A growing Muslim minority is challenging Europe's view of itself
BERLIN--Told that she couldn't sit in on religion classes for the Muslim students at Rixdorfer Elementary School, Marion Berning went into the classroom anyway on the pretext of fixing a window. What she found stunned and angered her. The teacher was saying that "women are for the house, for the children. And the girls were sitting like this," she says, placing her hands in her lap, slumping her shoulders in an imitation of a meek posture, and casting her eyes downward. "While all of the boys," she is yelling now, "they were talking and playing. This is fundamentalism."
Berning isn't a nosy meddler. She is the principal at Rixdorfer school in the Berlin neighborhood known as Little Istanbul, where Turkish markets line the streets and Muslim worshipers file into discreet prayer rooms down back alleys. And these days her job is complicated by a widening gulf among her students. There have been more fights and more name-calling incidents at Rixdorfer, Berning says, since a German court granted an umbrella group called the Islamic Federation the right to teach religion classes in Berlin schools--where 8 percent of students are Turkish Muslims. Muslim girls are dropping out of sports classes and field trips, she says, and there are fewer friendships between Muslim and non-Muslim students. Although the Islamic Federation is under observation by the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which suspects the group of being an extremist organization, the religion classes continue.
In Britain, in the basement day-care center of a church near London's Hyde Park, a Christian group holds a workshop on heckling Muslims at the park's famous Speakers' Corner. Participants then head there for the afternoon debates. One recent Sunday, a spectator denounced an imam as a Muslim extremist, though at the time the imam was decrying violence in the name of Islam. The preacher didn't respond, but someone in the crowd did. "Yes, my friend, I am an extremist," the man said. "And I hope my children are extremists." Some verbal exchanges have escalated into fights, leading the British government, with the backing of the Muslim Council of Britain, to consider new laws against inciting religious hatred that could have the effect of restricting free speech in a place long considered one of the world's great locales for open debate.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: ed ||
01/07/2005 5:19:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good article. It's hard not to conclude that the Euros are in for dhimmitude or a big war.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/07/2005 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This wouldn't be happeng if Palestinians weren't denied self determination.
#4
Is it just me, or is Europe turning into a machine for changing moderate Moslems (yes, I know the usual chorus here will say they don't exist) from places like Morocco and Turkey into wahabbi sympathizers?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
01/07/2005 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
For once I agree with Chirac. By letting Turkey into the EU radical muslims will be allowed to travel all over Europe preaching their hate and discontent with very little interference. The new Battle of Tours, will need to happen in Europe whether it be ideological or military, in the near future. The muslims are subverting culture in much the same way the commies did in the 20th century. The only difference is the muslim pathology is a thousand times more savage. I hope Europe chooses to fight for their survival.
#6
What she found stunned and angered her. The teacher was saying that "women are for the house, for the children. And the girls were sitting like this," she says, placing her hands in her lap, slumping her shoulders in an imitation of a meek posture, and casting her eyes downward. "While all of the boys," she is yelling now, "they were talking and playing. This is fundamentalism."
What, did she imagine, that the teacher would be saying that women are also creatures created in the image of God, equally deserving of God's bounties? Did she think the teacher would be promoting free choice for the different kinds of lives girls can lead (all of which are valuable)?
Where do Europeans (and many Americans, for that matter) imagine they are going to be after a few decades of this "tolerance"? When the votes of Muslims do exceed those of native Europeans on such topics of taxes going for Islamic education indoctrination, the outlawing of mixed-sex workplaces, the violent and discriminatory kinds of "political expression" that are going to be considered legitimate, the primacy of Sharia in their governments-do they think Germany, the Netherlands and France are still going to be Germany, the Netherlands and France? Duh!
#7
This article, like so much pseudo-analysis of Europe's muslim problem, ignores the crucial economic dimension. So long as European governments restrict labor markets, inhibit entrepreneurship and encourage dependency on the dole, unskilled muslim immigrants will incline toward separatism and radicalism.
Our experience is clear: provide real opportunities for religious minorities-- quakers, mormons, catholics, jews, muslims, sikhs-- to start their own businesses, accumulate capital and develop a real ownership stake in the larger society, and you develop loyal, law-abiding citizens, regardless of how separate or at odds their beliefs may be from those of the majority.
It's about the state offering real economic opportunity by getting out of the way. A lesson that will likely be lost on the Europeans, who will only suffer increasing muslim separatism and alienation as a result.
I'm sure Aris and other EUcrat statists would disagree, Lex. State control of every facet of industry, trade, commerce, and communications seems to be their raison d'etre
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2005 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Lex-While your points are valid, this article isn't primarily about the economic impact of Muslim immigration. It's not about religious freedom in the home and a chance to make a living (we ought to know by now that the West is pretty adaptable in that regard)-it's about how an incoming religious culture is taking its hostility for the host nation's norms beyond the edges of home and lawn and injecting it into the general society, damaging the quality of life and rights of the citizens of the host nation.
#12
gosh Aris...who is the troll here? Do you want to respond to article or to the charge that you desire to remain a child in a nanny state, or do you want to piss on frank?
#15
This was shaping up to be a productive thread. Looks like it's going to get hijacked by the disfunctional coupling of Aris and his detractors. That's unfortunate.
Y'all have a good slugfest now. I'll come back tonight and see if anything worthwhile happened in other threads.
#16
Thread after thread YOU wreck by wasting endless bandwith to respond. Here's a tip you are too stupid to comprehend: Ignore. That's what I usually do to you.
#17
nahhhh I just wanted to see if his bot was up and running.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2005 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Thread after thread YOU wreck by wasting endless bandwith to respond.
Never since Hamas have I seen such a perfect understanding of cause and effect.
I've myself offered a truce to Frank, where I'll ignore him if he'd ignore me. Frank keeps on setting his bombs to wreck the threads, though. The offer to Frank is constant. The moment *he* stops, *I* stop.
Cause and Effect, 2b: Not only Palestinians need understand it.
#19
real comment, not baiting: Europe will have a real decision to make as the birth rates of the immigrant muslims FAR exceeds the native pop. Whether they choose to retain a western orientation or dhimmitude, it will get messy, and we shouldn't intervene. It's a question of national will.
k?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2005 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#20
This wouldn't be happeng if Palestinians weren't denied self determination.
The Islamization of Europe would be happening regardless of what happened or is happening in Palestine.
#22
JQC - I think it was sarcasm - that's the stock response for any question about arabs or muslims - "we're not responsible, besides, look at the Zionist Occupier, yadda yadda"
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2005 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#23
JQC...agreed. I still hold out hopes that VDH was right, that Euro's have a long history of rising up against threats and that once pushed far enough they will respond in a manner consistent with their history.
#26
Ah, ignoring is always easier when you express the fact you "ignoring" them. It allows the expression of smug superiority for starters.
[ignore back]
#27
You do know that "trolling" is a fishing term, don't you?
Wait a minute, Aris! Do you mean that you are not a nasty monster that lives under a bridge?!?
Posted by: Tom ||
01/07/2005 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Ah, ignoring is always easier when you express the fact you "ignoring" them. It allows the expression of smug superiority for starters
So why don't you do that too, Aris? It would spare Fred's bandwith, stop ruining perfectly good discussions and end the lenghty, protrated tantrums with only one post.
#31
Interesting point Lex. Anecdotally, lack of terrorism on U.S. soil post Sep11 indicates a different attitude among America's proportionally much smaller but not neglible muslim population.
On the other hand, it is not an exacly random sample, the immigrants have a much harder time getting to the U.S., so probably are more self-deterministic. Opportunists go to the land of opportunity, and in that respect U.S. wins hands down.
An second generation Arab-American youth(or other muslim visible minorities) from what I have seen come across as American as apple pie other than certain family or religious obligation (and who doesn't have those). Euro youth on the other hand come across as disaffected and alienated. Too much dole and political correctness, coupled with the expected public backlash. A clear us versus them situation is created and perpetuated.
Thus to that point I agree Lex. But I am not sure the entire situation can be blamed on lack of opportunity and not on cultural problems. Anecdotally (and possibly ignorantly, one should be careful regarding stereotyping)I suspect that Muslim/Arab history bears responsibility. Arab commerce flourished and then descended into a zero sum corrupt tribal society. It seems the stung pride remembers the glorious past but shifts the blame where it doesn't belong: The West. And who can be blamed for such thinking, very few people understand economics and wealth creation. Euro governments certainly don't. The French idea of shortening the work week to decrease unemployment is the dumbest thing I ever heard of.
Overall its probably a combination of factors, but I think the constraint is more of a zero sum attitude than lack of opporunity, so I am not sure whether the remedies you propose will have the desired effect. Being an economic libertarian, I agree in the general sense though.
#32
I apologise to all for the following statement.
I am not up for this shit today. Frank, stop acting like a fucking asshole, and leave Aris alone. It isn't funny anymore.
Yes, I know I was shouting. As I said, I apologise, but that doesn't make it any less true. And I realise it isn't just Frank. But he's the one who started it. ON PURPOSE. AGAIN.
#33
The Euros will never confront the gathering danger but will continue to appease, much like France did with Germany during WWII.
There is a solid reason why UBL offered a "truce" with Europe in mid-2004, they are weak and jelly spined. I do not concur with VDH about Euros waking up and confronting the threat. Europe is much different today than in the past. Few believe in God, most believe in self aggrandizement.
These are the seeds of the next world war.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#34
or the collapse of a culture. The USSR went out with a whimper too.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/07/2005 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#35
TW:
"*scattering chum* I'm sure Aris and other EUcrat statists would disagree, Lex. State control of every facet of industry, trade, commerce, and communications seems to be their raison d'etre"
is a valid comment in this thread/in response to Lex's comment prior, even if I knew Aris would take it and run. If you don't like it, TFB, UNDERSTAND? If you think I'll let you be the moderator of my comments, you've sadly mistaken your place.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2005 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#36
can't we all just get along?
Posted by: r king ||
01/07/2005 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#37
ok :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2005 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#38
CA and Mrs. D. You may well be right. It required the intervention of the US to save them from the Nazi and Communist threat. In defense of your theory, they seem to have gone the way of the Paleo's looking for outside boogeymen (the US and Jews) to blame rather than to hold their own leaders accountable. The MSM feeds this destructive trend with lies. The clash of cultures between the Muslims and the Euros is sure to bring the issue to a head.
#39
2b - but are we (the Cowboy Americans) going to be called in again to "rescue" them?? I think not. It'll be 'sink or swim' time for European culture's western orientation. They make the call, and THEY fight the battle
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2005 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#40
You don't need an absolute majority to win control of a society. The Arabs in Egypt and North Africa were only a tiny minority and look at how many native Christian churches remain between the Nile delta and the Straits of Gibraltar: zero. The Copts in Egypt are a persecuted minority.
Hitler never won an absolute majority (37.3% was the best he ever did in a real election) until he won his peaceful coup and had his state apparatus firmly in place. The Bolsheviks were a tiny minority. Lenin was forced to disband the democratically Constituent Assembly after just a few hours when it became obvious that planned on acting like a true elected body. I think that the Islamists could come to power in Europe with much less than an absolute majority. Some of the factors in favor of this outcome:
* Aging European population. Old people don't make street fighters.
* Large, disaffected Muslim lumpenproletariat, ready for a charismatic leader to mold it into storm battalions (or should I say shahid brigades).
* European pacifism. Look at any picture of the Spanish peace marches after 3/11. Do I need to say anything else?
* Rigid class structure. The elites in several countries seem to be interested in manipulating the people rather than leading them. For example, I am consistently flummoxed by the cynicism of the ENArques in France, the tired acquiesence of the masses (pointed out by Babson above), and the seeming impossibility of motivating anyone to change the status quo. I cannot envision the masses in France, Spain, Italy, etc. going to the street to defend the existing order.
I agree with the consensus here, first put forward by PD, that the Islamist center or gravity (per Clauswitz, the source from which all enemy power flows) is that 40 km strip along the Persian Gulf under which lies the oil. But in the past few months, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the _decisive point_ in the immediate battle is Europe. We simply cannot allow the Islamist enemy to gain control of the capital, knowledge base, resources, nuclear weapons, and technology of Europe. They will squander those resources quickly (as they did 1,500 years ago) but the mere possession will give the Islamist movement 1-2 more generations of life from which to challenge the US before decline sets in.
Islamist victory in Europe does not guarantee defeat for the US, but it would make victory much more difficult. I have grown especially concerned about the former Soviet Union. Spain-level birth rates coupled with Third-World mortality rates and massive emmigration seem to indicate complete societal collapse within a generation. The question I keep asking myself lately is whether Chechnya is a legacy of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union or whether it is the shape of things to come as hundreds of millions of land-hungry Muslims look eagerly northward.
Europe is much different today than in the past. Few believe in God, most believe in self aggrandizement.
For cultures it doesn't really matter what transendence it holds but to survive, a culture must have a transcendent belief. The Muslims believe in Allah, the Euros no longer believe in anything. In the past they did and that made it an even match. We still do and that's why we're resisting.
Sink or swim? This tub's been sinking since at least July 1, 1916. We've tried, but she's taken on so much water there's no saving her. But the process is so subtle there won't be a ripple when the last bit goes under.
Interesting how powerful something that has no material presence can be.
Posted by: r king ||
01/07/2005 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Babson,
Of course it's a complex situation with causes that combine cultural, economic, political factors, plus the particular countries of origin for the muslim immigrants and the particular responses to immigration of various European host countries. Turks in Berlin are quite different from Moroccans in Amsterdam, who are different from Pakistanis in Bradford UK etc.
That said, it's quite clear that European muslims generally tend to be far more alienated from the larger society than their US counterparts, and this alienation tends to be greatest in the depressed neighborhoods surrounding the big European cities. The one factor that holds across country after country, regardless of national origin, is the very high correlation between radicalism and welfare or dole dependency.
Of course there are well-paid and satisfactorily employed muslim radicals in the US. But as a % of our muslim population they're far lower than in Europe, because for the most part people come to this country in order to build a business or a career, not to agitate on behalf of political causes or shit on their neighbors. It's not that the penalties for the latter are higher in the US than in Europe-- if anything, we're much more lax than, say, the French police and judiciary, whose powers make the Patriot Act look like sunday school restrictions-- but that the rewards for hard work and assimilation are vastly higher in the US.
We attract strivers; they attract resenters. Until they figure out why that's so, the Euros will be on the defensive. And, I would argue, doomed to fail.
#43
sigh...depressing. Very good points. Very depressing. It never really ends does it.
I think it was possible for us to save Europe from the Nazis, the Communists and even from Islamists. But I don't think that it is possible for us to rescue them from themselves.
#44
lex, They attract strivers too. They just don't reward them. So they are turned into resenters and for that they're rewarded by the socialist states of Europe.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/07/2005 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#45
I think lex nailed the problem square on the head.
When you have socialist governments all too willing to give money to immigrants to form a surplus pool of labor, to subsidize industries of Europe, coupled with declining indigenous birth rates, you breed resentment, from all classes of people.
Were the government of Europe to have a moment of clarity, dismantle their welfare structures, lower taxes and build a strong national defenses, the Muslim problem would evaporate within a matter of months.
Muslims would see they are not second class citizens and that the government is out of the way.
In fact, I think it is the only way to stop Europe from becoming an Islamic superstate.
#46
11a5s-Very profound regarding Russia and the Chechnya situation. Great point and even more frightening. Fighting Muslim incursions both ideologically and militarily will be the greatest challenge facing democracies and secular governments alike over the next century. Allies may become strange bedfellows. Who can't draw at least "some "comparisons between Slodoban and Charles Martel.
