I wish I could agree with you. However I think those who take the line mentioned above will be killed by the radicals. I have, very sadly, come to the conclcuion that we are in a war of extermination. Either Western Culture will be wiped from the face of the planet, or Islamic Culture will be. My whole life has been dedicated to promoting the ideal that as long as they leave me, you, whomever, alone people should be able to follow their own path free from discrimination, legal hurdles, or other impediments. Unfortunatly Islamic Culture is not one that is willing to let me follow my own path. They feal they must either convert me and my children to their evil version of religion(my family has fought and nearly been exterminated more than once the christian evil version of religion over the last half mellenium). Sorry no. They say it is ju=ihad, a holy war to the finish? Fine. Let us give it to them. I mean give it to them with the full force of all we have. I mean depopulate every muslim nation with nuclear weapons, posion chemicals, biological weapons, EVERYTHING we have ever come up with until it i gone, or willing to let us live our lives. No more blown up airliners. No more knocked down skyscrapers, no more masscred children. They want jihad? Send all the bastards to allah and let him sort them out.

Whoops, forgot to hit my spellchecker on that last one, sorry. Being a parent what happened in Russia really has me upset. Good thing my city has no mosque or I'd be there kicking some asses.

Man, would you even know if your city had a mosque?

Though this kind of criticism of Arab society is rare, condemnation of Islamist terror is not, despite what some ignorant fools think.

Again we hear the cry of "why aren't Muslims condemning this heinous act" made, as usual, by those who couldn't be bothered to listen anyway.

For those who can be bothered, here's a brief survey of Arab media reaction to the Beslan massacre:

Jordan's Al-Dustur [indep, pro-govt]: www.addustour.com "What happened at the ill-fated [Russian] school is not only unjustifiable and unacceptable, it also provokes anger and revulsion in Muslim public opinion - before any other public opinion - since it tarnishes the name of the Muslim ummah... and distorts the image of our noble faith." (5) (Editorial - "The terror lesson at children's school")

2. "Let's be clear: condemnation is obligatory. Our condemnation is not just words as we express our condolences to the victims and to humanity as a whole. It is a stance we declare against all those who created this ugly brutality in Afghanistan..." (From same editorial)

Egypt's Al-Ahram [pro-govt, largest circulation]: www.ahram.org.eg "What happened at the Russian school is a reprehensible crime against the whole of humanity and the perpetrators should be taken to account." (5) (Editorial - An ugly crime against humanity")

Saudi Al-Watan [indep, pro-govt]: www.alwatan.com.sa "Yesterday, the Russian school crisis ended in all its consequences and tragedies... The kidnapped were innocent children and their teachers who had come to the school to learn when they fell into the hands of the terrorists. These children and their teachers had committed no crime for their lives to be endangered, their blood shed and to be terrorized for three consecutive days. If this terrorist group had chosen a Russian military barracks, their cause - if at all they had one - would have been more credible and many would have sympathized with them. What has happened is, however, the absolute opposite: the world reacted to the crisis with humanity... the single loser is the side to which they [the terrorists] belong..." (4) (Editorial - "Is their one to remind")

When I was a blogger, I defended a certain other blogger from what I thought were unfounded charges of bigotry. I'm beginning to regret those posts more than any other.

I want to feel encouraged by the public relations being put out by prominent muslims, but I feel that actions speak louder than words. When the Saudis and Iranians stop using oil money to finance their pet terrorists, perhaps it will be time to take their anti-terror verbiage more seriously.

Until then, there is the question of what the Chechnyans would do to Moscow with an Iranian made nuclear weapon, or what the al qaidans would to to an American city with that power. Do you really want to find out? Neither do I. I think we all understand what will have to be done to make sure we never know.

Bill Herbert: The problem with your survey, is that for every every muslim critic of the Breslan horror, there are ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, or even ten thousand that will excuse it. Example: Palestine. Muslims who condemned 9/11 will rationalize (and even support) suicide bombing in the case of the Palestinians, who have no other recourse. The same thing is already happening in the media, the memetic is that "Putin caused this".
I am not saying that the epiphany and resultant criticism you describe is a bad thing, but it will not be terribly effective. Incremental change, not a tsunami.
Islam is fiercely armed against dissent. That is one reason it is so successful.

Bill Herbert: Oh, for cripes sake!! A link to LGF? Ignorant fools? Perhaps I should describe you that way, for your unscientific, non-representative sampling of the arab press comments. AND your complete and puerile lack of understanding of Islam! You cherry picked those comments to bolster your position, just like people cherry pick LGF to accuse Charles of fostering hate-speech. You don't make the IQ gradient to post at Winds, or the manners gradient either!

