We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day To initiate terrorism is to justify your very own apocalypse, many more Arabs and Chechens are going to die than Americans, Europeans and Russians, because our ability to carry out terrorism is greater than theirs.
– Dalmaster
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Sick. Fucking sick.
Sick. Fucking sick.
That’s not sick.
This is sick:
A Native American, a Muslim, and a cowboy were sitting in an airport terminal. The Native American began a conversation by saying, “once we were many, but now we are few.”
The Muslim replied, “That is sad, because once we were few, but now we are many!”
The cowboy chimed in. “That’s ’cause we ain’t started playin’ Cowboys and Muslims yet….”
In case the “sick” commenter (the one using my email address) above has taken me out of context, I’d like to say the above quote was merely a neutral observation that blowing up schools with military aircraft is terrorism as much as blowing them up with suicide bombers. Which is ultimately what “war against terrorism” leads to. Extremists are not just destructive towards their foes, self-destructive, but destructive against the people they claim to fight for, too.
Apart from that, thanks for the quote. I feel so wise ;).
Two comments.
First, the joke about the cowboy, Indian, and Muslim is very politicaly correct, but wrong. There are more people of Native American descent living now than there were when Columbus landed in Hispaniola. The claim of genocide is “victimology” with no basis in reality.
Second, it is time to put this term “terrorist” aside. This is war. The quote above is correct that more followers of Islam will die than anyone else, but that is because the West is very, very good at war. We should be—it has been our major occupation for millenia.
We are approaching a crucial point in this clash. The question is—who will be able to lead the “Islamic Reformation”, nail his Theses to the door, and bring about the painful re-examination of the theocratic state that is so desparately needed in the world of the Koran.
Well, somebody had better do something soon towards the modernization of Islam, or the stakes will just get higher and higher.
I don’t even want to think about WMDs…
TWG
Can Islam be reformed? Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism have an advantage in not being inherently theocratic religions. In fact St Paul legitimises non-Christian government in his letters, and when Christ was put on the spot over the issue he gave his now famous remark about rendering to Caesar.
Islam on the other hand was from its very beginning with Muhammed both a theocratic and military ideology. This is what makes Islam both unique and extremely problematic. The only thing we have in the West by comparison was Calvin’s Geneva ( I’m convinced Calvin unwittingly introduced a couple of Islamic heresies into Christianity but thats another story).
So I just dont know. I wish I did. But Islams history is not encouraging.
How many American soldiers have died over the past several decades in defense of the Muslim!
Defense is not terrorism, it is defense.
I will agree, the moral relativist Dalmaster’s non-neutral statement defending terrorism is sick. Fucking sick.
Good point. Victory usually goes to who has the biggest battalions.
Before all this is over, more people will die of Islam than died of the Black Death.
I thought Dalmaster’s statement will precious, faux profonde and wrong.
By the way, oh wise one, when did we blow up schools with military aircraft? Could you give us, oh, one or two examples, please, backed by facts? I believe we moved heaven and earth to avoid doing any damage to schools or hospitals, which is why the “human shields” (remember them?) made human chains around schools and hospitals.
If Islam cannot be reformed (i.e. made compatible with secular liberal soceity – Turkey anyone?) let’s change the question. Are there other aspects of Arabic culture which are compatible with secular, liberal society – aside from trivia? If Islam is somehow to be discarded, do these people have anything of cultural value to them that can flourish in a more or less secular society? As someone pointed out somewhere on Samizdata recently we don’t need the Arabs to turn out exactly like we want, just good enough not to cause us any headaches.
Just a side comment on the following:
“the West is very, very good at war. We should be—it has been our major occupation for millenia”
I think this statement is misleading. It implies that the West has practiced warfare more than any other part of the world, and that this long period of practice accounts for the military sueriority of the West.
I do not know how to quantify the warfare “practiced” over the last 5000 in various parts of the world, but I do know that humans everywhere have put great effort into becoming highly skilled at warfare.
The West is militarily superior for one reason and one reason only. It has the mightiest economy, including the most advanced technology. Of course, economic development and technological advance go hand-in-hand.
And the reason for the superior economic and technological development of the West is that the West has had a big head start in applying the principles of free markets and property rights.
Everybody practices warfare. Not everybody practices freedom.
Rick—
You read too much into a very simple statement, made in direct response to the original quote’s contention that Islam is more able when it comes to terroristic violence. My objection is to the all too familiar refrain from the enemies of the West, and esp. the US, that we are soft and easily intimidated.