#47
Sarkozy's ridiculous attempt to co-opt French muslims with a muslim "parliament" and other statist institutions shows Euro-cluelessness at its worst. Their thinking is that the way to dampen radicalist and separatist ardor is to create state-dominated imams and other elites who will, I suppose, channel such frustration in healthy directions, whatever that means. Probably into rallies against Les Juifs.
What's eerie about this is how it mimics almost exactly the fascist corporatist approach to controlling social groups pursued by Mussolini in the twenties and copied by the National Socialists to the north a decade later. The goal is for independent, powerful social institutions-- labor, the Church, industrial groups-- to come under the control and direction of the state, which allows those groups' leaders a measure of autonomy so long as they keep the state's minders happy.
This is destined to fail. Any self-respecting muslim will of course view the state-sanctioned imams as stooges-- I certainly would-- and in case a democratic state cannot exercise much control over those elites anyway. Patronizing, dumb, above all, feckless.
But of course, it's a lot easier than liberalizing labor markets, cutting back welfare, making capital available to small businesses and encouraging capitalism generally.
#49
Looking at Europe's drooling and sniveling Socialist system it make me question if there were any winners in the Cold War except the French and their brand of inept Socialism.
#50
Actually, the Euro approach can work when you have labor shortages and high economic growth, which is why the older generations of Euro muslim immigrants are less radical than the current one. France and other northern countries had very aggressive pro-immigration policies in the decades after the war because they were rebuilding their industrial economies at a rapid clip and had lost a great deal of manpower during the war. In a way, we in the US saw the same phenomenon in the post-Depression era regarding the great black migration north to the industrial centers: relatively peaceful assimilation of dark-skinned, unskilled migrants due to economic expansion and great demand for labor. Which went to shit in the 1970s as steel, autos, dockyard jobs, light factory work, etc all declined in the face of competition from abroad and from the sunbelt.
Of course radical ideologies matter. But they're kindling. The spark for radicalism is structural economic decline; far more important is the oxygen that fuels it: economic dependency, which perpetuates decline and makes radicalism relatively attractive.
#51
That said, it's quite clear that European muslims generally tend to be far more alienated from the larger society than their US counterparts, and this alienation tends to be greatest in the depressed neighborhoods surrounding the big European cities.
Their alienation is CAUSED by their radical religious ideas, not the reverse. I am not going to hire someone who yowls all day about how the Jews are at fault for their lot in life and how they are going to kill them all, nor I am going to hire some moron whose only way to not feel humiliated as a man is to mistreat women. Don't cafeteria religion and the treatment of women out of this argument because it makes you uncomfortable in self-examination. It is THE reason for some of the problems with Muslim immigration to Europe, take the high rate among Muslims of gang rapes and honor killings in France as two examples.
#53
Jules, I take your point: obviously cause and effect are intertwined here, and there's even a dialectic. An employed Muslim professional can be swayed by radical ideas, then quit his profession or otherwise get off track. And of course there are kids who are radicalized long before they enter the labor market.
But this line of thinking doesn't address why this particular generation of muslim immigrants. The older generation of Euro-muslims also was exposed to radical rhetoric, fundamentalist preachers, and images and accounts of the heinous Source-of-All-Evil Israelis humiliating their Arab brethren.
One could I suppose blame it all on the wildfire effect of the intifada from 2000 onward, but this still doesn't explain why the US has seen next to no violence domestically since then and the Europeans an orgy of violence. The best explanation is that muslim radicalism in Europe predated the intifada of late 2000.
So what was it that radicalized Euro-muslims pre-2000? Can it be mere rhetoric and ideology? I don't think so. There is a huge gulf between this generation and its predecessor, and that gulf is economic dependency on the state. The immediate postwar generation was just as culturally backward and fundamentalist, but they came to Europe for jobs, first and foremost, and jobs they received. This generation doesn't give a shit about economic advancement because it was raised in a society where no one really cares about striving to get ahead. White Euros fart around till they're thirty+, then slump off to a slacker's job; muslim Euros likewise slack around, because society encourages them to do so. Their parents didn't have time for radicalism; they were busy working their tails off in Lille and Manchester and Stuttgart.
#54
Not to tout the Atlantic Monthly, which requires a subscription, but Niall Ferguson has written an article, entitled, "The Widening Atlantic" which is quite impressive. He identifies three factors for a widening gulf:
1. The basis for cross-Atlantic collaboration ended with the end of the Cold War;
2. The difference in how the US versus Europe views radical Islam. Americans view extreme Islam as the replacement for Soviet communism, while Europe sees Islamic terrorists as a lesser threat, deciding instead to distance themselves from the US, and
3. The "precipitous decline of European Christianity over the past three decades;" where less than 15 percent of people in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Britain, and Denmark
attend church once a month. Nearly half in these countries believe God plays an important part in their lives.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#55
There is a huge gulf between this generation and its predecessor, and that gulf is economic dependency on the state.
#56
The last assertion, re Christianity, is false. In their social behavior and their attitudes toward world politics, native-born Americans do not differ significantly from white Europeans; in fact we're converging. Look at family structure: for both white Americans and white Americans, getting married and having children is seen by as many as a third of the population as intolerable burdens. On both sides of the Atlantic, whites are choosing to delay marriage and having children and opt for fewer children when they do. Divorce rates on both sides of the Atlantic are roughly equivalent. Homosexuality is tolerated, feminism entrenched, cohabitation widespread. No major differences here except in religious observance.
The real differences, socially speaking, between the US and the Euros are of course seen mainly in their nonwhite populations: theirs are mainly muslims from the middle east and africa, and ours are mainly latinos and asians who are overwhelmingly Christian in orientation, often much more conservatively so than their native-born Christian counterparts. So to the extent that each of these growing minorities is a swing vote, it will pull them and us in different directions in the foreign policy realm: the Euros will increasingly tilt toward the muslims in the middle east in order to appease their rapidly-growing muslim populations, and we will increasingly re-orient ourselves toward Asia-- US hispanics don't care much for either the Arabs or the Israelis and tend to be very pro-military in any case.
Which brings us to the most crucial divide of all, which Niall Ferguson ignores completely: the absence of any kind of a martial spirit or culture in Europe today. Europe instinctively opposes the use of miliatry force not only because it has no significant out-of-area capabilities but also because every young Euro is raised to equate soldiering with baby-killing. Whereas the vast majority of Americans, whatever race or creed or national origin, view military service as noble and necessary to the survival of freedom. That's a profound gap that no amount of OpEd pieces or change of presidents will close.
Your statement, "Sarkozy's ridiculous attempt to co-opt French muslims with a muslim "parliament" and other statist institutions shows Euro-cluelessness at its worst. Their thinking is that the way to dampen radicalist and separatist ardor is to create state-dominated imams and other elites who will, I suppose, channel such frustration in healthy directions, whatever that means.", jarred a memory.
That's exactly the same approach the old colonial powers took to try and co-opt the native populations they colonized. My G_d, for a culture so steeped in history, they don't learn much from it, do they?
#59
They simply cannot grasp that this problem is not a failure of "society" requiring state intervention but the reverse. The US solution is still the best one: provide economic incentives to attract strivers, not resenters, and then leave them alone so long as they abide the laws.
I hate to challenge someone who is so committed in their position, but consider cause-and-effect for a moment.
Now, as for "an absence of any kind of a martial spirit or culture in Europe today," I would suggest that Feruson's point is that the US has been the protector for Europe since WWII. Therefore, this is not a "today" notion. My other point is that during WWII, France was largely a Hitler appeaser, and that Hitler steamrolled through Europe because they had no martial spirit back then either.
The absence of morals and Christianity has been manifested many times over in Europe. For example, last spring, the German government authorized same sex soldiers to sleep together on overnights in barricks. So, if there is (and I doubt that it is true) any commonality with the US on the God and moral issues, I don't see it in the military.
