 Login
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi |
 |
How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?Posts: Joined: 2004-12-12
Sasha Abramsky asks, "If Osama bin Laden is the Trotsky of irredentist Islam, preaching a wacky, bloody notion of a roving, permanent Islamic revolution, how do we progressives respond?"
Well, first we have to find out what he is about. If it is a simple matter of world domination as Tony Blair and George Bush are at pains to have us believe, then we must indeed fight him to the death in an open-ended, no-holds-barred war on terror. On the other hand, a former CIA expert states that Osama bin Laden has 'clear, focused, limited and widely popular foreign policy goals', including:
'the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state;
the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands;
the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India;
the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world's energy resources and their sale at higher prices.
This is a quote from Michael Scheuer, who served in the CIA for 22 years, and who headed the CIA Counter-Terrorism Centre's bin Laden task force (1996-1999). Scheuer, who retired in Nov. 2004, wrote two recent books as 'Anonymous': "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror". (Source: Justice not Vengeance website)
So. There are foreign policy objectives which can be discussed. It may be that talks are already underway. Agreed, the objectives may seem wildly improbable, especially with regard to Israel, but this is in the nature of opening rounds of negotiations.
Which is not to deny that Osama may entertain visions of an earthly Caliphate, and that he hates (=envies?) the free and easy lifestyle that we enjoy, as well as hating and despising our decadence and thoughtlessness. I imagine he does. I know I do. The difference is that I debate it and he kills over it.
Osama may have quasi-psychotic and/or psychopathic traits about him. This does not matter. Millions of such people exist - some with ideas worse than his. The difference is that they are just psychopaths, but Osama can command popular sympathy because of widespread popular resentment against Western arrogance, hypocrisy and destructiveness.
There is a way out of this mess; it means involving all of us - both sides - in a co-operative effort in fighting injustice and oppression wherever it is found, and in a sustained effort to prevent and recover from environmental degradation.
As a wise old primate once said, "When the forest fire threatens them, the lion and the gazelle run shoulder to shoulder in the same direction".
Submitted on Tue, 2005-10-04 20:26
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Richard,
How refreshing! An unapologetic Imperialist.
Osama has made his demands, you say. Let's negotiate with him.
He wants Afghanistan back?
No problem.
He wants regimes modeled on the Taliban in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt?
Well, that's reasonable. None of these are "our" lands.
And in best Imperial tradition, let's negotiate the fate of these nations without reference to their desires.
Osama wants Israel?
Sure, says Richard. In a flash.
How about the Iberian Peninsula (That's Spain and Portugal, Richard, formerly Muslim lands.) Do we toss them in too? Or are they part of "us"?
You write:
"There is a way out of this mess; it means involving all of us - both sides - in a co-operative effort in fighting injustice and oppression wherever it is found, and in a sustained effort to prevent and recover from environmental degradation."
So Osama is interested "in fighting injustice and oppression"? Really. I think you should ask Afghanis whether the Taliban imposed a just regime.
While you're at it, you might ask some ordinary Iraqis what they think of the behaviour of the foreign fighters.
And Osama's an environmentalist, too, is he? Al Qaeda and its franchises murdered 3,000 people in the States, thousands of Shias in Iraq, hundreds of innocent people in Bali and hundreds more around the globe because they're worried about "environmental degradation"?
Gee, I didn't know that. They must be okay after all.
Richard, seriously, stop projecting your own viewpoint on al Qaeda, and if you want to fight "injustice and oppression," think about ways to fight Islamofascism.
yours,
Brian
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Hi Brian
It would seem that you are not attracted to the idea of negotiating with terrorists.
Your parody of negotiations have nothing to do with reality. I, like you, happen to firmly believe that the existence of the state of Israel is absolutely non-negotiable, but I also believe that some aspects of the behaviour of Israel are highly negotiable. For example, shootings of the kind that happened to Tom Hurndall and Rachael Correy - not to mention the thousands of Palestinian civilians killed. And I hasten to add that I do not forget the action of Hamas &c in killing thousands of Israeli civilians. I hate all terrorism. We all do. But this does not stop us from negotiating with terrorists. All conflict is just a state of affairs that precedes negotiation. We Brits negotiated with Israeli terrorists to give them the state of Israel. The British Government was negotiating with the IRA long before the Good Friday agreement. America has quietly pulled most of its bases out of Saudi Arabia.
Everyone does it, all the time. Politicians just don't like talking about it in public, that's all.
You disagree with the proffered solution:
"There is a way out of this mess; it means involving
all of us - both sides - in a co-operative effort in fighting injustice and oppression wherever it is
found, and in a sustained effort to prevent and
recover from environmental degradation."
Apologies, I did not make myself clear. By "both sides" I mean the ethnic groups that are being fought over, not specifically OBL. The threat posed by Osama does not reside in his person, but in his ability to attract others to him. They come to him because they are dissatisfied, oppressed by their (often secular, sometimes Islamic, always non-democratic) governments, and by the threat of lack of water, soil fertility, lack of trees, environmental degredation, poor housing, lack of electricity, and other basic facilities. If they were empowered to attend to these problems by the international community, they would have neither the inclination nor the energy to join up with OBL and his deadly crew.
IMHO.
Regards
Richard
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Interesting thread.
There's a fundamental schism in communicating with the Islamist world, I believe. Language barriers are only the most basic disconnect. It's a fact, however, that numerals are the one common language spoken on this planet. I therefore believe that all of our responses to Osama bin Laden should be couched, as much as possible, in numerals.
Here are a few he is sure to understand: 5.56mm, 7.62mm, 9mm, 10mm, .45-caliber, .223-caliber, 40mm, 120mm, 155mm.
He might also grasp a few letter-number combinations: AGM-114P, AGM-62, AGM-65K, AGM-69B, AGM-86D, BGM-71H, UGM-109F.
Any or all of these, applied judiciously at just the right time, is sure to be completely understood.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
With respect bhenry_ed, by trying to fight bin Laden only with guns and bullets your strategy will be as effective as if you trained your guns at his flickering shadow on the wall.
You write about bin Laden as if he commanded a nation state, or at the very least a traditional army that was marching towards America and the West. If this were the case, then simply destroying his army would destroy his power, and outright aggression might be effective.
Unfortunately bin Laden and his organizations don’t make themselves such an easy target and conventional tactics have not proven remotely successful. Terrorists draw their strength from their ability to immerse themselves in their wider communities. They play on moderate sympathies within these communities to provide them with protection and to recruit their members. Thus bin Laden’s power to wreak murder and havoc lies in his ability to find sympathy within Muslim communities by embracing moderate causes.
In order to fight him then you need to isolate OBL from his sympathetic community and destroy his power. If OBL could no longer convince anyone to sign up for suicide missions, he would lose his most destructive weapon.
I agree with you, you can’t negotiate with OBL the person, the only language he will understand is force. However, you can, and must, negotiate with the Islamic community in which he operates. If the West was seen to negotiate or move on some of the more limited demands quoted by Richard Lawson above, then this will help to undermine OBL within the Islamic world and expose him in their eyes as well as ours for the murderer he is.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Interesting topic that has provoked some sharp responses. I've not posted on here before but this thread finally tempted me after several months of reading OD articles and responses.
I think Richard's original point about OBL is valid - we need to know more about his aims before we can respond intelligently. At the moment all we (ie the US/UK) seem to have done is walk into an elephant trap. OBL even said this rather gloatingly himself in his Nov 2004 tape:
"..All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." I personally doubt that OBL intends to turn the whole world into an islamic caliphate, even though he is patently a psychopathic terrorist etc etc. He is (or appears to be, as I have obviously never met him) an adept manipulator of others' fears, hopes and prejudices. When i spent a few months in Egypt recently I found that many people I spoke to there were ambivalent about him. They had distaste for his methods but they certainly do not view him as evil incarnate as we do. He taps into several latent currents there, one of which seems to be an expectation that the end of the world is looming and he is one of its agents (and therefore unstoppable). A lapsed muslim friend of mine out there explained that this is expected to take place in Iran, in a showdown between the Shia and everyone else. Interestingly, even though he is no longer practising, he said that he still habitually looks at events through this prism. I'm not sure how representative my friend is, but I'm sure OBL is not unaware of this angle. Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
I am sure you folk are more informed than I but were Osama younger and I his nanny I would spank his bum, hard telling him nice people don’t do those things. Catch George at it again and I will do the same or perhaps the group of neo cons.
You quote doctrinal saying mostly from extremists (my knowledge may be in error here) so you are bound to hear claims of jihad for Islamic worlds. With the other ear go hear the bigots, sorry religious fundamentalist from America and hear similar claims for Christianity. Yes Religion has power all too often destructive and seemingly with selfish intent-let my ego continue!
As an uninformed reader, I do my best to catch up on all the game play but get flummoxed by own goals. Invading Iraq to quiet Osama or killing to enrage America, who is rather large and intemperate at the foreign policy level and quite irrational. Well irrational if you interpret behavior as bringing democracy to Chile, Nicaragua, Philippines, Colombia, Granada, Panama, and Argentine and on and on but in the light of exceptionalism and doing the duty to the world-oh democracy-American style! Osama has a long way to go in notching his belt noting kills.
If Osama said, but they are dominating us pinching control of our oil foisting the Shah on Iran, favouring Israel and not Palestinians and on and on, I would have to agree. Treating us as dogs yes I would say unfairly etc.
I simply read say Prof. Halliday or Prof Pape’s Dying to Win, the study of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2005. I take heart from their analysis, they are professionals accepted by their peers (maybe right but in to days misinformation one can only hope so), who find little evidence of a world wide Jihad whatever the extremists might wish. What they do find can be summed as get to hellout of our country our business and let us do our own thing!
I may be misinformed but police procedure might work instead of stirring all the Islamic Tribe. By the way was there an offer to hand Osama over if the American’s could make a good case for his guilt?
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Tom,
This week's New Statesman features a review of Fisk’s book, The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East. Setting aside the book’s rather loaded title, the reviewer makes the following observation:
“While the external causes of Muslim grievance are writ large (the cumulative sense of anger and humiliation over Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya and the rest), what is missing from this book is a sense of the internal dynamics of the Muslim world - in particular the dilemmas of the Muslim third world in its painful transition to modernity. And, given that the shadow of Osama Bin Laden hovers over the book from its first chapter, one might have expected a much fuller account of the roots of radical Islamism. At times, Fisk comes perilously close to suggesting that a latter-day crusade is under way between Christianity and Islam - which is Bin Laden's view…”
Variations of this position are all too common among Fisk’s peers. While I don’t doubt there are legitimate (or at least negotiable) issues to resolve, Fisk once again depicts jihadist terror as purely reactive and devoid of any engine or lineage of its own. The implication of this position is that without oil, or Israel, or whatever, jihad would never have emerged, or found such broad support, at least in terms of objectives. But the history and imperative of jihad spans more than 13 centuries and predates oil, and predates Israel, and predates most of the things that are alleged to cause it.
Again, to suit Fisk's own agenda, the broader Muslim world is all but stripped of any dynamic properties, whether political, religious, or a grim combination of the two. Chechnya, for instance, is listed as a “grievance”, yet the loaded theological nature of that grievance - and the key role of Wahhabists in shaping it - is brushed aside. As are the consequences of compliance for non-Muslims in the region. Likewise, the obvious theological aspect of the “anger and humiliation” Fisk reports is curiously unexplored. Given the supremacist assumptions voiced by jihadists – the world is theirs by default and infidels dare to resist – the role of “anger and humiliation” takes on broader connotations, and a less sympathetic hue. But, of course, none of this is mentioned.
