« NY TimesWatch: The Plot Thins.... | Main | Jihadis On The Move (The Swarming) »
October 02, 2005
Quick Hits
What I'm reading this morning (like you care...):
The New Republic on what motivates suicide bombers. Strikingly, it contradicts the notion that Muslim society tacitly approves of their mission:
...of the fighters expressly identified by country of origin, 175 are Saudi, 50 are Syrian, 28 are Iraqi, 15 are Kuwaiti, 13 are Jordanian, and a handful are from other Arab countries, including a few young men who had lived in France, Denmark, and Spain.The vast majority of the martyrs are young men raised in a conservative society that emphasizes obedience to one's parents. ... Many jihad hopefuls, it is clear, must slink away from home because they know their parents would not approve. This indicates that Muslim families and societies are not as accepting of their young ones joining jihad as many believe.
The piece goes on to describe a device many jihadists employ: the "pious fib", i.e., "I am going on pilgramage". What emerges is a picture of young, well-off, well-educated, overprivileged men who are a bit foolish and go haring off in search of glory and adventure. And contrary to the liberal mantras, they are not motivated by American foreign policy:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict barely registers on the jihadist radar, and Abu Ghraib merits few mentions. The motivation for jihad is almost always, in keeping with Salafi ideology, the plight of the humiliated Muslim nation, victimized by the joint evil forces of kufr (unbelief, embodied by the United States as the enemy bent on the destruction of Islam) and tawaghit (tyrants who have set themselves up, or are propped up, as gods on earth).
Another curious omission is the general avoidance of the Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis are Shia, while the jihadists are militant Sunnis. Salafi ideology, in particular, savages Shia as heretics. Some biographies contain anti-Shia rhetoric, but mainly as asides. And, while some of the most devastating suicide attacks in Iraq have specifically targeted Shia, the global jihadists' exploits focus on American and other coalition troops, foreigners in general, and "collaborators" like the Iraqi police. If the jihadist planners hope to incite Sunni-Shia strife, as some of their actions suggest, it is not a strategy their supporters feel comfortable articulating.They are even less comfortable articulating the fact that the vast majority of victims in suicide bombings are ordinary Iraqis. Take the description of Walid Al Asmar Al Shammari's death: "Walid Al Asmar Al Shammari was martyred in Iraq on 14 June, 2004.... His family received condolences in Hail, northern Saudi Arabia, after they got a call from Iraq confirming his death when he carried out an operation with a car bomb. He drove it into a crowded area in central Baghdad last Tuesday. In addition to Al Shammari, the operation killed 16 people, including two Britons, a Frenchman, and an American." The other twelve were Iraqis but were not identified as such, a telling omission.
That omission suggests a critical weakness in the jihadist movement and its recruitment efforts. Imagine how the biography of the "hero" Al Shammari would read if it were juxtaposed with the biographies of the people he killed? What might readers in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and elsewhere in the Arab world make of a companion volume to "The Martyrs" in which each suicide bomber faced his victims, not as statistics in a war against the infidels, but as individuals in their own right?
Could this be behind the positive shift in global opinion towards the US - the recognition that these young men are killing regular Arabs and not enemies of Islam?
Brit Hume is all over the NY Times for not living up to its own standards:
The ombudsman for The New York Times says the paper "flunked" a test of journalistic integrity by refusing to correct TV columnist Alessandra Stanley's accusation that Geraldo Rivera "nudged" an Air Force rescue worker out of his way in New Orleans. Byron Calame says the nudge simply doesn't appear on they videotape, adding, and “if Ms. Stanley couldn't have seen the nudge, why not publish a correction?"
I think he's fighting a losing battle:
New York Times public editor Byron Calame (search) is pushing the paper to enforce its corrections policy for Op-Ed columnists after the same factual error appeared in four different columns without a formal correction.The columnists accused the Bush administration of cronyism, arguing that FEMA director Mike Brown (search) got his job largely because he was a college roommate of Joe Allbaugh, a former FEMA director himself as well as a Bush campaign manager. They were variously described as roommates or "college buddies." But in fact, though they are friends, they were never roommates and didn't even attend the same college.