Americans "getting married and having children" has its genesis with the two wage earn families and the advancement of women in the workplace. This began in the early-1970s.
About differences between Europe and the US over Christianity and God, some 60% plus of the US population believe in God and equally high percentages exist for regular attendance at church. This well eclipses the European 15% attending at least once per month.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#61
Damn Lex - your hot even when your in the wrong thread :).
The truely terrifying thing is that there are those (Mike Al-Moore, the LLL, MSM) who want to turn the USA into another european state. Look at how they want to pander to the 'illegal alien' vote - give them free medical, education, etc.... Also pandering to people on welfare and now they are trying to 'appease' the muslims and terrorists themselves. Dont think so: Just watch the MSM.
#62
Cap'n, I hear what you're saying on situational morality etc; I guess as a pro-war non-believer I'm just personally loath to accept a rational link between Christianity and foreign policy stands.
Or to put it another way, I've never had a problem fitting into or getting along in social/professional environments on both sides of the Atlantic, whether it's Parisian atheistic colleagues or Texan born-again colleagues, so I tend to think that the differences between both sides are trivial relative to the social-political vast gulf between each side and our neighbors. in other words the we have more in common with the French than we do with the Mexicans or they do with the Russians. It would be far, far easier for a Frenchman to live here than anywhere in Latin America and for a Texan to live in France than anywhere in the former Soviet Union-- even though the Russians, like the French, are almost all atheists and the Mexicans, like us, are for the most part devout Christians.
So to my thinking the cause of the transatlantic undamentally be the belief or lack thereof in God
#64
classic thread. Even though it was on the wrong thread, but I do think that Christianity does play a role in the divide. Christianity promotes ideals of acceptance and Islam promotes domination. Muslims must ultimately choose between their religion and the Christian values of tolerance in their host nations.
#65
I take the long view. The big social-demographic-political developments IMO are two:
1) on both sides of the Atlantic, the decline of the traditional family structure-- not values, but size, relations, structure-- among native-born whites, be they Christian Americans or post-Christian (or whatever) Europeans. See declining birthrate, high divorce rate, entrenched feminism, acceptance of homosexuality, and by far the most important, the aging of the white populations on both sides of the Atlantic.
2) what separates us and the Euros is our non-white, immigrant populations. Ours is (for the most part) well-adjusted, Christian and assimilates fairly easily to the majority protestant liberal capitalist pro-military culture. Theirs is (for the most part) increasingly alienated, overwhelmingly muslim and is hostile to the majority secular liberal accomodationist pro-"peace" culture.
Ours are (for the most part) relatively hostile to state socialism, having survived its ravages in China or India or Vietnam or elsewhere. Theirs are (for the most part) relatively hostile to liberal capitalism, having never seen its beneficent effects either in their home countries or in their adopted ones.
It's our rapidly-growing minority populations that ultimately pull us and the Euros apart. Long past time this nation shifted its attention away from Europe and toward Asia, IMHO. Asian Century now.
#67
Using your own definitions for the traditional family structure, let's list their opposites: High birthrates, low divorce rates (which would include difficulty in obtaining divorces or remaining in unhappy or unhealthy marriages), unequal rights for women, bigotry against homosexuals...sounds like quite the golden days. Actually, sounds quite a bit like Islam to me.
#68
Jules, My point is that, outside of Utah, US Christians for the most part do NOT adhere to and impose a "traditional family structure". Family size among white Christians is shrinking, the divorce rate is close to 50%, and most Christian American families (such as the Cheneys) will tolerate an openly gay or lesbian son or daughter.
The paradox is that while we and the Euros are becoming more and more similar, our political priorities and options are diverging sharply.
Europe will without question become more and more muslim and without question will see more and more violence and failed corporatist, Sarkozian efforts to co-opt the muslims. Which means Europe is pretty much a lost cause, as is any effort to create a common front with Europe in the middle east: impossible. since they will for domestic reasons be forced to tilt to the other side. The Iranian farce is a taste of what we can expect.
Which suggest to me that we need to find a way to, over the long term, disengage from the middle east, albeit while aiding Israel's survival. The Euros will only screw us there.
Let's hope that in Bush's second term he begins the long-overdue re-orientation of this country's political focus, diplomatic energy, force structure, and intellectual efforts away from Europe and toward China Japan India Korea. It pains me to say it, but our destiny does not link us to Europe any more.
#69
There are also major issues with Asia-the highest rates of child trafficking and prostitution, child murder based on the gender of the child...But, there certainly seems to be more hope in orienting towards the Pacific than towards Europe, at least in terms of our national survival. How ironic, given Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Vietnam...But I agree-I think we share some common values with Pacific peoples-a strong impulse for civil interaction, hospitality, gratitude to people to whom you are indebted. And we could certainly readopt what we used to have and that they still have-honoring of elders and what they have learned through experience.
#72
I don't really think the radicalism/antisocial nature of the European Muslim population can be blamed on their economic situation---it might be a confusion of cause and effect.
Muslims, particularly Turks, are valued in many European countries as menial laborers. They take jobs that a high sense of entitlement prevents native Europeans from taking. Now that barriers to their naturalization are being removed, particularly in Germany, one might think that the Muslims would be stepping up.
This is a great commonality between America and Europe--I can go almost anywhere in America, and to the depths of Eastern Europe, and find the same style Chinese restaurants, with food served by people speaking nearly perfect Mandarin. Some portion of the people in all of these Chinese families in foreign nations are almost always in school as tradesmen, or on their way to being academics.
Not so with Muslims.
And the Chinese are just one example. Here in America there are countless minority groups that have proven themselves, triumphed over "disadvantage," and earned themselves a place in society while preserving their ethnic separation. But Muslims seem incapable of adapting to contemporary workplace environments, the rigors of higher education, or even a prima facie integration into society as a whole. Instead, they must have concessions, lattitude, and exceptions for the integration of their religion into public life.
Perhaps it's too easy to get on the nanny-state dole in Europe. Or perhaps, we're looking at it from the wrong way. We hear about the disadvantages and bias faced by Turks in Germany, Libyans in Italy, Algerians in France, and Moroccans in Spain, but isn't it odd that they're all Muslims? Parsimony.
#73
Asedwich - good point. All contributing factors but I think that what criples Moslems the most is their culture of blame. Look elsewhere to blame your problems. No cultural support for self-reliance or introspection.
#75
Utah is a beautiful state...and very little crime. From the people I know that have moved there, the only downside is the feeling of isolation that you get from being on the outside of the mainstream. Society revolves around Mormon activities. Being somewhat of an introvert that sounded good to me, but it could be hard on the kids.
#76
Re #33 (Captain America): The Euros will never confront the gathering danger but will continue to appease, much like France did with Germany during WWII.
When Germany invaded Poland, France immediately declared war on Germany. That's how WWII began.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/07/2005 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#78
When Germany invaded Poland, France immediately declared war on Germany
And that's about all they did, unfortunately. When both Poland and Finland asked for help, they received little.
Posted by: Rafael ||
01/07/2005 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#79
World War II began when the Germans and Soviets invaded Poland, not when the French started talking. Words were all the French could deploy in an offensive fashion. When it came time for action they (the elites) froze. They're still frozen. That's why the muslims will overwhelm them.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/07/2005 20:14 Comments ||
Top||
#80
Jules - GO FOR IT. Assuming you're in a metropolitan area-- which I guess includes Provo as w as Salt Lake-- you'll be fine.
My guess is that because of the tech meltdown in California and the resulting dispersion of tech workers into NV UT CO AZ etc, you'll find the southwest to be more purple than red.
We left Silicon Valley for Dallas and have few regrets. The red-blue divide is bullshit. The real divide is between urban core and exurbs. College towns anywhere, regardless of the state, are bluish.
#81
Ah! French whine. The more it ages, the more it stays the same.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
#82
Jules - I lived in Ogden for about 7 years. Joined the Army from there - and took a massive ration of shit from friends for not joining the Jarines - sheesh! No more patriotic place in the country -- Jordan, where Hassoun's family lives is bound to be in embarassment extremis, at the moment -- and yet they don't wear it on their sleeves. They go about their business, hike, ski, and raise their families. Once upon a time, it hurt you somewhat not to be a Mormon - no longer I am told. There are even girls like this - honest - without apologizing for it. Melike and have missed the mountains. Every place has its problems, in Utah it's called winter, lol!
#83
2b, lex, .com-Thanks. I spent two weeks there for linguistics and ESL conferences and the only thing that seemed weird was that you have to have an i.d. to buy alcohol, and you can't have two drinks in front of you at the same time. But the country and the weather (I'm a snow bunny) was simply beautiful. My brother in law says the ski areas to the east of SLC would be a decent area to live in. He discouraged me from Park City (too Hollywood), but I'm not convinced. :)
.com-LOL-that's me, 15 years ago. You always have the best graphics. You must have had training on computer graphic arts somewhere.
OK-I won't take up any more of the thread on Utah.
#84
Jules - One last tidbit or two. Park City is Party City mixed with snobs - the Vail of Utah. I loved Alta. Another place called Wolf Creek IIRC (ask BIL, heh), but your job will make the call. I always liked Utah Lake area, north beyond Ogden. Check out these links: Utah Maps and the Compare Cities DB in the Cost of Living / Best Places.net section. Best of luck to you - you'll be amazed by how much house you can afford, lol! Think 4-wheel drive...
Excepted from Jan-Feb Altantic Monthly, full article requires subscription.
Richard Clark pontificates to the humble masses in a speech on September 11, 2011.
This is a transcript of the Tenth Anniversary 9/11 Lecture
Sunday, September 11, 2011
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Professor Roger McBride
Dean, Honored Guests,
It is a great honor to be chosen to give this tenth-anniversary lecture. This year, more than at any other time since the beginning of the war on terror, I think we can see clearly how that war has changed our country. Now that the terror seems finally to have receded somewhat, perhaps we can begin to consider the steps necessary to return the United States to what it was before 9/11. To do so, however, we must be clear about what has happened over the past ten years. Thus tonight I will dwell on the history of the war on terror.
Having ignored al-Qaeda until September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush responded to the attack in three ways. First, he ordered an end to the terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan. For five years thereafter a token U.S. military force assisted the Kabul government in its attempts to rule the warlords and suppress the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Second, he moved to strengthen U.S. domestic law enforcement with the first Patriot Act (a law that civil libertarians would find benign from today's perspective) and the Department of Homeland Security, which in those early years of the war on terror was largely ineffectual.1 Third, Bush ordered the ill-fated invasion and occupation of Iraq, which effectively turned his administration into an active recruiting office for al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups around the world.
...The several years without an attack on U.S. soil lulled some Americans into thinking that the war on terror was taking place only overseas...Then the second wave of al-Qaeda attacks hit America. Since then we have spiraled downward in terms of economic strength, national security, and civil liberties. No one could stand here today, in 2011, and say that America has won the war on terror. To understand how we failed to win, and exactly what has been lost along the way, I want to look at the past seven years in some detail.
The Clarke wet dream continues....
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 1:32:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A lot of commenters and emailers object to the use of torture -- or non-torture coercion -- because, they claim, it produces nothing but lies. I think this is a rather silly statement. It produces nothing but lies? Always? It never is useful in extracting truthful information? How do we know this?
Isn't it the case that our own military expects our soldiers to break eventually under torture, but tries to get them to at least hold off on spilling anything important for 48 hours or so, after which point, hopefully, their information will now be stale and operationally useless (or at least less useful)? Furthermore, the fact that coercion may produce a lot of lies is hardly a reason to say it's useless. All interrogations, including non-coercive police interrogations of common criminals, produce 90% lies. Are people saying we should abandon station-house questioning of common criminals just because they lie so much?
Lies are useful. Criminals get caught in lies, and then must change their stories; sometimes they eventually tell the truth. And sometimes detectives can figure out what the truth is, simply by the sorts of lies of they're telling, and the subjects they're trying to avoid. You can glean the truth from a liar -- but you have to have him actually talking to do so.
And if coercion is sometimes necessary to get important terrorists talking -- just so trained interrogators can attempt to sift the lies from the half-truths from the actual truths -- so be it.
But again, I think that those who are committed to the anti-torture/anti-coercion position are engaging in a rather transparent rhetorical dodge. It makes the question so much easier if you just posit that "torture doesn't work, ever, so why bother with it at all?" I don't think that's the case at all. It's not the be-all and end-all; it's not a panacea, it's not a silver bullet. But in a situation where you have, say, a known terrorist who of course knows other terrorists in his cell, and you'd like to arrest those other terrorists, and your suspect refuses to talk at all-- well, what harm can there be in some arm-twisting?
Not to be flip, but as the Terminator said in Judgment Day: "They'll live."
The "harm," I suppose, is that we diminish ourselves by sanctioning such brutal methods. But this is really not a "fact" that can be proven; this is a gut-level judgment call that each of us have to make. I personally don't feel diminished or barbaric for supporting a bit of, let us say, non-permanent inflicting of pain upon known terrorists who know the names and meeting places of other terrorists. If "waterboarding" can save a few lives, then, as a practical matter, it is all for the utilitarian good.
As for absolute morality-- I don't know if I buy that, especially in wartime, and especially against such monstrous animals as we're fighting. Our soldiers are losing their lives and limbs -- permanently-- trying to put Al Qaeda down. If our soldiers give up so much in this fight, I really can't say I'm bothered that Joe Terrorist had his wrist bent painfully in an effort to loosen his tongue.
I'm sorry if that sounds callous or immoral to some. But that's the way I feel about it.
To employ my own easy rhetorical dodge: I don't support torturing human beings, but I believe that known terrorists have removed themselves from the family of humanity and have, by their own actions, forfeited the consideration we would normally show towards actual human beings. They are monsters by their own choice and of their own creation, and my moral standards for dealing with monsters are a bit... latitudinarian. Vague. Permissive.
#1
Good commentary. The fact is that we will never really know if torture produces any meaningful results. For one simple reason: Who is going to admit that they committed torture?
Torture is absolutely called for in select situations. It's the overly timid and politically protective members of Congress and the Senate who refuse to face reality and set the appropriate parameters underwhich torture can justifiably be applied.
Case in point: Let's assume for a moment that the one of the 9/11 highjackers were apprehended and that there was reason to believe that he knew of the looming threat. Now, which member of Congress or the Senate, or any of the foolish MSM armed chair generals, wouldn't call for selective stress techiques or torture to prevent the loss of innocent lives?
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Case in point: Let's assume for a moment that the one of the 9/11 highjackers were apprehended and that there was reason to believe that he knew of the looming threat. Now, which member of Congress or the Senate, or any of the foolish MSM armed chair generals, wouldn't call for selective stress techiques or torture to prevent the loss of innocent lives?
Yup, then it would be legitimate. One could argue that is PRECISELY why it was foolish, and criminal, to use these techniques to find out, say, the location of an arms cache in Iraq. NOW we may well be stuck with a rigid set of rules that will prevent us from using these techniques in the extreme case where we really need to, and where they are obviously justified. Something that should have been kept in reserve for just such an emergency.
#3
The question of whether or not torture produces only lies depends on whether there iis actual truth to be found out. Torture by the inquisition produced 99% lies because the things they were looking for didn't exist, and people were tortured until they confessed to something satisfactory to the torturers. Physical torture can produce mixed results depending on the skill of the person using it, which in times past was usually very low. Psychological pressure such as sleep deprivation can be effective if the person is not stressed to the point of becoming psychotic. Am I against it? No. But like many other things, it requires some skill, and isn't exactly part of general college curriculum.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
01/07/2005 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There was a practical experience during the Algeria war, when reasoned use of torture (ie torture a guy you have overwhelming proof he is guilty) in order to get his complices. Terrorism decreased radically and the insurgency was put on its knees. In other words it didn't just produce lies: hundreds of bombings, machine gunnings and massacres were prevented.
