western terrorists

While genocide of all Arabs and/or all Muslims would put a large dent in terrorism, it runs the very real risk of failing to properly abstract the problem to include the IRA, Timothy McVeigh and Indian/Canadian Sikhs blowing up aeroplanes. "all men" is inaccurate too.

western terrorists

Postby kerravon » 2011-02-16 02:16

This is another ironic post. I have more-or-less devoted my life to properly responding to 9/11, and it wasn't western terrorists who did that.

However, this subject popped in the comments over here:

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2011/02/12/mu ... t-no-more/

Specifically a reference to this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/a-whi ... eshot.html

"If I could have Mubarak's ear, I would whisper just two words of wisdom: Tienanmen Square."

So let's analyze this situation, and it will hopefully feed back into the more usual problem of "Islamic" terrorism.

So background is that Egyptian Sandmonkey is a pro-freedom guy. You could say he is a neocon. He may even be an atheist (someone made that claim about him, but I was unable to find any such claim). He recognizes the gross hypocrisy amongst the people in his own country. Basically this is an Egyptian version of Mithal Al Alusi (the Iraqi who even went to visit Israel). He's the strongest of all possible allies, and if he was running my country, I would have no problem with that at all. And he's very witty on top of all that.

So now why is Roland Shirk advocating that this guy be part of a Tiananmen Square-like massacre?

Note that the people on the streets of Cairo were simply people who didn't like Mubarak's rule. Shirk's own commentary makes it clear that he doesn't like Mubarak either "The regime in Egypt today is corrupt, authoritarian, and culpably negligent in protecting religious minorities such as the Copts". The people on the streets of Cairo were similarly anti-Mubarak. They came from all walks of life, although knowing exactly what everyone's personal political opinion was, would probably require hours of conversation for each.

By calling for random killing of people who may or may not be like Sandmonkey, Shirk has decided that merely being there is a crime worthy of the death penalty. Note that he is calling for the deliberate killing of people - this is not in the same category as US targetted bombings missing their target, or reaching the limits of the technology. This is a deliberate killing of people for being anti-Mubarak enough to go to the streets to demand an end to the old system.

I certainly understand where Shirk is coming from. When I look at Egypt I see a radicalized Nazi-like population who are likely to wind up voting for the ghost of Arafat and end up with something worse than Mubarak. Likely, not definitely. And even if it is likely, the solution I would have for that is to de-Nazify the population, not kill Sandmonkey. Hell, I'd arrange for Sankmonkey to be in charge of the de-Nazification program! And I'd ensure that they had something the equivalent of the House of Lords in the UK - the original rulers only gradually gave up power. I'd make the security forces swear loyalty to humanist government, not a democratically-elected Arafat. Something like Kemal Ataturk set up in Turkey in fact. Maybe go even further than Ataturk.

Now if Shirk was just being quiet, ie not supporting the attempt to overthrow Mubarak, then fine. And if it was the US government just trading etc with the Mubarak dictatorship, which sometimes acts as an ally (often as an enemy too), then fine. There are more important things to worry about than Egypt. Like Iran getting nukes for example. But here he is making a positive statement - he wants the deliberate murder of random civilians who happen to dislike the Egyptian political system (which covers about 99% of the globe in fact). Perhaps there are some situations where murder can be justified. E.g. pre-emptively murdering Hitler may have been justified. That's a tough call. What isn't a tough call is that murdering someone is a very tough call!!! You need to think and think and think until you've exhausted all possibilities.

Shirk hasn't come close to exhausting all possibilities. He has stated that minorities (such as Copts) should be protected. He has also stated that Mubarak isn't doing that protection. So why then isn't he calling for Mubarak to be replaced by a new government that will protect minorities? And a de-Nazification program. An end to state-sponsored anti-Semitism. Nazi Germany was liberated against its will too. So - perhaps a similar thing is needed in Egypt. Deliberately killing armed opponents of benevolent US military rule in Iraq is something that I can understand and agree with. But it is highly unlikely that Sandmonkey would do such a thing. 50% of Iraqis supported the liberation of Iraq. Probably 5% of Egyptians did too - Sandmonkey being one of them. It doesn't even need to be an external invasion. The Egyptian military could do it themselves.

