May 19, 2005

The Silver-Lined Gitmo Commode

By Demosophist, (while Rusty is living it up in Adams-Morgan and forgetting to tell me where to meet him.)

Well, I'm frankly puzzled by this whole Koran-flushing thing.  I understand how a people steeped in a vengeful literature for a thousand years might get upset when a few red infidels use laser-guided bombs to blow up their neighborhoods while we're liberating them from tyranny.  And I grasp the idea of the shame of a proud people when inferior mongrel troops are sent into a place like Fallujah or Ramadi to uncover baby Auschwitz slaughterhouses with shaky plaintive notes from the victims scrawled on the walls in their own blood, or when we bomb Baghdad in "Shock and Awe" while they stand on their rooftops so as not to miss anything, or when a group of our miscreants discomfit captives guilty of far worse, with the cultural indignities of plebe hazing.  I understand that, and it sorta makes sense.  But why do they wait until they think we might have flushed a [holy] book down the crapper before instigating an Ummah-wide lethal street uprising?  Why now, and not then?

I asked some people I know, including some Muslims, about this, because I'm stumped. I related the story of how Sir Ernest Shackleton tore up the pages of the Bible when the Endurance was stranded at the South Pole, to impress upon his men the necessity of leaving some things behind for the march across Antarctica. A Jewish friend observed that a Jew, at least an Orthodox Jew, would probably not have done what Shackleton did with the Torah. But she also said that they probably wouldn't have rioted had someone flushed it, either.

My Muslim friends didn't help much, because they're the sort that wouldn't have rioted... but they allowed that perhaps there's some sort of deep-seated scatological aversion that merges into the "holy book" thing. It's as if they're saying: "Shit on us, and we'll manifest a controlled but bemused anger. We can take it. But shit on the holy book that in the midst of generations of tyranny has been our last refuge, and we'll just go completely berserk." It's wacky sure, but admirable, to place what you abstractly value above yourself. I can relate.

I suppose, when it gets right down to it, we Americans, who live in a nation founded on an ideology rather than an ethnic heritage, can understand that attitude pretty easily. It's not really Big Macs or even the World Trade Center that holds us together as a nation. There are indignities that would move at least some of us to kill, though we'd look the other way at the insult of being likened to Nazi Germany when we've spent treasure and 1600 of our best lives just to preserve the option of liberty for a people who personally mean little to us. I thought one only did that sort of thing for one's family? We're a pretty intense lot. Passionate. You know what I mean, don't you?

I think I'm tolerant. I understand that there's a difference between intense deep love for someone, and unhealthy obsession. And I think we need to make a similar distinction about religious conviction. I understand that there were lots of Muslims pissed at the US, but horrified by the riots. But sometimes I wonder if Muslims, the deeply religious and the fanatical alike, shouldn't be just a little more worried that we might just fly off the handle once in awhile. I worry that our apologists have been too successful at convincing them we're nice, even-tempered barbarians.

We may need to communicate with the Ummah a bit more honestly about our own Koran-flushing-like trigger points: the sort of thing that happened in the 1830s when non-native-American settlers in the West got the idea that native-Americans weren't just quaint, but practiced a religion that preached the total annihilation of the white man (The Ghost Dancers). It's true that the Ghost Dance religion was naught but a distorted reflection of apocalyptic Christianity, and not only wasn't based on native-American beliefs, but wasn't even violent. It looked awfully dangerous, so the townfolk grabbed their pitchforks and slaughtered the Ghostdancers. Confusion has its cost.

I think part of the calculation of the jihadists is that we always at least strive to be fair and moderate in our responses, so that when we fall short it's always a mistake. And this faith in our restraint (with a few predictable and comforting lapses to convince them we're not saints) offers a tempting advantage for extremism. They've seen us stumble over the imaginary line of propriety and get up off the ground slapping and cursing ourselves. I mean, if we don't excuse ourselves once in awhile, why should they?

But they haven't really seen our dark side, have they? We can be as unyielding and irrational as they. We've got crazy buttons too. What they need to understand is that under certain circumstances we may no longer moderate our responses. If, for instance, there's a WMD attack on a major city in the US those people in the streets, as well as the people looking on in horror at them, need to understand that our response may not be measured at all. It's not fair to mislead people and leave the impression that we'd just take the hit, or even that we'd only respond in kind or degree, city for city... or something nice like that. That, I'm afraid, is the Ummah's brand of wishful thinking.

So, I understand their reaction to the Newsweek story. They've made their point, and I even admire them for it. Because I partake on some level of the same sort of unreasonableness about values vs person, and more importantly I know that my fellow Americans can be far more unreasonable than I. They should know more about our history. They should read about Andrew Jackson, and Curtis Lemay, and U.S. Grant, and Phil Sheridan, and William Tecumseh Sherman, for starters. Street riots are nuthin'.

So, I guess the silver lining in all of this pottygate stuff is that we're not really that different after all, and they can understand a bit about us by looking at themselves. The Ummah can travel a familiar road to understanding, instead of worrying about our wimpy apologists. No, we wouldn't flush the Koran, not because we revere it, but because we're with you in your convictions. They make a lot more sense to us than to the Europeans. Our convictions aren't about the same things, but they're just as intense... and just as self-forgetful. We mean business when it comes to preserving this civilization... and it's entirely possible to just push us to far. We go a little berserk once in awhile too.

John Bolton, a pretty mean American, could be good for the cross-cultural dialogue.

Update: A few thoughts on what's ultimately at stake, and the key to our own potential outrage, our own Koran-flushing-trigger, from Bill Whittle.

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia, Anticipatory Retaliation and The Jawa Report)

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:33 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 1185 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Aside from your last sentence (namely because I still see Bolton as more of a liability for U.S. interests), I thought you made some pretty insightful points.

Posted by: Venom at May 19, 2005 02:41 PM (dbxVM)

2 It won't take a massive attack on one of our cities to set us off into total war with Islam. If we see the start of suicide bombings in our cities, malls, or other public places, I would expect to see outrage so massive that it could result in Congressional action to not only ban Muslim immigration, but possibly the deportation of Muslim non-citizens as well. And I'm NOT paranoid. A radiological or chemical attack against one or more of our cities would result in such a terrible lust for revenge that it could not be stopped. Anyone who tried to negotiate would be ignored. I read recently that Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because Iran knows that there are Israeli submarines with multiple nukes, and that Iran would cease to exist as a nation if Israel struck back. I would hope the Iranians (or the North Koreans) know that any weapons used against us will be traced by to their money, scientists, technology, spies, or whatever. The revenge would be horrific.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 19, 2005 02:47 PM (cf+K6)

3 "I read recently that Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because..."-Scott CA ...BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY NUKES, IDIOT!

Posted by: greg at May 19, 2005 02:58 PM (/+dAV)

4 Venom, Bolton is just what the Dr. ordered. He reminds me of Theodore Roosevelt, and a good Big Stick treatment is just what the UN needs.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 19, 2005 02:59 PM (0yYS2)

5 The one adjective that best describes Muslim characteristics is childishness. They do the most unbelievable shit and stand ready to justify it by making up whatever lies are needed on the spot, then when they see an offense to them, whether real or perceived, they throw a tantrum. My grandmother showed me the best remedy for a kid who misbehaves, and I think that most Muslims could use a dose of it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 19, 2005 03:03 PM (0yYS2)

6 Greg, i think what Scott was saying that if{meaning sometime in the near future}Iran had a nuclear device, they wouldnt use it on Israel because they know that there would be massive retalation that would wipe out millions of Iranians....and no one knows for a fact if Iran does/doesnt already have at least one nuclear device on hand as of now....wether or not they do/dont they sure like to mouth off about starting up their nuclear program....and i for one do nor trust the Iranian Mullahs in charge.....

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 19, 2005 03:04 PM (mZYh2)

7 you got that right Maximus....a good spanking and sent to youre room....now, can we send the Mullahs to their room and let some pigs loose in there with em???

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 19, 2005 03:07 PM (mZYh2)

8 Greg, get a grip. Read the newspaper. The Iranians are working as fast as they can to get a nuke and everybody (except you, I guess)knows it. They will probably prevail, unless Israel or the US stops them first. They have publically stated that their intention is to "destroy Israel" with a nuke. Like so many Islamic regimes, they are delusional to the point of psychosis. They know Israel will destroy them if they hit her first. The fact that YOU don't keep it is not my problem, comrade.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 19, 2005 03:17 PM (cf+K6)

9 The fact that YOU don't keep up (with the news) is not my problem, comrade. (correction).

Posted by: scott in CA at May 19, 2005 03:19 PM (cf+K6)