BTW, some people here have shown sympathy for the FLN because they opposed the French. In fact they were a mix of Baathist and Al Quaida. They put bombs in school busses, machine gunned merry-go-rounds (at Boufarik) and massacred entire villages with appalling savagery and sadism. Not only the French were the victims but also any Algerian who wasn't pro-insurgency or partisan from non-FLN insurgent movements. Did I mention that the Arab bracnch of FLN turned the leaders of the Berber branch to the French in order to become the rulers after independency?
Disclaimer: I don't condone the use of torture to find if someone is guilty but to extract information from the guilty in order to prevent deaths.
Disclaimer second: There is a danger in torture. Ideally you want it done by good guys who want to prevent murders and not the suffering of the suspect. But no matter how justified the good guys will become sick of it, while sadists will make their utmost to get the job. These will do a lot of political damage.
#5
LH You didn't PO me. In extreme cases where we really need to, we will still torture. But before doing it, someone will think twice and consider the consequences they are risking. If it was that extreme they'll probably get a slap on the wrist or a discharge and the Medal of Freedom.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/07/2005 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
JFM: Good post!
Authorized, highly selective use of torture has a deterrent affect. Now imagine, in the 9/11 scenario, had the guy who was training on aircraft in Phoenix "the Phoenix memo" or the guy caught by the FBI in Minneapolis been handled appropriately. Then you would have had one or two guys with considerable evidence of ill intent (high volume of chatter and the guy in Minnesota only wanting to learn take-offs and landings).
But if all you were to do was to take them into custody, hand them the Holy Book, and point them in the direction of Mecca for prayers, you would still not have anything to work with.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
MD: In extreme cases where we really need to, we will still torture. But before doing it, someone will think twice and consider the consequences they are risking. If it was that extreme they'll probably get a slap on the wrist or a discharge and the Medal of Freedom.
Actually, in extreme cases, no one will carry out torture without authorization. Why risk jail time and the loss of your pension because your nation thinks your livelihood and personal freedom is worth less than a terrorist's well-being? We had Moussaoui in custody - and the agents-in-charge did not even illegally search his laptop - which contained information about about 9/11 - let alone torture him.
The only circumstances under which a government employee might torture a suspect are (1) that suspect is holding his relatives hostage or (2) that employee will be placed on trial and executed if a successful terrorist attack occurs on his watch. Since neither situation is very likely, terror suspects will *not* be tortured unless explicit legal authorization is given. If we don't care enough about our security services to give them the tools they need, they won't care enough about us to do what is necessary to prevent terrorism. Period.
#8
JFM: There is a danger in torture. Ideally you want it done by good guys who want to prevent murders and not the suffering of the suspect. But no matter how justified the good guys will become sick of it, while sadists will make their utmost to get the job. These will do a lot of political damage.
I disagree. That's like saying that hunters and soldiers are sadists, since they actually kill or train to kill living things. Getting information out of people is just another job. Some are good at it, and some are less good. Some are mentally ill and some are not. The idea that those who enjoy getting information out of the enemy are sick is akin to the idea that those who enjoy hunting or soldiering are sick.
The guy who dropped the atomic bomb was elated about it because he thought the Japanese were getting what they deserved. That did not make him sick - it made him rational - the only way to stop the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans was to get the Japanese to surrender. And so it is with torture. It is just another tool in the toolbox to be opened only against enemies too foul for American restraint.
#9
What I find amazing is that if someone just shot a terrorist, s/he would have relatively fewer questions to answer. But, all hell would befall someone who uses selective stress or torture to extract intelligence during a "ticking timebomb" scenario.
"That a load of bull," William Jefferson Clinton.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/07/2005 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Torture sometimes, even often compels people to tell the truth.
Torture sometimes, even often compels people to tell lies.
Torture is convenient for the subordinate interrogator who is able to provide a statement to his superior. The interrogator is able to produce relatively large numbers of reports relatively quickly. Whether the reports are true or valuable - or whether they are false and useless - is difficult to evaluate.
The interrogator who refrains from torture might produce fewer reports, more slowly. Whether his reports are true or valuable - or whether they are false and useless - is difficult to evaluate.
In the end, we have to depend to a great deal on the credibility of the interrogator. Do we believe the interrogator who tortures, or do we believe the interrogator who does not torture?
Do we believe the prisoner who was tortured into giving a statement? Or do we believe the prisoner who was not tortured into giving a statement?
What do we think about the reliability of the information that was obtained through torture by, for example, the Soviet Union? Has that information been considered by by society and by historians to be mostly reliable? Was that information ultimately judged even by the communist governments to be mostly reliable? Or has it been judged by most people to be mostly unreliable?
Do we believe, for example, that Bukharin conspired with Germany and Japan to overthrow the Soviet Government to establish a fascist dictatorship? After all, that's what he himself testified at his trial.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/07/2005 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Many of the people who are assigned to interrogate people are relatively young and incompetent.
In the case of Iraq, many of our interrogators are in their early 20s, have only a high school education, and speak Arabic poorly or not at all. Some of them graduated from high school, joined the US Army, attended a language school there for a year or two, and then were sent to Iraq to interrogate people. They are not able to conduct an intelligent conversation with a captured Iraqi who does not want to cooperate.
Some of our interrogators are American citizens who grew up in the United States, in families where Arabic was spoken at home. They speak Arabic fluently, but they speak household Arabic, sprinkled heavily with English words. They are not educated in the Arabic language. They graduated from a US high school, joined the US Army, and now they are in Iraq, assigned to help interrogate prisoners.
Some interrogators are older, some have developed more mastery of the language. Some are more educated. Some are more thoughtful. Some are more experienced.
The older, more educated, more linguistically capable, more thoughtful, more experienced interrogators are less likely to think that torturing prisoners is a proper method. These interrogators will persist in trying to engage the prisoners in real conversation resulting in statements that the interrogator himself evaluates to be really truthful.
If we establish torture as an acceptable method, then that method will be used most quickly, most frequently, most stupidly by the younger, less educated, less capable interrogators, whose numbers are larger.
Such methods will be used not only by the interrogators, such methods will be used also by the guards, by the capturing soldiers, and by everyone else who has opportunities to interact with prisoners. Decisions about whether or not to physically abuse prisoners will be made by the lowest ranking guard on the midnight shift in the worst part of the worst prison.
During the past 12 years, I have translated a large number of interrogation reports written by Soviet interrogators during the years after World War Two. It's obvious that the interrogators were, in general, uneducated and stupid. They were probably pretty good torturers, though, because they wrote a lot of reports. In many cases, it's practically the same report written over and over and over, with just the names changed.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/07/2005 19:16 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The masochist said beat me and make it hurt. The sadist said "NO."
#13
MS: Do we believe, for example, that Bukharin conspired with Germany and Japan to overthrow the Soviet Government to establish a fascist dictatorship? After all, that's what he himself testified at his trial.
The test of truth, whether with or without torture, is corroboration. The fact that a terrorist is tortured for information doesn't mean that logic and other investigative techniques are thrown out the window. Torture is just another method of getting information, just like forensics, normal interrogation, questioning of witnesses, uncoerced confessions, etc. In my view, to compare a well-regulated terror investigation in a democracy to a kangaroo court in the Soviet Union is just inappropriate. The point of the kangaroo court was to get Stalin's enemies executed - whereas the point of our investigations is to find arms caches and potential accomplices. The guilt or innocence of captives can be verified by the normal investigative technique of comparing their stories and having separate sets of investigators interrogate them.
#14
We can imagine various extraodinary crises in which we might make extraordinary decisions and use extraordinary methods. Suppose we knew for certain that someone had placed a nuclear bomb in New York City and that the bomb would explode in 24 hours. In such a situation we well might decide to torture the prisoner to force him to reveal the bomb's location.