So if I had Mubarak's ear, it wouldn't be "kill random unarmed civilians like Sandmonkey", it would be "please resign in favour of a group of people led by Sandmonkey who can guide Egypt to be a larger version of tolerant democratic successful Taiwan". Would the majority of Egyptians be happy with that? It's unlikely to be what they would choose themselves, but then - neither was Mubarak. And at least this is a change that doesn't cause their human rights to be violated. Vengeance from Mubarak remaining in power is a completely different story. But regardless, it bypasses that whole "killing of random civilians" thing that Shirk suggested. Otherwise known as western-supported terrorism.

It's not the first time this site has proposed terrorism as a solution to problems. Take a look at this from Hugh Fitzgerald:


"The "victory" in Iraq that would result from the continuation, and enlargement, even beyond Iraq's borders, of ethnic and sectarian hostilities and warfare within the Camp of Islam, is the only kind of "victory" that makes sense."

Those "sectarian hostilities" were Sunnis killing random Shiites and vice-versa. Aka terrorism. Quite apart from the disgraceful advocation of terrorism, it wouldn't work anyway. The respective populations are breeding at a rate vastly exceeding the terrorist death rate anyway, growing more than 500,000 per year. No, this is not the way to do genocide. If your solution to "Islamic terrorism" is "western-backed terrorism", then it is a flawed solution for technical reasons alone. This is before we even consider that 50% of these people being attacked actually supported the US liberation, and those 50% were happy to form long queues to join the security forces to fight alongside Americans - despite the queues being repeatedly bombed before the guys even got their first paycheck - or even got the job!!!

So if we switch from terrorism as the technically incorrect "solution" to this problem, and move on to straight genocide - you then need to make a determination about who exactly you wish to genocide. Does it include the Iraqi Muslims who were fighting alongside the US forces? Does it include US Muslims? What if I were to tell you that I was an Australian Muslim? Would you kill me too? On what basis? For promoting a non-humanist ideology? Similar to Deuteronomy 21:18-21 that says to stone your own children to death? If you tell me the limits of my religious freedom (e.g. not allowed to call the literal interpretation of the bible as holy, or sign a sworn statement giving convoluted logic as to why although it is holy I'm not meant to do it anyway), I at least know where I stand and am able to save my own life.If you just kill me in random terrorism, without even giving an explanation of who you wish to genocide, I'm not even going to get a sporting chance. Perhaps being given a very clear explanation of what I need to do to avoid being murdered by the state should be added to the Bill of Rights? Also, does this extend to children? ie a 7 year old girl who for whatever reason professes to be a Muslim - is she for the chop too? Would you kill her deliberately? Or just randomly because you think it gives you plausible deniability? Have 7 year old girls passed the point at which they can be taught anything and reformed, and just need to be put down like mad dogs?

So what's the root cause behind these calls for terrorism? Seems to me to be a failure to properly abstract who the enemy is, before attempting a de-enemification (similar to de-Nazification, but enemies in general) program. Shouldn't we perhaps use this large body of Muslims - some fighting alongside US forces, some opposed - to determine the underlying difference between the two groups?

Also Mr Shirk and Mr Fitzgerald - if you get mugged on the streets tomorrow, I bet the perpetrator is non-Muslim. Perhaps you should designate such muggers as "honorary Muslims" so that they can be included in your technically-flawed genocide-via-terrorism program? Or abstract the problem properly. Whatever.

One more thing - just because I find the call to terrorism repulsive, as well as technically flawed, does not mean that I disagree with the general analysis and warnings found on that site.
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-01-29 04:01
Location: Australia, Free World South

Return to terrorism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest