isn't a comparative religion class. Anyone stupid enough to try to whitewash Islamic barbarism is no better than apologists for the NAZI's. I would never send someone to fight in my place and I know what combat is like, but I'm not afraid like you are. Its like when someone says they have a friend who...you are talking about your own tail that you're afraid to lose. In the final analysis we choose the world we want to live in and to live a coward is a life not worth living. I suggest you try to summon the courage to see the world as it is, not the way your liberal sensibilities wish so hard for it to be. There is a war being perpetrated by a criminal religion. I asked my Moslem coworkers today they're opinion on Mumbai and they both individually and seperately changed the subject. They are not like us. They are blind fanatics and they know it but just don't care. And you are their public relations director. I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with the kind of nonsense that you take credit for.
- ponty
November 30, 2008 at 12:34pm
ponty: "I asked my Moslem coworkers today they're opinion on Mumbai and they both individually and seperately changed the subject."
You know, if you approach people in real life with the know-it-all pomposity and hectoring style with which you post your comments here, I'm not surprised your two coworkers suddenly find they urgently need to do some copying or visit the bathroom.
- ironyroad
November 30, 2008 at 1:34pm
Yeah, panty, an apologists for Nazis, and a joke(ster). Once I read that accusation, I know more paranoid accusations are in the offing.
All my friends know I'm a big Nazi apologist. (The Jewish ones don't.) I even have a photo of myself shaking Adolph's hand. (Hitler presented me with the Hitler/Brownshirt Apologist of the 21st Century Award. (My excuses are so singularly spectacular, that Hitler didn't think anyone could rival me in the remaining 92 years of the century.)
Bin Laden personally invited me to receive the al Qaeda Apologist Non Pareil Award. (The award includes a one-year supply of those delicious confections.) I'm still trying to book a flight to Miran Shah in Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Can you recommend any good restaraunts? (I hope traveling there won't cause DoD to revoke my clearance.)
Oh, yeah. Maybe your Muslim co-workers declined to answer you because the inquiry was accompanied by rabid frothing.
If you need to call me, I can be reached at my office:
The Muslim Terrorism Apologists Institute
Attn: Office of the Public Relations Director
Cave 235, Troglodyte Way
Parallel Universe 666
Try some Haldol. It may help.
- tec619
November 30, 2008 at 1:59pm
"Can you recommend any good restaraunts?"
tec, if you get a chance, stop by The Baluchistani Arms on Extremist Ave, a block south of Bhutto Assassination Square -- they brew their own (non-alcoholic of course but still) on the premises and the Jihad Brunch on Sundays (only 9 a.m. until 11 so get there early) is to die for. Also the local free paper usually has the adultery stoning schedule in the listings.
- ironyroad
November 30, 2008 at 2:43pm
irony:
Thanks for the info. I'll try the beer. Don't worry, I don't mind the lack of alcohol. I only drink the hard stuff when I attend Nazi rallies.
I may decide to purchase a home in the F.A.T.A. What's not to like? There is polygamous marriage, divorce by text message (It's about time Islam entered the 21st century) and no DNA testing. Impregnate some unmarried chick and simply claim: It wasn't me. Then I get to stone her.
I'll invite Paranoid Panty. I'm sure he'll love it.
He hasn't responded yet. Must have ran out to purchase more aluminum foil. Those wall have to be papered. . .
- tec619
November 30, 2008 at 6:27pm
Hmm. I wonder why panty works with so many Muslims. . .?
- tec619
November 30, 2008 at 6:43pm
"Hmm. I wonder why panty works with so many Muslims. . .? "
Working undercover to save our naive liberal and jihadist loving ass from the evil brutes, tec. That's all.
- scrubbyoak
November 30, 2008 at 7:40pm
Scene 1: act 1
ponty's workplace. ponty approaches muslim co-worker sitting at a desk down the hallway.
ponty: "Hey, how's it goin'?. Look, I wanted to ask you, given that Islam is a criminal religion, how do you feel about the terrorist attacks on Mumbai?"
Muslim co-worker (staring at him): "Yeah -- hey, look, I'm really pushed for time, have to do this copying. Deadline. Sorry."
She exits left hurriedly.
ponty moves further down hallway. Approaches second muslim co-worker.
ponty: "Hey buddy, what's up? Look, I know it's a problem that Islam is a criminal religion --don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming you -- but how do you feel about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai?"
Muslim co-worker (staring at him): "OK. Good one. Listen, love to chat, but I really need to head off to the bathroom, like right now." He winks. "When ya gotta go . . . ."
He rushes away.
ponty glances around in a confused way. Looks for third muslim co-worker. Fails to find one. Heads back to his own office in a depressed mood.
- ironyroad
November 30, 2008 at 11:33pm
irony:
I thought my previous posts were funny and could set me up for a gig as a writer on SNL. But you had to "two" up me didn't you? Sigh.
They are hilarious. I'm laughing my ass off. (Crying on the inside, though.) :-D
Seriously, I'm just trying point out to ponty the dangers inherent in stereotyping and the nasty prejudice that result from it. Seems he's impervious to reason. I'm amazed his Muslim coworkers don't flee when he comes around. Then again, his "coworkers" may be shacked to the walls of his basement.
Ponty's paranoid writings remind me of the kerfluffle over Rachel Ray sporting a. . .keffiyeh. No! Ray was wearing a paisley scarf. (Probably to indicate solidarity for the Irish-Muslim Terrorism Axis.) Michelle Malkin's poor eyesight and irrational suspicions got poor Ray into trouble.