Just think: for $49.95 a year, you too can get all the uncorrected errors and lies you can stand! It's called TimesSelect! Journalistic integrity is for the Little People. The Times has a flexible urban viewpoint to uphold.
The New Republic takes on Charles Rangel:
Last Thursday, at a New York town-hall meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Charles Rangel took the stage vacated minutes earlier by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and declared, "George Bush is our Bull Connor." This comment is preposterous enough on its own--Bull Connor, the Birmingham police chief who turned hoses and dogs on civil rights marchers in 1963 and became a symbol of Southern racism, would never have had a black secretary of state. To equate Bush's faltering attitude toward blacks during Katrina with Connor's brazen, unrelenting bigotry is an insult to those activists who endured Connor's persecutions. But, incredibly, instead of repudiating Rangel, various black leaders have opined that his comparison is insulting--to Bull Connor. "I think that's an insult to Connor," New York City Councilman Charles Barron told The New York Sun. "What [Bush] did in New Orleans [is] worse than what Bull Connor did in his entire career as a racist in the South." Others agreed, dragging the conversation down to breathtaking lows: Al Sharpton remarked, "We've gone from fire hoses to levees," and Representative Major Owens pointed out that "Bull Connor didn't even pretend that he cared about African Americans. You have to give it to George Bush for being even more diabolical."There is a rich and horrible irony here: Martin Luther King Jr. once said of Bull Connor that he "didn't know history." But today it is Rangel and his defenders--who lay claim to the mantle of the civil rights movement--who don't know history. Or, rather, they believe bad history makes for good politics. It doesn't. It makes for demagoguery. King would have known the difference.
King may have, but Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, et all apparently lack the courage to Speak Truth to the Congressional Black Caucus, even on matters of easily-provable historical fact.
Why would we want to listen to someone with experience on federalizing disaster relief? That would make sense.
Posted by Cassandra at October 2, 2005 11:56 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1013
Comments
Ah yes...Charlie Rangel and his (latest) ridiculous rant. This time, a charge of racism against our Prez - that is, the President who has employed/nominated more minorities than any other in history.
Rangel is reading from the latest Dem/Lib playcard...they have an eye for 2006 and suddenly think that a chink in Bush's armor has shown itself. What they DON'T know, is that this frivolous RACIST BULLSHIT is really pissing lots of white Americans off, who know better.
Great Post!
Posted by: Timmer ~ Righting America at October 3, 2005 01:41 AM
Rahngel is not even from the south as I am and apparently this retread hasn't been in the south very much recently.But, you have to remember Black folks as a whole believe anything that comes out of these kooks mouths,they never investigate anything.I've told many of our people to actually quit taking anything these nitwits say as gospel and start really examining what they say.This is the reason rangel,barron,and all these other "Reds" in our community continue to get away with this garbage.I bet if I was to go to Harlem right now,and get a good look see at how the community is coming along I'll bet it wouldn't be good.I think it is sad that black folks still get their news from the msm and our sorry black press who are nohting more than an victimization echo chamber for us.They are our pathetic versions of the NYT's and the Washington Post.
Posted by: Lisa gilliam at October 3, 2005 10:17 PM
I'll tell you what infuriates me so about men like Rangel, Lisa. It's that they claim to represent Blacks, and they rail on and on about racism and how Whites won't give Blacks a fair shake, yet they do everything in their power to perpetuate a negative stereotype of black people (angry and unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives) in the minds of white America, and everything they can to perpetuate a culture of resentment, entitlement, and sloth in young blacks.
How is this helping?
I was raised by parents who were arguably very idealistic to believe in a truly color-blind society. We're never going to get there unless men like Rangel STFU and stop their hateful invective. We don't get there by emphasizing our differences and our grievances against one another, but by stressing the things we have in common - the things we share.
And I've known too many good people who would repudiate, with all their heart and soul, the things that man says and does, to believe he truly "represents" black people. Maybe some, who have for too long listened to the wrong voices. But no one is irredeemable.
We finally have a strong black middle class in America and I think they are starting to wake up, but like the white middle class, they are somewhat complacent and don't always think. They vote with their pocketbooks instead of their brains and their values, and that is sad.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 4, 2005 10:50 AM