And unless these theological factors are addressed too, a credible long-term solution seems unlikely to materialise anytime soon.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Regarding notions of ‘identity politics’, there’s an interesting article by Kenan Malik in the October issue of Prospect magazine. In it, Malik argues that the left’s emphasis on doctrinal multiculturalism and the politics of group identity has undermined notions of common humanity and fuelled tribal resentment. These ideas have, he argues, inadvertently given weight to extremist ideologues. The comment by Lee Jasper, Ken Livingstone’s race adviser, seems particularly revealing:
“It was a conversion from a belief in secular universalism to the defence of ethnic particularism and group rights. At one time, the left had been a champion of Enlightenment rationalism, of a common humanity and universal rights. Over the past 20 years, however, many key figures and organisations on the British left have promoted the idea of multiculturalism. ‘You have to treat people differently to treat them equally,’ Lee Jasper, race adviser to Ken Livingstone, says…
After Rushdie, I came to realise that tackling this ‘politics of difference’ was as important as challenging racism. Fifteen years later, as we debate how British Muslims could turn into terrorists, understanding that retreat from secular universalism is as important as ever... Multiculturalism did not create militant Islam, but it created a space for it within British Muslim communities that had not existed before. It fostered a more tribal nation, undermined progressive trends within the Muslim communities and strengthened the hand of conservative religious leaders.”
The article is worth reading in full.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
It’s interesting to compare the attitudes of many modern left-leaning writers, thinkers, and politicians with those of the early socialists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, and even Marx. Whose attitudes towards any religion ranged from distrust to openly hostile.
"the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice. It is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind - both in theory and practice". "If God is, man is a slave; now man can and must be free; thus God does not exist"
- Bakunin
” Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.”
- Marx
In fact, Marx once wrote that criticism of religion was an essential starting point for all criticism of what was wrong in the world. They held to the idea that respect between different cultures could only be achieved when everyone was free from irrational authority, be it political, economic or religious. All of this was underpinned by the concept of a universal human nature.
That concept took a bit of a kicking from the World Wars though, when the workers of the world seemed quite happy to slaughter each other for god and country. The socialist movement never really adapted to the rising levels of affluence and shift from a “capitalist” to bureaucratic economy which changed the nature of western societies, though the focus on TNCs and the Third World is a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, the changing nature of “capitalist oppression” means that some find themselves fighting for groups they should oppose simply because secularism has achieved the upper hand on a number of levels. They see themselves as fighting for the “underdog”, without questioning the desirability of those groups.
” By flinging overboard law, religion and authority, mankind can regain possession of the moral principle which has been taken from them. Regain that they may criticize it, and purge it from the adulterations wherewith priest, judge and ruler have poisoned it and are poisoning it yet.”
- Kropotkin
Marx on Religion
http://www.angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/marxrel.html
From the Malik essay:
Today , though, many on the left would dismiss James' defence of 'Western civilisation' as insufferably Eurocentric, even racist. To be radical has come to mean the rejection of all that is 'Western' in the name of marginality or difference. The modernist project of pursuing a rational, scientific understanding of the world - a project that James unashamedly championed - is now widely decried as a dangerous fantasy that must be resisted.
Ironically, it was the idea of a rational, scientific understanding of the world that was at the heart of early socialism.
Some writers like Kropotkin feared that the creation of left-wing political parties would prove disastrous. He believed that socialism was something greater than a mere political movement, more akin to a philosophy, an outlook on life with universal values at its centre.
The adverserial approach adopted by political parties, more interested in "winning" than with debate probably has something to do with the erosion of left-wing ideas.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Matt,
“Ironically, it was the idea of a rational, scientific understanding of the world that was at the heart of early socialism.”
Well, I’d agree, insofar as many key Socialist thinkers placed rationality and the scientific method at the heart of their concerns. However, a large part of the left now seems to have abandoned those analytical ideals in favour of a confused kind of moral equivalence. And, in many cases, conspiracy theories and wild conjecture.
One of the themes that runs throughout Malik’s articles is the way in which multiculturalism – as a doctrine, rather than a general lived experience – has serious practical consequences. One idea implicit within this doctrine is a disabling kind of relativism – a reluctance to face up to the contradictions inherent to pretending that all values are somehow equally legitimate, or practical, or compatible. Or, as Malik puts it: “the very act of making judgements about beliefs, values, lifestyles, cultures… now tends to be viewed as politically uncouth.” (This affected trepidation can blunt the critical senses. And, consequently, we arrive at Ken Livingstone’s evasions, and his race adviser, Lee Jasper, saying: “You have to treat people differently to treat them equally.”)
Clearly, moral judgements are necessarily conditional, in that they depend on context and finite knowledge. Equally clearly, claims of absolute moral knowledge are an epistemological nonsense and an egomaniacal boast. But conditionality is not the same thing as abandoning all efforts to determine whether one value is preferable to another, or refusing to concede where one set of values conflicts with another. (Again, we arrive at Livingstone’s pantomime of “respecting” contradictory worldviews – which, in practical terms, usually means respecting none.)
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
How should we respond to the Boogey man or the Tooth Fairy or the Little Green Men from Mars?
You people are experiencing a mass hallucination - you watch too much telly!
BinLAden is likely dead and Al qaeda isn't a movement, a network or an affiliation. AlQ is a myth, a lie, an advertising campaign selling you sops the bogus war on terror.
Anyone believing the 'war' is real is a dupe, a mark, a sucker...try reading a book once in a while... like uhhh 1984 in which you will learn . Emmanuel Goldstein is dead...
You Brits arguing how it's unAmerican to oppose corporatism or a corrupt government need to learn a little history.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Ahem. As I was saying: “And, in many cases, conspiracy theories and wild conjecture.”
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
conspiracy theories? wild conjecture?
exactly - spot on!
al queda is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory of our time
everytime an arab farts its part of some secret plot to burn a hole in the ozone - preposterous!
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Hi,
It's past my bedtime, but I noticed the notion of "multiculturalism" joining the conversation.
I think the more accurate term is "post-modernism," the notion that moralities are mere narratives, that life is best approached as a text, with all interpretations having equal validity though perhaps not equal aesthetic value, and so forth.
Here in Canada - specifically here in Toronto - there is no longer a majority culture; it's multiculturalism or nothing. But multiculturalism here at least doesn't mean that Arab supremacist or White Supremacist get respect. I see a consensus on the core value that everyone gets treated with respect. Hence, lack of tolerance isn't a tolerated value.
(Of course there are also moral relativists who don't buy into this consensus, but we don’t have enough of them that Ken Livingston could ever get elected mayor.)
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Bhenry_ed,
“I think the more accurate term is ‘post-modernism,’ the notion that moralities are mere narratives, that life is best approached as a text, with all interpretations having equal validity…”
I tried to avoid using the word ‘post-modernism’ as it has broader connotations in the worlds of art theory and literature. ‘Multiculturalism’ is fairly ambiguous too, I grant you, and many people conflate multi-ethnic society with multiculturalism as a political idea. I don’t see how one can object to a multi-ethnic society, but I do see how multiculturalism as a theory can have counterproductive consequences.
I suppose the problem at the heart of this relativist assumption is the implicit rejection of analysis and objective criteria. It seems to me that ideological multiculturalism is often used to avoid the appearance of conflict, at least superficially, by pretending that conflict is somehow avoidable if one simply flattens all values as equally valid. Or, if one stops making judgments of certain kinds, the problem will – miraculously – go away.
Thus, moral ideas based solely on religious supposition are often equated with the rigours of pragmatic morality. To point out any qualitative difference between the two is, for many, impolite, even taboo. But following this PC thinking, contradictions arise. If, for instance, a person says that he beats his wife to exorcise demons in keeping with his cultural norms, one might argue this is no less valid than a reasoned attempt to minimise harm. (This is admittedly an extreme scenario, but comparable examples do happen, as seen here. And here. And here. And note how attempts to criticise or intervene become compromised by "sensitivity" and blatant double standards.)
But if we abandon rational attempts to minimise the harm done to others, how do we resolve the contradictions between conflicting belief systems of a theological or superstitious kind? And how do we resolve the contradictions between enlightened morality – which is a fairly practical and conditional matter, and therefore open to debate and analysis – with absolutist moral pretensions, which, on the whole, are not?
And if, for example, a person claims xenophobia and intolerance are divine obligations and a moral imperative, how far can this claim be tolerated? What mutual frame of reference is there with which to debate the matter? Or should we all just resign ourselves to living separate and mutually exclusive lives?
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
David,
I certainly don't want to quibble about the terminology. I think we're talking about the same thing.
I do think post-modernism provides the intellectual roots. Otherwise, I don't think the intrinsically incoherent notion that all cultural practices are equally entitled to respect could ever have attained its current respectability.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Some people on this forum have suggested there is a mystery abotu what Osama wants. In fact, he hasn't been shy What does Osama - and Islamists generally - hvent' been shy about expaining their viewpoint.
However, it's a point of view that gets little press. Doubtless this is partly because the reactionary left prefers Osama as a stalking horse for its own agenda. More generally, though, the media doesn't generally regard ideas as news.
In a piece in The Times the day after the July 7 terrorist attacks, Amir Teheri, an Iranian liberal, (who doesn’t of course live in Iran) provided the most succinct exposition of the aims of the Islamists that I've come across.
Below, I’ve provided a highly condensed version of the article and the link (though I don't know if it's still operating):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html
July 08, 2005
And this is why they did itAMIR TAHERI
There is no way to reason with the terrorists, but the thinking behind their actions is perfectly clear.
Moments after yesterday’s attacks, my telephone was buzzing with requests for interviews with one recurring question: but what do they want? That reminded me of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, who was shot by an Islamist assassin on his way to work in Amsterdam last November. According to witnesses, Van Gogh begged for mercy and tried to reason with his assailant. “Surely we can discuss this,” he kept saying as the shots kept coming. “Let us talk it over.”
Van Gogh, who had angered Islamists with his documentary about the mistreatment of women in Islam, was reacting like BBC reporters did yesterday, assuming that the man who was killing him may have some reasonable demands which could be discussed in a calm, democratic atmosphere.
But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.
The aim of all good Muslims … is to convert humanity to Islam, which regulates Man’s spiritual, economic, political and social moves to the last detail.
But what if non-Muslims refuse to take the right path? Here answers diverge. Some believe that the answer is dialogue and argument… This is the view of most of the imams preaching in the mosques in the West. But others including Osama bin Laden … believe that the Western-dominated world is too mired in corruption to hear any argument, and must be shocked into conversion through spectacular ghazavat (raids) of the kind we saw in New York and Washington in 2001, in Madrid last year, and now in London.
There are many Muslims who believe that the idea that all other faiths have been “abrogated” and that the whole of mankind should be united under the banner of Islam must be dropped as a dangerous anachronism. But to the Islamist those Muslims who think like that are themselves regarded as lapsed, and deserving of death.
It is, of course, possible, as many in the West love to do, to ignore the strategic goal of the Islamists altogether and focus only on their tactical goals. These goals are well known and include driving the “Cross-worshippers” (Christian powers) out of the Muslim world, wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East, and replacing the governments of all Muslim countries with truly Islamic regimes like the one created by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and by the Taleban in Afghanistan.
How to achieve those objectives has been the subject of much debate in Islamist circles throughout the world, including in London, since 9/11. Bin Laden has consistently argued in favour of further ghazavat inside the West.