It is the worst possible mistake that Islam could ever make to act upon that erroneous supposition. The capacity of the “civilized” West to enact the most horrifying violence against its perceived enemies need not be minutely documented here. Suffice it to say, the veneer of modern liberal sociey’s reluctance to commit acts which were common throughout its history is fragile indeed, and could be worn away quickly by the kind of lunacy we have just witnessed.
I do not dispute your comments about the importance of liberty and individual rights to the military strength of the West. But the reason that those capacities were develped was because we were fully prepared to use them if we felt it was necessary.
Islam can and must be reformed from within, with whatever push we can provide from without, in order to prevent the kind of total war that would inevitably result if the loss of millions of lives.
The grip of the mullahs must be broken, and recognition of the right to freedom of worship and conscience is the key. The Bill of Rights was not a fluke, and the success of the system founded on those priciples is not an accident. Ideas have consequences.
We only started really beating the Indians when we actually learned to fight like them.
We learn quick.
The longer version of the joke is better.
“Defense is not terrorism, it is defense.”
Pax Romana.
“I believe we moved heaven and earth to avoid doing any damage to schools or hospitals, which is why the ‘human shields’ (remember them?) made human chains around schools and hospitals.”
You would be better rephrasing that to:
“The [white, American with media-fame merely for those two characteristics] ‘human shields’ (remember them?) made human chains around schools and hospitals which is why we moved heaven and earth to avoid doing any damage to schools or hospitals.”
Makes more sense, but actually invalidates your point, unless you were implying state and public opinion are consonant (then why would they be there in the first place?).
I’ll admit that there was is no such case of deliberate US military targeting of schools (which I know of) in Iraq and I didn’t mean to come across as bombastic. Though I’m sure many (outside of the US, at least) have seen the footage of cameramen within besieged Palestinian classrooms, and I’m sure even more are aware that “collateral damage” in both Iraq and Afghanistan has occurred (I’ve yet to see a realistic estimate, but it is surely in the tens of thousands), as well as the numerous justified human rights abuses. A fate shared amongst many of the most famous terrorists: Boer, Cherokee, and Gaul?
One alternative tactic to terrorism is to just lie down and let the dominant imperialistic power walk over you, it works if you can outlive them.
Perhaps more people will die of Islam than died of the Black Death by the time this is over, if there really is a “this”. But that’ll still be many times less than those that died for it.
“Are there other aspects of Arabic culture which are compatible with secular, liberal society – aside from trivia?”
From what little I do know about Arabic culture, I found their banking methods quite attractive. It is geared towards mutal benefit. For instance, interest is disallowed, instead the debtor can give his thanks with a negotiable portion of his profits or a share in the firm. More supportive of small businesses than western capitalist banking.
If there are some good economic observers browsing about, perhaps they could explain to us all the full features, possible advantages and disadvantages of this seemingly fairer concept.
Link
Link
Dalmaster – Yes, your reworking of my phrase invalidates its meaning, which is why I wrote it as I did.
Remember, we had already announced that we would not target schools or hospitals, which is why the ‘human shields’ made a beeline for them when they landed in Baghdad and suddenly realised that the war was for real and no one really gave a stuff either way about their lives. Most of them turned tail and ran home to England. The ones who didn’t have the funds to get home camped outside schools ‘n’ hospitals in the sure knowledge that the vile Americans and British wouldn’t be bombing them.
Dalmaster: thanks very much. Reminds me somewhat of ‘cooperatives’ in Britain, though I wonder whether such banking practices would survive any ‘collapse’ of Islam as a doctrine of society and government.
I am more interested in whether an Islamic culture (minus Islam!) could devise government institutions such that rule of law could be applied to individuals irrespective of group (e.g. family) affiliations. Necessary pre-condition for a system of private property rights, you see. Don’t know enough about Arabic culture myself to think about this properly.
mike writes:
“I am more interested in whether an Islamic culture (minus Islam!) could devise government institutions such that rule of law could be applied to individuals irrespective of group (e.g. family) affiliations. Necessary pre-condition for a system of private property rights, you see.”
You might want to read-up on Assyro-Babylonian and Ancient Egyptian societies.
There is absolutely to racial reason why people in the Middle East could not evolve sophisticated legal concepts and systems. In fact they almost certainly invented them.
Apologists for Islam like to wax lyrical about the intellectual gifts they claim it showered on the world. They are noticeably quiet about the cultures it obliterated. As (to be fair) are Christian apologists.