Worse, were Malkin's accusations of treason (of anyone wearing a keffiyeh). I noted on a TNR thread that I purchased two (actually it was three) keffiyehs, because I thought they looked cool. My first purchase was from an AAFES/MCX-sponsored (Army-Air Force Exchange Service/Marine Corps Exchange) Iraqi vendor in Iraq. I bout another from an AAFES-sponsored vendor in Camp Virgina, Kuwait and the third, in February from a NEX (Navy Exchange) sponsored vendor in Bahrain.
Imagine, Malkin was hurling accusations of traitor and support for terrorism. Yet, DoD exchange services sell the same supposed symbol of Muslim terrorism. Ridiculous. No?
- tec619
December 1, 2008 at 8:35am
oh, yeah. I know the keffiyeh is also a symbol of Palestinian liberation, but it's not on par with the Nazi swastika.
- tec619
December 1, 2008 at 9:24am
Irony:
I think you might have left a few details out.
Like, Panty *thinks* he has Muslim co-workers, because there are two dark guys with Arab sounding names ... one ends being a third generation Lebanese-Argentinian and the other a Hindu from the Subcontinent. Or one is a Copt and the other a Moroccan Jew. Or ...
The Rushdie fatwa came when I was in third year university. I was of course horrified by the fatwa and, more to the point, by the thousands of Muslims marching down the streets of my city demanding the death of Rushdie and censorship and whatever ... let's just say that what I said in private and occasionally in public could, today, land me before a Human Rights tribunal for unPC talk ... that is also when my views on immigration and assimilation shifted significantly to the right - I think Tancredo has to look to his left to see me.
Well, back then, I was quite active in university politics and cultural events; besides, I was the first Iranian-Canadian running for university-wide office, and as you can tell, I am not shrinking violet, so I was fairly well known. One day, coming down the ornate steps of the neo-Gothic cultural centre of the university, a guy I had know for a couple of years as a more or less harmless nerd comes up to me and starts fulminating against Khomeini and the fatwa and how "you people are destroying freedom of speech" and "you people have to learn to live by our rules in this country." Heads turned (though no one said anything - now some PC police would hobble the guy on the spot and ship him off to James Bay for re-education), friends who were at the top of the stairs came down, waiting to see how I would react ("purple scream", one of them expected, as she told me afterwards). I stood there for a couple of minutes, said nothing because I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. Then I smiled and told him, "God, you're so stupid. First, I ran away from Iran precisely because of these fatwas - I have lost cousins and friends to the regime's hangmen; second, I'm not Muslim; and third, as Oscar Wilde might have said, Rushdie *deserves* a fatwa against him - not because he insulted the Prophet, but because the book is *badly written* and incomprehensible. That is all." The oik uttered a deflated "oh" before I bowed to a round of applause of the masses - well, a dozen or so students - who had gathered on the steps and looking down on us, as in a Greek amphitheatre.
I'm beginning to wonder if Panty isn't the same oik.
- icarusr
December 1, 2008 at 9:51am
Tec, dear, I cannot BELIEVE your cultural insensitivity.
Paisley ... "Irish-Muslim"? The pattern was brought to England from Iran in the early 17th century. So it would be more like Anglo-Persian - as in the oil company that found the first well in the Middle East - and so, not terrorists, but Imperialists.
- icarusr
December 1, 2008 at 9:55am
iccy:
As a Middle East expert ( I read two books, don't speak Arabic nor Farsi and spent--as in ordered to spend--a little time there) I won't admit to erring. Instead, I will attack you and indulge in historical revisionism.
So here goes:
Imperialists!? Why are you liberals always railing against European "tourists?" You sir are a terrorist-loving, self-loathing cad!! The (visiting) Brits didn't get anything from those dumb Farsi speakers. And if paisley is Persian, why are there people named Paisley in Great Britain? (Notice I ignored the fact that you said the pattern, not the name was imported from Persia.) :-D
Another thing iccy. Is the James Bay reeducation camp guarded by polar bears? If it is, that will only confirm panty's suspicion that the animals are closet Muslims. The thought crossed my mind because on one occassion my PBS station aired two episodedsof "Nature" that weren't exactly kosher. The first episode focused on the Persian ibex. The second episode was about polar bears. Very strange. Coincidence? I think not.
(Did that score well on the Paranoid meter?)
- tec619
December 1, 2008 at 10:34am
Tec: well-done mate. And good guess on the Polar Bears guarding the re-education camps. Actually, they're Armoured Bears, and the camp is, for some reason, called Svalbard ...
It should not surprise you that as a Persian and a Capricorn, I find the Ibex as the most majestic of all land animals. The Polar Bear is a close second. I've always known PBS to be a terrorist-loving network, so it does not surprise me at all that it had programs on these two wonders of nature back to back.
- icarusr
December 1, 2008 at 11:03am
As terror struck India last week, TNR reached out to a number of reporters, analysts, and writers to
- Anonymous
December 1, 2008 at 12:34pm
tec -- we'd both have to stop and salute the great Bill Yard as he went by.
- ironyroad
December 1, 2008 at 12:58pm
irony:
Agreed. I'll send Bill my year's supply of al Qaeda non pareils.
The Plank: "[T]o" what?
- tec619
December 1, 2008 at 1:57pm