Three newspapers representing 300 million Arabs and 1.2 billion Muslims.

Three newspapers controlled by governments who have every reason to distance themselves.

Wow. Case closed, I guess.

Let's review.

Condemnation of the form "we oppose this [terrorism] because it tarneshes the name of Islam." Bzzt, nope, wrong answer. This isn't about the good name of Islam, it's about the murder of children.

Condemnation of the form "this is not true Islam, these aren't real Muslims". Bzzt, also wrong, as I'm increasingly persuaded that the acts of the terrorists are well founded in the cannon and traditions of Islam. While the terrorists may not represent the true Islam (which I don't see as monolithic), they make a good case for themselves as being authentically Islamic.

Condemnation of the form "this is a crime against humanity". Bingo. There ya go. That's what I'm talking about. And to their credit, some of the Arab commentators that Bill Herbert and the LAT cite do just that. When these magic words are uttered, we can't deny them. Partial credit awarded.

Such broad outrage has been rare after assaults in Iraq or Saudi Arabia and all but unthinkable after attacks on Israeli civilians.

A.L.'s formulation is perfect - "Some Great News - I Hope." Encouraging, not dispositive, and time will tell.

Most of the folks involved in the incident weren't Arabs.

I believe 10 out of 24 were/are Arab. Not most but not a pilfry ratio, in my view. And I believe 24 out of 24 were/are Muslim.

The problem with your survey, is that for every every muslim critic of the Breslan horror, there are ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, or even ten thousand that will excuse it.

Amazing that you would make a baseless claim like that and then accuse me of "unscientific, non-representative sampling" in your very next post. How on earth would you know how the average Arab (or average Muslim) feels? Ever even been to an Arab country? Ever deigned to speak to a Muslim?

As it happens, the publications I chose (actually, it was the U.S. gov't FBIS translation service) are among the largest in terms of circulation in the Arab world. And al-Watan and al-Dustur are only partially owned by the government, but yeah, most media in the Arab world is state owned and/or controlled.

I happen to live in an Arab country, and yes, I'm exposed to quite a bit of Islamist nonsense. But there is a debate going on in these countries, and the voices of reason are far more prevalent than the know-nothings like Vandeervecken and jinderrella would have you believe.

I'm not claiming that the moderates are winning, just refuting the idiotic claims that they are next to non-existent. Over and over we hear the claim that no Muslim voices are speaking out against Islamist terrorism. Charles Johnson said it himself, yet again after this incident. Then, when presented with evidence to the contrary, he threw up the usual conditions after the fact -- oh, that's not good enough. I guess they would all have to admit that Islam itself is pure evil and wholly responsible for these acts of terror before you would be satisfied.

Bill Herbert,

Regarding what you call the "usual conditions" which you criticize Charles Johnson for “throwing up after the fact”: I described and justified these in a previous comment in this thread. If you think these conditions aren't valid, why don’t you address them instead of engaging in polemic and ad hominem?

Bill Herbert: "ignorant fools" is hardly conducieve to a civilized discussion. I'm hot-tempered. What can I say?

And I'm trained as a statistician. What is your sample size for estimating the percentage of 'moderate muslims' in the 1.3-1.5 billion total muslim population, based on your empirical data? I doubt that I'm far off in my estimates, based on the fact that I have yet to hear a single outright condemnation of Palestinian tactics from muslim state or clergy.

"I'm not claiming that the moderates are winning, just refuting the idiotic claims that they are next to non-existent"
Sure, they exist-- but they have no power. And if they speak too loudly they may wind up moderates, but not muslims.
How do you define a 'moderate muslim'? Mostly (like Irshid Manji) when they declare their "moderation" they are no longer reguarded as muslims by other muslims.
The reproductive fitness of Islamic ideas is enforced by fierce punishment for anything percieved as dissent. If by "moderation" you mean disagreement, by definition those beings are no longer muslim.
That is not say that this particular horror show won't cause some muslims to choose between their religion and their humanity. Perhaps it can be a good thing, and open up an internal Islamic dialogue. But a priori data from the Palastinian situation leads me to believe that a very large majority will excuse or rationalize the actions of the muslims in Beslan.
Colt's point is, those are state sponsored papers you drew your quotes from-- not disinterested.

lewy14:

Don't mind if I do ...

1: regarding the "we condemn this because it makes Islam look bad." This would be a valid criticism if that were the only reason given for condemnation, but it isn't. A more accurate characterization would be "we condemn this because it's wrong, and it only tarnishes the image of Islam." Acceptible to me.