I am not interested in racialism or religious apologism of any sort whatsoever. Doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid. My only interest in Islam (or any other religion) is purely sociological.
mike writes:
“I am not interested in racialism or religious apologism of any sort whatsoever. Doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid. My only interest in Islam (or any other religion) is purely sociological.”
My comment was an attempt to point you in a useful direction. The tart rejoinder was quite uncalled for.
There is no evidence I’m aware of that Arab society’s can produce anything more than theocratic-tribalism. There are of course other Islamic peoples who have, notably Turkey and Indonesia, but they are not particularly good examples as both states have been upheld largely by military rule.
Also “liberal secular” societies are not necessarily what we need. What we need is either the wholesale abandonment of Islam by much of the ME, or the dominance of a radically different form of Islam, something along the lines of a peaceful Sufism.
On the issue of the Dalmaster quote, I’m just not sure what his point is. But if it is as I suspect the standard moral equivalency argument then I share in condemning it. The actions of the vile scum who deliberately used schoolchildren as a weapon has NO equivalent in the West with regards to the war on Islamic terror, whether we are talking Russia, the US or Israel. Such arguments are based on making extremely facile comparisons.
Mike’s tart rejoinder didn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. Self-righteous, prissy, lecturey.
Also, Islamic banking is – surprise, surprise! – very rigid, judgemental and authoritarian. And as with all their laws, there are ways round it. For example – I do not know this for a fact; I am just guessing – but I have a hunch it would be all right to charge an infidel interest. If it’s OK to blow us up and strap bombs on youngsters and hustle them onto Israeli buses, it’s probably OK to charge us interest.
Islamic banking is a terrible idea. If repayments are based on profits instead of fixed interest rates, the banks are forced to bear a much larger risk. Worse, profits are easily manipulated and accounting standards are not as clearly established in the Middle East as they are in the West. Islamic banking rules make banking a much less attractive business, which makes loans more expensive and difficult to get. That’s certainly not good for small business.
In recent years, Islamic banks have recognized the necessity of interest-based loans. They have found ways to structure loans so that the form technically satisfies Islamic rules, but the substance is more similar to Western loans. Now, Islamic banking rules are little more than a procedural nuisance.
Without context, it is indeed sick. I too read the quote as Dalmaster and Samizdata approving mass murder.
From Dalmaster’s comments on this thread it looks to me that Samizdata (despite the link–one doesn’t always follow the link) has quoted him out of context in a way that (inadvertently, I hope) does discredit to both.
The quote is pretty sick and twisted. I wonder if Dalmaster would prefer it the other way round? I would be interested to see what Dalmaster believes is the definition of terrorism. I suspect, as does Shawn, that his definition contains a high level of moral equivalency.
This was an act of absolute barbarism and anything, but condemnation is objectionable in extremis. Taking the children was bad enough, then not feeding or watering them was pretty vile, but shooting them in the back as they ran was an act of absolute cowardice and utter evil.
Andrew Ian Dodge writes:
“Taking the children was bad enough, then not feeding or watering them was pretty vile, but shooting them in the back as they ran was an act of absolute cowardice and utter evil. ”
Not to mention, according to one report, bayoneting a young boy who begged for water.
Perhaps one of the hang-wringers would like to give us the moral relativist line of this act of evil?
But there – ‘evil’ is a word we’re not allowed to use these days. I suppose we’d better go and say three Hail Tonybees.
I suppose the logic that terrorists ‘win’ if you have to descend to their level of barbarity in order to counter them is something that goes right over the heads of many people.
My brother-in-law spent a number of months during 2002 in Chechnya covering the atrocities being carried out in that country. It strikes me that from his report [LINK], and from the coverage of the dreadful Beslan events, that both sides seem to be almost locked into some kind of sick competition as to whom can carry out the most deranged acts of depravity against each other – all the while with the West on one side and the revolting Al Queda, and its affiliates, on the other side egging them on.
Islamic financial rules are one reason why they had no industrial revolution and also, a significant reason why they are so economically backward.
A fellow named Khan (let me see if I can google something up on him) has written a whole book on how Islamic financial rules retarded the development of modern industry. . .one of his points was that they make the accumulation of capital difficult, therefore Islamic-owned companies historically never grew much beyond the Mom-and-Pop stage.
Islamic law is not a cafeteria and you can’t just pick out one seemingly-sounding “good” idea from amongst all the others and use that to promote it.
Regarding interest, they do charge interest, but they call it “fees” and other fictional nonsense.
Susan – but Osama bin Sleepin’s dad was the owner of a huge construction company. I seem to remember there was another giant construction company in Soddy Arabia owned, if I’m not wrong, by someone called Sulayman (or similar). They were not publically held companies, so the owners must have had recourse to the banks at several junctures in their development.
Although, as you say, the banks might have charged ‘fees’ rather than interest. Or the money may have been lent, interest free, by the Soddy royal family to do prestige jobs that are seen to have been executed by a Soddy company.
IIRC, the bin Laden construction company gew large as a result of government patronage and support.
Well I am happy to call the vicious bastards who did this evil.
“Well I am happy to call the vicious bastards who did this evil.”
As am I, but I think the initial post was misguided….
” many more Arabs and Chechens are going to die than Americans, Europeans and Russians,”
Many more Chechens than Russians have *already* died, been tortured, raped or “disappeared” by Russian troops, as Julian Taylor pointed out above. At least one of the women who blew up the airliners had lost lost family members to Russian military ‘security’ actions.
This has more than a little to do with what’s currently happening in Russia. It does not in any way justify last week’s terrible events, or absolve any of the terrorists of the pure evil of their actions, but how one can paint this as some one-sided “innocent free state under attack” situation is beyond me. The Russian government’s policies have helped fan the flames of extremism in Chechnya, & the Russian people are paying a terrible, terrible price.
I hope they can find some way to de-escalate this whole situation. How, I wish i knew.
Shawn, I know little about Turkey, but Indonesia is definitely a tribal theocratic state and a very unpleasant one at that. It is a rigid, authoritarian, primitive, tribal, mullah-ridden, fuedal society capable of sudden and overwhelming violence. Witness what they suddenly did to the Chinese – the wealth creators of the whole country – duh – a couple of years back. Burned all their businesses down and murdered as many as they could catch.
Verity,
“It is a rigid, authoritarian, primitive, tribal […] fuedal society capable of sudden and overwhelming violence.”
& your proof that this is due to Islam, as opposed to just being ignorant/backwards is…..?
Now that I’ve removed “mullah ridden”, that could apply to any amount of empoverished/backwards countries which have lilttle or no muslim population.
Oh, gawd, here’s A_t again!
My proof. Well, let’s go to the source with a question: Why are they backward? Why? They have oil in Kalimantan, and they have palm oil.
They were colonised by the Dutch, meaning, they’ve been in touch with the real world, not their little fantasy islamic world, for quite a while.
Yes, the Dutch were foul colonial masters, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Indonesians, especially from Java, have been in touch with the rest of the world for well over a hundred years.
Why have they periodically gone on rampages against the Chinese, who are responsible, other than the oil company, for the country’s wealth? Why don’t they get with the programme and create some wealth of their own? No. Resentment, resentment, resentment. Like all the other Islamics world wide.
Because they are red-taped around with mullahs’ decrees and commands? Yes.
And they can’t get over this habit of patronage. Megawati is a bag of sanctimonious shit. Just putting a woman in office, as they are so inclined to do south of the Equator on the notion that the West will think they are advanced, means not a thing. Megawati’s posturing corruption in a hijab.
Verity, resentment & envy towards an ethnic minority who are far more prosperous than the majority is a common, common human trait; hardly something exclusive to Muslims. Nor is electing sanctimonious authoritarian leaders, nor any of the other traits you so berate. You could find them all in African countries with negligeable Muslim populations, or South American countries with about 3 muslim citizens.
So again, if Indonesia’s problems are principally due to Islam, why are there places with extremely similar troubles which are utterly non-Islamic? Can you give me any convincing reasons why the root causes would not be very similar in all cases; tribalism, human greed, ignorance & inefficiency.
What about resentment & envy towards an ethnic minority who are far LESS prosperous than the majority – East Timor for example?
“What about resentment & envy towards an ethnic minority who are far LESS prosperous than the majority – East Timor for example?”
I don’t know precisely what you’re driving at, but yeah, perfectly common trait too, regardless of religion, though I’d question the “envy” part of it; what is there to envy in someone who’s less well off than you?
But yes, we saw very much that phenomenon in Britain in the 1960s; hatred directed against poor Caribbean immigrants, & I’m sure it’s happened the world over. If society needs a scapegoat, the easiest one to pick is a small but prominent minority.