Bin Laden’s view has been challenged by his supposed No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who insists that the Islamists should first win the war inside several vulnerable Muslim countries, notably Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Until yesterday it seemed that al-Zawahiri was winning the argument, especially by heating things up in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, the bin Laden doctrine struck back in London.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Bhenry_ed,
“I do think post-modernism provides the intellectual roots. Otherwise, I don't think the intrinsically incoherent notion that all cultural practices are equally entitled to respect could ever have attained its current respectability.”
I’ve encountered this presumption of equivalence many times here on OD, most recently from an Islamist ideologue and from a rather shrill and reactive leftist. Both argued against any attempt to fathom whether one value is preferable to another, denouncing any such attempt as “ignorant”, “imperialist”, or a sign of “cultural bias.”
The implication of this posture is that all ideological systems are somehow equal in merit, and that no judgement can be made as to which is preferable in any given context. Nor, apparently, should one ask which belief is more conducive to, say, tolerance, material progress, or intellectual freedom. I was even told that I was obliged to “respect” a belief system, irrespective of its shortcomings. To show a lack of respect for a person's beliefs is, apparently, a grave personal defect. When I asked if this obligatory respect extended to voodoo or white supremacy, no answer was forthcoming.
This idea of PC equivalence is itself an aburd "cultural bias", albeit a fashionable one. It’s hard, for instance, to overlook the fact that ideologies that govern all social interactions and curtail intellectual freedom aren’t exactly a recipe for philosophical enquiry or economic development. And ideologies that severely curtail the employment opportunities of women – half the population - don’t exactly help boost GDP. But I guess such minor details must not be thought about. If one did, one might arrive at a judgment. Gasp.
And advocates of this relativistic equivalence are curiously selective. I’ve been told that criticising aspects of Islamic theology is necessarily biased and taboo, while simultaneously being told that criticising Zionist settlers or deranged Republican evangelists is not. Apparently, it’s fine to challenge libertarian capitalists in analytical terms. But using those same techniques to challenge something that advocates of equivalence hold dear, or feel they ought to hold dear, is not.
This double standard rather suggests that even the people who expound moral equivalence don’t actually believe in it.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
"Nor, apparently, should one ask which belief is more conducive to, say, tolerance, material progress, or intellectual freedom."
The following is from a speech, "Universal rights vs. group rights", given by Azam Kamguian at the recent World Congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Kamguian is an Iranian writer and women's rights activist.
Politicians and other advocates of politically correct diversity preach a multicultural paradise, but few leaders care to notice the dark side of cultures that are inhumane and brutal. Western governments have actively used the policy of multiculturalism in the recent past, encouraging and supporting demands for group rights from indigenous native populations, minority ethnic or religious groups. These groups, it is argued, have their own "societal cultures" which provide "members with meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, educational, religious, recreational, and economic life. Because societal cultures play an important role in the lives of members, and because such cultures are threatened with extinction, minority cultures should be protected by special rights. That, in essence, is the case for group rights. But some societal norms, including slavery, female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honour killing and other horrors should not be respected. Such unacceptable practices are part of the multicultural package, but they ought to be eradicated.
Community leaders and group leaders eagerly advocate segregation not only to ensure that religious traditions and culture are preserved but also to maintain power, influence and control in their communities.
http://www.iheu.org/node/1691
Kamguian's point is a simple one, you cannot respect cultures that don't respect Enlightenment values such as equality and liberty. To be progressive, as many who support multiculturalism claim to be, requires you to support these values and oppose cultures that violate them.
Claiming that a culture should be respected purely because it's a "culture" is to abandon notions such as human rights on which progressive politics is based, and does a grave disservice to all those minority groups struggling against oppression and injustice.
The ideology of multiculturalism, with its accusations of racism toward anyone who will not submit, has intimidated people into believing that it is desirable to welcome and respect cultures that consider women inferior. People naively welcome retrograde diversity in institutions and in society as a whole, evidently to prove their rejection of racism. How could we respect cultural traditions such as slavery, purdah, “honour killing,” female genital mutilation, and exoneration from the crime of rape if the perpetrator marries the victim?
The entire speech is worth reading. Kamguian's biog can be found here:
http://www.secularislam.org/women/about.htm
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
you cannot respect cultures that don't respect Enlightenment values such as equality and liberty.
What follows from this lack of respect? Is it a licence to nuke'em?
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Yes.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Strange, isn’t it? For some, the idea that one might choose not to view a particular belief system as morally equal to another instantly leads to a presumption that one would wish to vaporise those who adhere to it.
No half measures, eh?
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
There's a very interesting article on spiked at the moment about the OBL question -
"Osama Bin Laden: more media whore than guerilla warrior"
the essential argument is that we need to move beyond tired left/right stereotypes of resistance fighters/islamofascists. definitely worth a read
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CADD4.htm
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
joynyangreen,
“Al-Qaeda's fanciful war is not for something tangible… Devji argues that al-Qaeda refers to Palestine mostly opportunistically. 'Both al-Zawahiri and bin Laden tend to refer to Palestine more as a symbol than an actual cause', he says… It's also been pointed out that, post-9/11, bin Laden only started name-checking Palestine after it was raised by commentators and politicians in the West as the most likely explanation for the terrorist attacks… Al-Qaeda… sees jihad as some kind of endless duty rather than the means to the end of an ideological entity.”
If so, isn’t this often the case with ideological terrorists? To some extent, the psychological engine of these acts is almost always fantasist role-play - egomania, camouflaged with a cause.
The fact that atrocities of this kind attract global media attention merely reinforces the jihadist's notion of starring in some cosmic drama. The unending and irresolvable nature of the drama is also rather important. If all the ‘Great Satans’ were finally overcome and the ‘cause’ were to be concluded triumphantly, what excuse would remain for indulging one’s homicidal leanings, or regarding oneself as so staggeringly important? Without the struggle, what is left? An egomaniacal bully looking for another excuse?