Thus we can justify torture.
Suppose that everyone in the world died except for two people -- a father and a daughter. Such a situation might justify incestual rape.
In general, though, we make rules that apply well to most situations, rules that are broadly accepted by society, rules that have stood the tests of time, rules that are fairly clear to the people who must obey and implement them.
People who break rules almost always can provide some compelling justification. He had to rob the bank, because otherwise his wife and children would have starved to death. He had to kill that guy, because it was self-defense. He was a hero, saving lives and defending honor.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/07/2005 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Re #13 (Zhang Fei): The test of truth, whether with or without torture, is corroboration.
Bukharin's confession was corroborated by the confessions of his many co-conspirators.
And interrogators who torture prisoners naturally collaborate with investigators who falsify evidence. The tortured confessions justify the falsification of the evidence. The falsified evidence justifies the tortured confessions. It's a complete system, praised by many. The Soviets thought it was a great system for a half a century, until they realized they really didn't know at all any more who was guilty and who was innocent.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/07/2005 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The interrogator who doesn't torture often tells his superior he couldn't get any information from the prisoner.
The interrogator who does torture can always boast to his superior that he was able to get information from the prisoner.
Which interrogator should we believe?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/07/2005 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
#17
MS: Bukharin's confession was corroborated by the confessions of his many co-conspirators. And interrogators who torture prisoners naturally collaborate with investigators who falsify evidence. The tortured confessions justify the falsification of the evidence. The falsified evidence justifies the tortured confessions. It's a complete system, praised by many. The Soviets thought it was a great system for a half a century, until they realized they really didn't know at all any more who was guilty and who was innocent.
Is Mike Sylwester saying that the gulag system and Stalin's systematic killings of his political rivals were the result of misunderstandings brought on by torture? My understanding is different - that torture was used to effect the confessions necessary to make the mass executions politically palatable. The reality of despotic rule is that the only way for contenders to take power is by displacing by force the existing ruler. Stalin massacre of potential rivals was not particularly unique - except for the fact that it took place in the 20th century, in a country that had pretensions to being civilized. Under Stalin, Russia resembled nothing so much as an oriental despotism. Torture wasn't used for investigative purposes - and it wasn't the reason for the gulags and the mass executions. It was used to produce politically convenient confessions that could be used as an excuse to kill political rivals, real or imagined.
#18
MS: The interrogator who doesn't torture often tells his superior he couldn't get any information from the prisoner. The interrogator who does torture can always boast to his superior that he was able to get information from the prisoner. Which interrogator should we believe?
The ultimate test is whether that information produces results - arms caches, prisoners who corroborate the story, etc. Mike Sylwester assumes that our investigators are corrupt and get together to fabricate evidence. How does this differ from normal investigations? Should we then empty our prisons and disband our police departments, given that none of the evidence they produce is trustworthy?
#19
What I am pointing out is that the defects Mike Sylwester are attributing to torture are defects in individual investigative personnel, not in using torture as a technique. The investigator who would get together with another to make up fake testimony just to rack up a high success rate doesn't need torture to achieve his ends - he could just as easily fabricate evidence without torture. He assumes a system so corrupt that it cannot be trusted to conduct investigations with or without torture. In other words, he assumes that terrorists are innocent, while our investigators are presumptively guilty.
#20
*Sigh* Actually, Sylwester's a hypocrite too: here he is, presumably arguing against torture, while inflicting it at the same time with his many words...
My understanding is different - that torture was used to effect the confessions necessary to make the mass executions politically palatable.
Torture was used to obtain information to prevent terrorist attacks against the Soviet Union.
Torture wasn't used for investigative purposes
Sure it was.
The ultimate test is whether that information produces results - arms caches, prisoners who corroborate the story, etc.
The ultimate test is whether a policy allowing torture is better than a policy forbidding torture. Which policy provides more information? Which policy provides more reliable information? Which policy encourages more of the enemy to change to our side? Which policy causes more general political support for our side in the combat theater and abroad? Which policy develops more international support for our side? Which policy is easier to implement and manage? Which policy causes fewer problems, scandals and protests? There are many considerations.
Take two groups of 100 prisoners. Interrogate one group using torture and one group not using torture. The first group will get some information. So will the second group. Why are you so sure that the first group's information will be better?
Mike Sylwester assumes that our investigators are corrupt and get together to fabricate evidence.
People adjust evidence all the time. When people are sued because someone had an accident, all kinds of memories, statements, analyses and physical items are adjusted by normally honest people.
When policemen and investigators are certain that someone is guilty, they too sometimes adjust their memories, statements, analyses and physical items.
In a climate where military interrogators are so certain of their captives guilt that they feel free to torture their captives, other investigators will also adjust memories, statements, analyses and physical items. The main goal is no longer the determination of objective truth. Instead the main goal becomes the confirmation of the preconceived judgment.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 0:15 Comments ||
Top||
#22
MS: The ultimate test is whether a policy allowing torture is better than a policy forbidding torture. Which policy provides more information?
How about *any* information at all? What happens when the prisoner won't talk and simply stonewalls? Remember Zacarias Moussaoui?
MS: Which policy provides more reliable information?
How about no information at all, when torture is not applied?
MS: Which policy encourages more of the enemy to change to our side?
Lack of torture helps this along? Can you prove this? Or are you just making it up? Is Mike Sylwester saying that governments use torture as an interrogation tool because that's how they get their jollies rather because it works?
MS: Which policy causes more general political support for our side in the combat theater and abroad? Which policy develops more international support for our side?
And this political support has gotten us exactly what? 1300 dead troops in Iraq?
MS Which policy is easier to implement and manage? Which policy causes fewer problems, scandals and protests?
It is easy to implement and manage and there are fewer problems, scandals and protests when torture is legalized and regulated for use against terrorists, rather than swept under the carpet.
MS: There are many considerations. Take two groups of 100 prisoners. Interrogate one group using torture and one group not using torture. The first group will get some information. So will the second group. Why are you so sure that the first group's information will be better?
This is an empirical question. The results will speak for themselves - if the first group gets more arms caches and more terrorists, then it will become readily apparent that torture works. If it is acceptable to kill and blow up head-chopping terrorists, it can't be such a breach of etiquette to merely torture them.
MS: People adjust evidence all the time. When people are sued because someone had an accident, all kinds of memories, statements, analyses and physical items are adjusted by normally honest people. When policemen and investigators are certain that someone is guilty, they too sometimes adjust their memories, statements, analyses and physical items. In a climate where military interrogators are so certain of their captives guilt that they feel free to torture their captives, other investigators will also adjust memories, statements, analyses and physical items. The main goal is no longer the determination of objective truth. Instead the main goal becomes the confirmation of the preconceived judgment.
Investigators can falsify evidence whether or not torture is used. And the remedy for this is the usual - compartmentalization coupled with random audits. It is difficult for two people engaged in an elaborate lie to keep their stories straight. No investigator can fully trust another one to collaborate with him in falsifying evidence.
The idea that inflicting torture increases someone's motivation for making up evidence is just spurious. Actually, devoting a lot of time to interrogate someone unsuccessfully probably also increases this motivation, since the lack of success shows up in the productivity statistics. Should we then ban lengthy interrogations? What about arrests that don't lead to convictions? Maybe we should ban arrests over a certain number - since a low conviction to arrest ratio shows that the investigators are clueless and are therefore more likely to make up evidence.
Remember - the personal stakes here are pretty low - investigators don't get executed for failing to uncover terrorist attacks before the fact. In most cases, they don't even get demoted, let alone criticized. There is no reason for them to make up evidence, and even when they do, no reason to believe that they can get away with it. But ultimately, the measure of the effectiveness of torture is quantifiable and has nothing to do with a successful conviction in a court of law. The ultimate measure has to do with arms caches blown up, terrorist leaders in custody, terrorist funding confiscated, improvised mines defused, et al.
Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11?
Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again.
On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability — the Damoclean Sword hanging over his head.
"Israel ⊠recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword," writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under 20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians, the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of 1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."
Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the Beltway.
Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence.
"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11? How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single terrorist attack on American soil?"
Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.
"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the ground is retribution of biblical proportions — and those are the only proportions that will do the job.
"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq — obviously never expressed publicly — was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."
Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.
Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move."
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
01/07/2005 12:50:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What would be in the ellipses is the threshold for causing the retribution to rain down. No sense showing them where that line in the sand actually is.
#2
While I'd like to believe this is true, it sounds like BS to me. More likely the reason we haven't had another terrorist attack is due to hard work, but we wouldn't want to give any credit to the evil FBI, CIA or any other capitalist pig enterprises, now would we. No, just the evil Bush and a giant nuke.
Nuking Mecca would be OBL's dream come true. It would turn him into a GOD and start the holy war he dreams of. I don't buy it.
#3
Finding out what your enemy values most and designing your strategies to defeat him based on that reality makes sense to me.
The tricky part for me comes in with this whole collective punishment idea, though. I'm not sure how to reconcile it. If you are killed because of something someone else who is somehow like you does (your brother, someone of the same religion or nationality), what purpose does that serve? Make a parallel scenario to the OBL one-Washington DC is attacked-it is the symbol of Western power just as Mecca is the symbol of Islamic power-because a different Western power wronged someone. What do you guys think?
#4
the fascinating part of this for me is that while it would take a lot more horror for us to even remotely consider such an option, that's not how OBL et al see it.
They project the worst attributes onto the US and Israel (i.e., we're all infidel babykiller sons of pigs and monkeys who have waged war on islam). If they believe that, having seen what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and after experiencing "cowboy Booooosh" a simple rumour that we'd decimate mecca would sow enough doubt in their feeble brains to get them to consider the possibility. And that doubt -- and fear -- is enough to prevent an attack.
So, I think we should do whatever we can to promote the notion that we'd be more than happy to flatten mecca at the first opportunity.
After all, if the tables were turned, they'd do it in a heartbeat to us!
#5
Jules-not sure if Washington is the symbol of western power. I feel more like the WTC was. The Citadel of Capitalism was toppled in New York, the "Big Apple". This seems to me to be more of the symbol of Western power and influence than DC. That 9/11 gut shot made me reconsider just how vulnerable we are. The Saudi's for one do nothing to enhance our image (to put it mildly) in eyes of their people. This radical Islam is allowed to fester and grow and is directed outward toward us. The House of Saud is complicit in 9/11 attacks not overtly, but ideologically. Nuke Mecca and UBL has his global Jihad. The problem being is that if there are no moderate voices directing the masses then the masses will be lead to violence. Violence begets violence. We are losing the war of hearts and minds which will continue to push us towards armed conflicts. They knocked down our symbol of power. Perhaps the threat of knocking down their's may be the only threat they understand.
#6
I think DC is just the current seat of government, Jules. My world would not come to an end if it were gone, although I would be severely annoyed, and might even shout and swear more than a bit. Before doing my bit to support those who would ensure that the culprits would never be able to desire to do so again.
But destroying the center of all the varieties of Mohammedism would bring a crisis of faith to them all. Going on haj is one of the five pillars of their faith, required of all Muslims able to do so. Separately, the foundation of their faith is that Allah is on their side, and can intervene at will. If He cannot protect his Holy Place from infidel destruction then, like the pagans of old, His worshippers will be forced to consider that either He is not the Supreme and Only God, or that they are not deemed worthy of his favour.
Separately, the proof given that Mohammed was correct is that Islam never loses -- whether the slow invasion or the quick conquest. But if the Holiest Place is permanently destroyed, there goes their proof, and the bedrock of their faith. I would expect the nuclear destruction of Mecca would be followed by deathly silence, then a brief outburst of violence as the radical Muslims attempt to bring Allah back into the picture on their side, then when that fails, quiet despair. And lots of conversions away from the religion of the god who failed them.
#8
Just my $0.02, but my instincts tell me this story is bogus. Not that it wouldn't be useful to have the hajjis wondering if we might just do something extreme if sufficiently provoked. And they probably are, since we've toppled two regimes by force so far, and keep hinting there may be more to come. They have to be wondering, where will it end?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/07/2005 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
RW-I'm totally on board with you regarding what the Saudis are made of. But destroying Mecca hurts more than the Saudis-it punishes, what is it, 1/4 of the world's population, for Osama's murderous psychosis? Can you imagine something like that happening to Jerusalem or Bethlehem? Still, I am not convinced in the long run it couldn't come down to that. All this points out why it is essential that if we are to believe in the notion of moderate Muslims, there better be such a thing, and they better get off their heinies and start talking and walking that way, and snuff out this poison in their ranks. I have only met one moderate Muslim in my life-it's a depressing sign.
The Arabs are very good at calling bluffs, so unless we are mentally, physically, and economically prepared to act on our bluff, I wouldn't want to go too far down that road. Maybe that is why this has remained so hush hush.
TW-It sure felt like NYC was the center of the Western world that day :<
#10
I don't think this is a credible enough threat to deter Osama, whose confidence in the western media is enormous. He therefore realizes that the defeatist mantra, "you'll only create more terrorists", still holds sway over millions.
It is very unlikely that Jack believes it himself. It is probably disinformation designed to cow the legendary Arab Street and keep them as timid as they have always been.
#11
Some good points in this thread but I think we all should consider what trailing wife said and then add to it, if Bin Laden is such a believer would he take the threat seriously since Allah could stop such an attack of course.
I wouldn't doubt that this is one of a billion psyops we've tried over the past few years. One with deniability built in since the President has been kissing Islamic butt with his rhettoric since 9/11. Religion of Peace my ass.
#12
If you are killed because of something someone else who is somehow like you does (your brother, someone of the same religion or nationality), what purpose does that serve?
This is an easy one: it serves to force the capitulation of the followers/citizens/subjects of one ideology/nation/force to another, a necessary prerequisite to the cessation of hostilities in any conflict. Itâs undeniable that at least a portion of Islam has declared war on the West in general and the US in particular; since there exists no formal Islamic leadership that can reign in this wing of their ideology, punishing the entire ideology might well be the only way to effect a victory in this conflict.
In a strategic sense the destruction of Mecca in response to a 9/11 scale attack by Islamist terrorists would be a no-lose proposition for the West. At best it might force Muslims to rethink the righteousness of their cause and their infallibility which could lead to the moderation of or, in the best case, the decline of Islam. At worst it would draw out passive supporters of those who would destroy us thereby making it easier to identify those enemies we must eliminate in order to prevail in this conflict.
#13
Bogus, more likely that they were threated with B-52 Friday frozen Mackrel bombing. An ArcLight mission carrying nothing but frozen mackrel would effectively destroy arabian society. Naturally a day of no vapour trails would be required.
#15
Bin Laden doesn't have any more use for the ruling Saudis than us--well maybe slightly more. The connection between Binnie and Mecca is thin--i doubt that he would care that much if Mecca were glassified other than to rally Muslims to his jihadist cause.
#16
Don't you think UBL is a true believer? Do you think he would risk the destruction of the relic he covets in an attempt to take it?
That being said, I'm not sure I buy it. But from a Mutually Assured Destruction point of view, it is useful as long as the enemy believes in your determination. Is the threat explicit? Of course not; who would you deliver the threat to? That is one of the systematic risks of these types of games (in the technical sense). With both sides unsure of the other's spectra of available responses and resolve, it makes making your own moves rather perilous. Both sides may end up with a payoff that neither one of them desired.
"He may not have expected the reaction he got, but he had to expect a reaction."-Pulp Fiction
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/07/2005 19:32 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Jules, you are right of course about NYC on 9/11. But, destroying NYC, or DC, or even my own hometown, would not destroy the foundations of our universe. That's what I meant.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