10 Scott, I can't blame Iran for wanting a nuke. Israel has 200-500 nukes. As a result, everyone of her neighbors lusts for the bomb. It makes good sense. What's goood for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: greg at May 19, 2005 03:42 PM (/+dAV)

11 I think the logic of deterrence still holds with respect to Iran, but it's now more of a constrain than a barrier, because there are lots of loose cannons around now. How could a people willing to violate the sanctuary of mercy, not to mention other time-honored sanctuaries, be relied upon to honor the logic of deterrence? Short answer: they can't. If through through misadventure or design they were to get their hands on a device, you can kiss the Middle Eastern heritage and civilization, both the Persian and the Arab versions, goodbye. They'll survive only in museums. Besides that, why would we even consider giving that sort of leverage to a totalitarian regime, if there were the slightest possibility of denying it to them? You Leftists out there (Venom, etc.) get with the program. Just because we win this doesn't mean you lose. That's another story, and your prescriptions will be judged on entirely different grounds. Grow the heck up.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 19, 2005 03:50 PM (d0CtA)

12 oh sure greg, wouldnt you just love to see a bunch of psycotic bunch of Iranians with pudding for brains, armed with one of mankinds most powerfull and destructive weapons???.....dude, you gotta leave them magic mushrooms alone....what are you a kid???....oh come on mom thats not fair!!!!....if Abdualla has a nuke to play with, i want one tooooooo!!!!.....see, the Israilis have enormous restraint to not use their nuclear arsenal unless its absolutley needed...they could have wiped out every single freaking camel jockey by now what with all the murders caused by suicide bombers and all the rocket and mortar attcaks they suffer almost every day on their towns and settlements...but have they, NO...now you take those wild and crazy guys in Tehran...well, all they need is for some Israeli to even sneeze in their direction and they would be screaming to launch the missles and you know it....just who i would love as a neighbor, sheesh...there goes the neighborhood, sweety, pack up the kids and the dog, we are moving to some desert island in the South Pacific!!!

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 19, 2005 06:02 PM (mZYh2)

13 "every single freaking camel jockey" --Thanos35 Racist speech belittles you and reduces the value of your comments.

Posted by: puzzled at May 20, 2005 04:37 AM (moq9v)

14 greg, Israel SHOULD have nukes because she isn't trying to wipe out her Arab neighbors, while her Arab neighbors DO want to wipe out Israel. So what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Posted by: Carlos at May 20, 2005 08:26 AM (8e/V4)

15 Demosophist, I know it's convenient to label me a leftist, but you're the one whose "left" on that one (as in "out in left field). I'm a true conservative, not a neocon like yourself. There's a difference. Frankly, you should "get with the program" and learn that difference.

Posted by: Venom at May 20, 2005 08:45 AM (dbxVM)

16 greg, not to mention Israel is our ally and Iran is our enemy. No equivalency whatsoever.

Posted by: Carlos at May 20, 2005 08:49 AM (8e/V4)

17 I can't wait until the Arabs get a nuke. A state of mutually assured destruction is just what the region needs. And Israel is no ally.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 08:58 AM (/+dAV)

18 Greg, I'll just go ahead and say it. Israel is GOOD. Iran is EVIL. There, go ahead and rant. No one cares. The point is that there are good contries who are democratic and do not threaten others, and there are evil countries, who are undemocratic and do threaten others. I am in favor of arming the former to the teeth with anything it takes to intimidate and, if necessary, destroy the latter. It's a simple as that.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 20, 2005 09:59 AM (cf+K6)

19 Iran isn't my enemy. Iran is Israel's enemy. Fuck um. Why should our kids fight Israel's wars for them. They play the "let's you and him fight" game. They exert too much control over our country. Let them fight their own wars. We give them 4 billion dollars a year.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 10:27 AM (/+dAV)

20 What gets me is why is everyone so worry about nukes. I have to admit that Saddem was a lot smarter then the idiots in Iran. Dollar for Dollar, chems are a lot better then nukes. They are a lot cheaper to make, easier to research, easier to clean up after. Usually leave the area alone for 3 or 4 days, and you good to go. You may still have to deconaminate the area, but it is a lot easier then to de radiate an area. Not only that, you can get loot once the area is clear, with the mushroom you get slag. So if you ask me, screw nukes, lets ensure no one uses chemical weapons.

Posted by: Butch at May 20, 2005 12:04 PM (Gqhi9)

21 Greg, the current Iranian government is your enemy. Their stated agenda is to destroy the West and institute Islam over the earth. They have said it many times. It's all part of the Jihadi psychosis that is a key element of radical Islam. You ignore it at your peril.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 20, 2005 01:03 PM (N8E1H)

22 Listen bitch, I'll choose my own battles. I don't need you fucking Zionazis telling me when I should sacrifice my progeny. If you want war, I suggest that you and YOUR kids grab a few rifles and hop on the next plane.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 01:38 PM (/+dAV)

23 Israel isn't our ally. Iran isn't our enemy. greg says so.

Posted by: Carlos at May 20, 2005 02:12 PM (tFXpR)

24 Iran is our enemy. Israel says so. Sacrifice your children for Israel. Sacrifice your children for Carlos.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:34 PM (/+dAV)

25 Carlos: I just don't know how to talk to the Left, or for that matter their allies the Paleocons, any more. The fact that the latter are their allies might have clued them in at some point, but I think I've finally come to the same conclusion as Bill Whittle, that for some people deep in the womb of sanctuary "reality has left the building." I don't know how to reach such people, though I see they can probably reach themselves if they've the right incentive. And I don't believe, any more, that there's even a decent reason to try to reach them. We can pretty much do this without them. When they decide it's time to join the jihadists, and they start throwing bombs themselves, we'll cross that bridge too. What can one expect of a people who equate the equivalent of plebe or fraternity hazing with real torture? Not very much, I'm afraid. On a more constructive note, did you know it's possble to use store-bought tortillas and Trader Joe's Pizza Sauce with pre-grated Italian gourmet cheeses and farm-fresh produce, to make personal-sized homemade pizzas that are just wonderful enjoyed with a beer and NASCAR on the Speed Channel, or the Tour de France or the Giro on OLN if you prefer? What a delicious place is America! No wonder the lamenters don't actually leave for a European or Middle Eastern paradise!

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 02:37 PM (d0CtA)

26 Demosophist, Carlos, and Oyster; I have a simple question. Are your children fighting in this war?

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:44 PM (/+dAV)

27 "When they decide it's time to join the jihadists, and they start throwing bombs themselves, we'll cross that bridge too." lol...ahh, I haven't laughed like that in a long time...c'mon, how can you make such a constructive commentary like your original post, and then follow it up with melodramatic nonsense like this?

Posted by: Venom at May 20, 2005 02:48 PM (dbxVM)

28 greg: Demosophist, Carlos, and Oyster; I have a simple question. Are your children fighting in this war? I don't have children of that age, but my nephew helped retake the oil facilities at Um Qasr and lived in the appalling conditions there for six months defending from sabotage, and going on regular patrols in the gulf to interdict shipments of supplies and ammo from terrorist-supporting states, and to disarm mines, etc. He's now back home in the states, but willing to go back any time he's asked to do so. Venom: Eh?

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 03:01 PM (d0CtA)

29 Demo If you did have children of that age you might reconsider your position.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:05 PM (/+dAV)

30 Demo, I understood Venom perfectly. Why don't you read his comment again.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:09 PM (/+dAV)

31 Oyster? Carlos? YouuuuuuWhooooo

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:22 PM (/+dAV)

32 AIPAC campaigns for Iran sanctions http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1116037299455&p=1078113566627 The Israeli spies hope you'll send your kids off to die attacking Israel's enemies. BTW, that "nuclear site" sure does get around. Photos of that same site have been claimed to be in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001189.htm They must have a really big truck to haul that sucker around like that! LIES LIES LIES!

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:32 PM (/+dAV)

33 greg: If you did have children of that age you might reconsider your position. If it's essential, it's essential. I believe it's essential, and unless I were willing to be a free-rider, of course I'd support my children going, just as people like Marc Danziger already have done. I'm preparing to go myself, as soon as I get up to speed on the language. What I can't fathom is what you think the alternative to be. Read the above fisk again. Stir in the insight that Islam has been made vulnerable to this by three trends: 1. a thousand year trend in literature that mocks all other cultures on earth as the equivalent of a canine brawl; 2. the open door given the Nazis by the Allied pullout from the Middle East in the 1940s to sew the seeds of malignant ideology; and 3. the fruition to both trends by merging with "liberation philosophy" in the writings of radical Islamists by people like Sayyid Qutb... all stirred by decades of autocratic and tyrannical oppression of Muslims and their media. We. Have. No. Choice. I understood Venom perfectly. Why don't you read his comment again. Perhaps I wasn't as clear and concise as I might have been. To clarify: Eh.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 03:33 PM (d0CtA)

34 "I'm preparing to go myself, as soon as I get up to speed on the language."-Demo In what capacity?

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:37 PM (/+dAV)

35 Greg continues to demonstrate his utter ignorance. Iran isn't a neighbor of Israel. And Iran is not an arab country. In fact, Israel worked to aid Iran during the Iran-Iraq war because Iraq had actually field armies against Israel and Iran had not. Iran's hatred of Israel is based solely on the same thing that greg's mental illnesses are based upon - anti-semitism.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 20, 2005 04:30 PM (xauGB)

36 In what capacity? Maximum.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 10:52 PM (d0CtA)

37 Maximum? Means nothing to me. Sounds like you're bullshitting. If you don't want to answer the question, that's OK.

Posted by: greg at May 21, 2005 09:03 AM (/+dAV)

38 Robin:"because Iraq had actually field armies against Israel and Iran had not." RobinÂ’s comment is unintelligible as usual.

Posted by: greg at May 21, 2005 09:07 AM (/+dAV)

39 Maximum? Means nothing to me. Sounds like you're bullshitting. Why would I go there and give anything less than my maximum capacity? And why the deuce would you ask me what I'd be doing specifically ON A PUBLIC FORUM, you imbecile? Has someone taken a blender to your brains? But that actually is your working level of reality, isn't it? This is all one big living room to you. What this may ultimately come down to in the end, with those of you willing to undermine civilization for the sake of that living room of perfect commity in your head, is that we may have to simply boot you out of this sanctuary so you can come to your own terms with the enemy. Not your country mind you, but you personally. Think of all the advantages. All the falafel and tabouli you could eat, and they'd even make you your own personal video, and arrange to show it to your family back home. You lucky dog. What freakin' capacity, he sez... Jesus! Yeah, our last level of defense against this enemy is to wish you on them.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 21, 2005 09:26 AM (d0CtA)

40 Greg, only incomprehensible to you because of the continual ignorance you display here. In the '67 and '73 Arab-Israeli wars, Iraqi ground units participated on the arab side despite the fact that Iraq does not share a border with Israel. That was why Israel was interested in supporting Iran against Iraq during their long war in the '80's.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 21, 2005 11:06 AM (xauGB)

41 greg, my children didn't fight in WW2 either, yet I fail to see how this invalidates that war, or this war, or any war. For arguments sake let's pretent you've proved I'm a coward for not fighting in this war and also proved that I'm the lowest form of human scum that ever walked the face of the earth. Answer me this, what in tarnation does that prove about the current war? Nothing. ergo, I see straight through your rhetorical slights of hand. Whether or not I'm scum or what you think of me is entirely irrelevant to the righteousness of this cause or any other cause. That's why I don't see to personalize blogging, because it's irrelevant what I think of you personally, or you of me.

Posted by: Carlos at May 21, 2005 11:30 AM (UWO6N)

42 Let's turn Greg's arguing style against him. Greg, have you stopped beating your wife yet? If not, why?

Posted by: Cybrludite at May 21, 2005 09:48 PM (XuH1j)

43 Now, to actually respond to the post at hand, instead of that (non-PG-13 & genetically improbable comments about Greg's ancestry deleted)troll's blather... This brings to mind an editorial cartoon just after 9/11. A bunch of stereotypical jihadis hi-5ing & whooping it up except for one really scared looking guy in front holding a book titled something like "Japan In WWII". The dialog at the bottom was, "Um, guys, have you read how this thing ends?" The Arab Street(tm) has nothing on the US Street if we get ticked off. I've heard it asked if there's anything more deadly than a fanatic willing to die. The answer is yes: An engineer who wants his family to live. Just ask the residents of Hiroshima & Nagasaki...

Posted by: Cybrludite at May 21, 2005 09:51 PM (XuH1j)

44 I do have a son in Iraq and Greg is one sick shit. Nothing more, just a little pathetic sick shit. Why anyone bothers to continue conversing with the idiot is beyond me. Ignore him. Those talking to him on this blog are probably the only attention he gets. Think about it. Could this prick have a friend?

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2005 09:54 AM (CBNGy)

45 rooster, the hell have you been??? We're also missing Collin, and the speculation has been rampant about a secret love affair.

Posted by: Carlos at May 22, 2005 10:43 AM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
46kb generated in CPU 0.0636, elapsed 0.2285 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.2116 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.