The theological structure of Islamist extremism offers an unusually fertile soil for self-preoccupied fantasists with sadistic inclinations. But similar psychology can be found among those 'activists' who terrorise small children for the sake of guinea pigs.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
David,
thanks for responding to my post. Unfortunately I don't have the time to post every day so my contributions are somewhat sporadic and sparse compared to yours. Anyway, here are my thoughts for what they are worth.
Assuming OBL is an opportunistic psychopath with delusions of grandeur, rather than a rational person with a coherent plan, I think there are 2 questions to ask:
1. Why are we colluding in his fantasy?
2. Why does he seem to get so much support? (both in terms of willing fighters and tacit support such as non-betrayal of insurgents to the authorities)
By turning him into a figurehead, launching the war on terror and particularly in extending it to Iraq, we (US/UK) have bolstered all his opportunistic claims and ended up in the ridiculous position where whatever we do, we essentially pander to his fantasy. If we withdraw, he will claim victory. If we stay, we continue to recruit fighters for him and give them a handy training ground.
This is insane. The man lives in a cave. There is no way he can bring down western civilisation, short of acquiring several hundred nuclear warheads. We are, in a weird way, fighting our own delusions in this war as well as the insurgents.
It is only his support that turns him into anything approaching a threat. And why does he have so much of it? They can't all be delusional psychopaths (although i'm sure some of then undoubtedly are). I think this is where his opportunistic claims re Palestine etc come in. If I understand you correctly though David, you think his support is explained by the unique theological nature of Islam. I can sort of see where you're coming from on this but I'm still not really convinced. It provides a conceivable motive for a few fanatical fighters and bombers, but not for the tacit support. The tacit support of millions is what gives the insurgents / al qaeda such a solid base.
What hope do we have in Iraq for example, if that recent poll published by the Telegraph is even half accurate. (as i'm sure you already know, apparently 65% of respondents believed that attacks on the occupiers were justified. )
If we are to neutralise OBL / al qaeda as a threat, we need to remove this tacit support. Now the question is - what is the best way to do this?
Message was edited by: joynyangreen
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
This is in response to the multiculturalism angle. I think this is a total red herring.
Before i go any further I will state my personal interest - I am half kenyan, half english and i have lived 14 years in kenya and 15 years in England. so i have quite a bit of personal experience with this topic that no doubt colours my view.
I originally understood multiculturalism as simply a means of communicating effectively. If you are going to understand someone and have a meaningful conversation with them, you need to know (and hopefully understand) what their tacit assumptions are, and they similarly need to know yours. Most (though not all) large differences in tacit assumptions correlate to differences in culture and age. So when talking to my kenyan grandparents i take into account a very different worldview to the one i would when talking to my english friends. This however does not lead inexorably to moral equivalence. of course you can judge others, just as they judge you. Just be extremely clear on what you are measuring, and what measuring stick you are using. If you want to persuade someone to change their view, choose your spokesperson and you tone carefully.
For example, foreigners do not usually have much success when they try to prevent female circumcision in african societies. They are often viewed with suspicion and accused of cultural imperialism. Any amount of talking loudly and scientifically does not usually sway such entrenched cultural practices. It is only when local educated women speak out against the practice and refuse to participate that the custom starts to change.
Unfortunately multiculturalism is so poorly defined that it's all too easy to turn it into a straw man. Since the London bombings the sound of axes grinding has been deafening as people hasten to blame multiculturalism for all the ills of the modern world.
I cannot comment meaningfully on terms like postmodernism and cultural equivalence as they don't mean much to me and don't chime with my personal experience. I personally believe that the trials and tribulations of the process we nebulously call multiculturalism are better described by game theory and the judicious application of some aspects of chaos theory. But then I'm a physics graduate rather than a philosopher so i would say that..
When you look at the cumulative effects of millions of individual decisions, there seem to be some key factors that generate cooperation and others that generate distrust. Unsurprisingly, economics seems to be a key factor. There have been some very interesting books and articles published on this subject recently which I will duly reference for you. Unfortunately i have to rush off now but i will post on this topic again soon.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
joynyangreen,
You're welcome. Your questions are rather wide in scope, and it would take some time to do them justice. But here’s a little something to start with…
“Why are we colluding in his fantasy?”
Offhand, it’s hard to think of many positions one can actually take which don’t directly or indirectly reinforce the delusions of a fantasist. That’s rather the nature of being a fantasist - almost anything can be construed as reinforcing their self-narrative. Faced with a mad person, one can act in a number of ways, or not act at all; but the person remains mad, nonetheless. As you said: “Whatever we do, we essentially pander to his fantasy.”
Bin Laden’s status as a figurehead is not merely the result of US spokesmen, though Western commentators have often focused exclusively on one man, and thereby misconstrued the nature of the jihadist problem. Bin Laden is merely an expression of a much wider (and older) phenomenon. Eliminating him achieves very little unless one also addresses the broader worldview to which he appeals, and from which any number of successors might emerge.
“Why does he seem to get so much support (both in terms of willing fighters and tacit support such as non-betrayal of insurgents to the authorities)?”
As I’ve shown, Islamist ideology is an unusually fertile soil for fantasies of this kind. And this ideology is hardly confined to a tiny fringe of alienated extremists huddled in back rooms. For example, President Musharraf has tried to diminish the influence of jihadist ideas in private ‘rogue’ madrasas. But even Pakistan’s state schools, which are sanctioned by Musharraf’s own government, propagate similarly xenophobic and supremacist ideology. Mainstream textbooks refer to Jews as "slanderers and money-lenders" and to Christians as “inferior.”
In April 2002, the Palestinian Authority’s Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi described non-Muslims as "the enemies of Allah” – before reminding his followers that the Prophet “described [them] as apes and pigs.” Contempt for non-Muslims is also commonplace in Saudi school textbooks. In July 2004, the Guardian reported the persistence of supremacist indoctrination, despite assurances to the contrary from the Saudi foreign minister. Six-year-olds are instructed that “all religions other than Islam are false… Emulation of the infidels leads to loving them and raising their status in the eyes of the Muslim, and that is forbidden.”
Faced with this, it’s difficult to make any reassuringly clear distinction between an extremist fringe of “radical Islam” and Islam as it is taught on a daily basis to millions of children. And the consequences of children being ‘educated’ in this way are, I fear, all too obvious. If children are taught to believe in a Manichean and supremacist worldview, and taught to despise and distrust non-Muslims, there will be endless opportunities (real and imagined) to feel aggrieved and entitled to revenge. Inevitably, some will eventually choose to act on those feelings in rather dramatic ways.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
David,
Have you ever tried writing to your MP about this? With the sheer amount of links, quotes and references to Islamic history I'd love to hear their response.
I think I might even have Tony Blair's email address lying around somewhere...
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Matt,
I’m holding out for my own TV show. I picture a mixture of light entertainment and heavy polemic.
“We’ll be right back after these messages…”
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Richard Lawson
“[Osama] - hates (=envies?) the free and easy lifestyle that we enjoy, as well as hating and despising our decadence and thoughtlessness. I imagine he does. I know I do. The difference is that I debate it and he kills over it.”
This proposition seems to suggest that Lawson has more in common with OBL’s outlook on the modern world, than they have any ‘difference’. On the surface it might seem that Lawson and bin Laden are miles apart, but both are united by their rejection of the ideas of modernity and progress. Both have a profound sense of estrangement from modernism. Both are quick to draw nihilistic conclusions. They are both rooted in a new, modern, nihilistic multiculturalism. In reality, there is no real ideological differences between Lawson and bin Laden on the question of modernity, except that bin Laden is acting out the logical conclusion of such ideas.
Lawson is right about one thing, bin Laden does despises what Lawson called our freedoms and ‘easy lifestyle’, but so what? Hasn’t bin Laden got hundreds of backward ideas? It doesn’t mean you should hate our freedom, and our Western ‘easy lifestyle’. What is it, about being free that you hate? What’s wrong with having a free and easy lifestyle? Only a miserablelist could harbor such a fatalistic and misanthropic view of humanity and modernity.
Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden have launched a holy war against the Western project of modernity. So too have the ‘progressive’ left. All cultures are not equal; the Western project of modernity is the most superior form of social development humanity has even known. I believe that Lawson really does hate and despise contemporary modern societies in the West. The World Trade Centre, in the shape of the Twin Towers, were temples of the modernist project. The nihilistic temper that destroyed those temples in such a degrading fashion is reflected in Lawson’s comment “I imagine he [OBL] does. I know I do”.
How do we progressives respond? We could stop banging on about OBL. He’s a man who live in a cave to all tense and purposes. Why should we in advanced Western countries like Britain, respond to a man who's whereabouts is unknown? He cannot change our societies, only we can do that. OBL is over-rated and blown up out of all proportions. We should forget OBL, you don’t need to fight full scale wars against the likes of him. The West have more than enough counter revolutionary combat units (SAS, SBS in the UK) to call upon for such needs. Progressives need to rescue the Western tradition of plurality, secularism, scientific progress and the commitment to universalism and equality from cave dwelling nihilists and it’s Western counterpart.
Message was edited by: Courtney Hamilton
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Courtney,
I'm glad you picked up on Richard's comparison of himself to bin Laden. It's such an extraordinary statement that I've been meaning to go looking for it, and now I don't have to.
I think it's a marvelous illustration of how reactionary leftists such as Richard project their own aspirations onto bin Laden.
But does Richard's view of the world accord with bin Laden's in any significant way? I doubt it. Sure, they've both reactionaries. They both have a Manichean worldview. They both see the West as decadent, sinful and corrupt.
But these similarites are superficial. Bin Laden is a leader of a death cult that rationalizes murder and genocide (on-going against Shiites in Iraq) in Islamist terms.
Richard belongs to the cult of political correctness and has a platitude for every occasion.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
if you don't respect someone, they generally tend to not respect you back (or listen to you, even if you're right)
having said that, i think 'respect' is not a great word to use in this context as it is so overloaded with connotations from political speeches, hip hop and the like.
in egypt i frequently met people whose views i disagreed with (especially with regards to the role of women), and we would usually have a discussion. i never felt that i disrepected them or vice versa. i think disrepect only comes into play if you abuse or personally attack someone. Disagreeing with someone and bothering to debate with them is more respectful than not engaging with them because you consider them to be somehow too stupid to consider your point of view.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
While this is probably getting bogged down in semantics, I think it's important to respect people as opposed to cultures.
For example, my view of Christianity or Islam as a whole is different from my view of any individual Christian or Muslim that I encounter. As another example, criticising conservatism is different from making ad hominem attacks against a specific Tory or Republican politician.
Any view of the world that includes Human Rights really needs to have autonomous individuals at the centre. The type of multiculturalism that seems to be being proposed holds cultures as autonomous instead, which is where the problems come in.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Matt,
"While this is probably getting bogged down in semantics, I think it's important to respect people as opposed to cultures."
Exactly right. Although it's really much more than semantics. Cultures have value only insofar as they constitute they way people feel comfortable understanding their societies and histories, and the way they choose to live. Cultures are worthy of respect only derivatively, from the respect due to the people whose cultures they are.
But this breaks down when a culture denies respect to certain of its members (or to certain sorts of outsider). Egalitarianism only makes moral sense when it's about equality of individuals, not equality of groups - the latter licenses repression.
I disrespect such repressive cultures - but only, of course, "lightly".
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
This might raise eyebrows. I think I’ve found proof of a parallel universe…
“Madeleine Bunting, a columnist for the Guardian, is among a handful of leading journalists covering Muslim issues with objectivity and balance. Based in London, she… draws clear distinctions between fact and popular fallacies regarding Muslims.”
I think we should call it MadeleineWorld.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
And what’s more… :)
The lovely Madeleine’s mental contortions have great bearing on the initial topic of this thread, particularly as they are so widely repeated, and so rarely challenged in leftist publications. In her ridiculous piece on “muscular liberals” (as opposed to what, flaccid liberals?), she wrote:
“Muscular liberals raise their standard on Enlightenment values – their universality, the supremacy of reason and a belief in progress… It is an ideology of superiority that is profoundly old-fashioned – reminiscent of Victorian liberalism and just as imperialistic…”
Imperialistic? This seems a tad bizarre. After all it is Bunting herself who repeatedly refers to “Muslims” as some homogenous single entity. (Just as the phrase “all Muslims” is most often heard from the mouths of Iqbal Sacranie and other group identity lobbyists.) Surely this generic language is itself patronising and absurd?
Bunting’s argument, such as it is, suggests no distinction can be made between conditional tolerance and the freefall moral relativism she expounds. Apparently, no objective distinction should be made between democratic cultures in which freedom of belief and freedom of speech are taken for granted, and societies in which those freedoms are curtailed and extinguished.
Perhaps Enlightenment values – including tolerance and free speech – should only apply in the nicer parts of London, but not in Iran, or Sudan, or Saudi Arabia? Are Enlightenment values fine for well-heeled Guardian columnists, but wrong for poor women in rural Pakistan? And, given Madeleine shows no moral objection to Qaradawi’s view that disobedient women should be beaten “lightly”, can we assume she’s prepared to accept similar chastisement, all in the name of the relativism she holds dear?
In the same article, Bunting argues Enlightenment values should be “reworked” (in ways that are – naturally - never specified), then says: “One of our biggest challenges is how we learn to live in proximity to difference – different skin colours, different beliefs, different ways of life. How do we talk peacefully with people with whom we might violently disagree?”
Well, judging by Bunting’s own outpourings, perhaps we should assume that “reworking” Enlightenment values means pretending they don’t exist in certain kinds of company. Perhaps we should pretend we don’t “disagree” at all - as demonstrated by her own interview with Qaradawi. Though one can’t help wondering what would have happened if Bunting had actually dared to challenge Qaradawi’s prejudices with any rigour. How would he have reacted? And what would this tell her – and us – about the limits of moral relativism?
But no, that didn’t happen. Instead, we got the neutered posturing that PC relativism requires: “Act casual, say nothing contentious and hope it somehow goes away. At least then he won’t get angry. At least then he won’t hurt me...” Perhaps we should assume that when faced with bullies and bigots we should say nothing, do nothing, and pretend everything is fine. Though quite how that polite little lie will help the victims of bullying and bigotry is not entirely clear.
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
Of course, being a secular fundamentalist, you would say all that. You probably want to lock up all Muslims and force them to give up their religion. Just so you can have all their oil.
You... Neo-con!
On a more serious(ish) note. In The Importance of Living, a consideration on Chinese philosophy, the author offers the following formulas:
Reality - Dreams = Aninal Being
Reality + Dreams = A heart-ache (usually called idealism)
Reality + Humour = Realism (also called conservatism)
Dreams - Humour = Fanaticism
Dreams + Humour = Fantasy
Reality + Dreams + Humour = Wisdom
Not sure how much bearing that has on the topic, but I found it interesting and it made me think of this debate, so I decided to share it with you all.
It's tempting to add:
Dreams - Reality = Guardian Columnist
Re: How should we respond to Osama bin Laden?
incidentally, did anyone else read this article in the guardian yesterday about a growing rift in the insurgency, called 'we don't need al-qaida'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1601557,00.html
it's very long but there are some very interesting bits in it, particularly where Iraqi sunni fighters such as Abu Theeb give their reasons for their growing disillusionment with the foreign al-qaida jihadis:
If it wasn't al-Qaida fighting with the Sunnis in Iraq the whole battle would have had a different outcome," says Abu Hafsa, another mujahideen commander based north of Baghdad. Abu Qutada, a mujahideen leader based in south Baghdad, agrees. "Lots of the mujahideen groups are in need of money and weapons so they join the umbrella of al-Qaida for support," he says. But he adds: "They differ with them in ideology."
The arrival of al-Qaida
The tipping point came when al-Qaida, known then as the Tawhid al-Jihad, decided to target the Iraqi police and army and other Iraqi ministries and institutions. Its goal was to prevent the Americans establishing an Iraqi state that could lead the fight against the insurgency - and allow the Americans to take a back seat. "They have experience in fighting and they did very clever stuff," says Abu Theeb. "They attacked all the centres of the Iraqi state and prevented the Americans from creating a puppet state that they could hand everything to. The Iraqi resistance was occupied by fighting the Americans and couldn't see that strategic goal."
Perhaps inevitably, though, the insurgents turned out not to have the same stomach for Iraqi blood. "Al-Qaida believes that anyone who doesn't follow the Qur'an literally is a Kaffir - apostate - and should be killed," says Abu Theeb. "This is wrong."
Al-Qaida marked down not only those who cooperated with the American occupation, but everyone who worked with the Iraqi government, police or army, as Kaffirs. Then they said that the entire Shia community were Kaffirs. For Sunnis like Abu Theeb, this was a step too far.
The second serious stumbling block has been al-Qaida's call for the establishment of an Islamic state (caliphate) based on the Taliban model in Afghanistan. This has already started taking place in towns and villages where al-Qaida is dominant. "The resistance now is made up of nationalist and religious elements," says Abu Theeb. "By calling for a caliphate you will |