2: regarding the "these aren't true Muslims who commit these acts." What the @%$!! is wrong with that? Are they expected to say, "yeah, these guys were acting in accordance with the Quran. Gosh, I guess we need to ban that book?"

3: As you admitted in your previous post, the examples I cited do just that. But because they also had the audacity to defend the Islamic faith, they aren't valid?

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, did you not hear U.S. military spokemen constantly claiming that those acts of abuse were an aberration, and that good soldiers don't conduct themselves in that manner? I even seem to remember the term "un-American" bandied about, and rightly so. So what's wrong with that?

Bill,

I'm not arguing about any specific instance of condemnation here, only the conditions by which these condemnations can be evaluated. If Charles Johnson doesn't acknowledge a condemnation that meets his own criteria, well, I can't very well defend him on that.

1) Adding “and it tarnishes the name of Islam” after acknowledging the inhumanity of terrorism is fine by me. But see 2) below.

2) Are they expected to say, "yeah, these guys were acting in accordance with the Quran. Gosh, I guess we need to ban that book?" Strawman. As I stated above, the terrorists make a case for themselves that their acts are well founded in Islamic cannon and traditions. The problem is that they seem to make a pretty good case. (See, e.g., Robert Spencer). I’m growing increasingly persuaded that they are “authentic”. Saying “is not!!!” is not persuasive to me. I don’t feel required to abandon this view a priori because it is somehow “Islamophobic”, and I do not hold that condemnation of terror cannot also be authentically Islamic. (Note, for comparison, that the actions of Abu Ghraib are absolutely not well founded in US Military cannon and traditions).

3) Yes, some of the condemnations were persuasive, and I "admitted" as much (actually I was pretty enthusiastic in my language). But I’ll be better persuaded when they make the same condemnations when a suicide bomber blows up an Israeli bus. Is that unrealistic? If so, it’s a problem for those who want to offer a persuasive condemnation of terror, not for the conditions I’m laying out.

I’m not advocating banning any book. Leviticus is no longer a problem to us, not in spite of the fact that nobody ever acknowledged a problem with it, but precisely because so many people did. I’m looking for the same thing from the Islamic community. Why isn’t that fair?

jinnderella:

Amazing that a trained statistician can be capable of such bigotry -- or are these just "a priori" observations?

And I'll ask again: how on earth would you have any idea about whether a muslim who espouses moderate views would "no longer regarded as muslims by other muslims?" Ever even met one?

Bill Herbert: "Are they expected to say, "yeah, these guys were acting in accordance with the Quran. Gosh, I guess we need to ban that book?"
Well, there has been some talk of that lately around here. :)

Juan said this on Dan's Beslan thread, and I am going to repost it here, becuase is so kewl.
"...the Riyadh al-Saliheen myth; it’s very interesting and it doen’t surprise me that it has come up in Thetchnia. It has become central to much of the folk narrative behind the suicide “martyr” would they say terrorist attacks, but it is older. The expression means indeed “the garden of the virtuous”, but it has a larger meaning.
On the one hand it has been used as a title for haddits (Islamic traditions attributed to prophet Mohammad) collections; the one by Imam Nawawi is a best-seller not only among jihadist sympathizers but generally appreciated by revivalists. In fact, among lots of moral and sometimes esoteric tales, it is said to include the theological justification for the suicide bombers –Islam traditionally forbad suicide- and is apparently used in the mind conditioning previous to the suicide.

The candidate to "martyr" is isolated and told that he or she not only will go automatically to the Garden of the Virtuous but will also be entitled to designate 72 friends or parents that will win acceptance into Paradise thanks to his deed. Iran’s mullahs used also this folklore to motivate their revolutionary guardians during the Iran-Iraq conflict: the shock troops were issued a plastic key to the garden of the virtuous prior to being sent into WWI style attacks against the iraqui lines."

I really think that illustrates what Charles and Lewy spoke of. Altho suicide is not allowed per se in Islam, a religious way of accomodating it evolved. It is common for religions to incorporate existing folklore in this fashion. I guess I'm arguing that suicide bombers are also good muslims.
Ho, Hum, getting sleepy and so not arguing well, but--
(1) I stand by my figures, based on a priori data (palestine), the principles of estimation theory, and the holy law of large numbers.
(2) Your quotes are from biased sources, and should at least be represented as such.
(3) Your "evidence to the contrary" fails my evidence test. It is your opinion, only.

Bill Herbert:
Sorry, I said should have said they are no longer reguarded as muslims by other muslims, based on the Qu'ran. I said nothing about my opinion. Opinion is a dirty word to statisticians.
I only know muslims through reading here, like the Apostates of Islam and the Iraqi bloggers. Why would that affect my conclusions?

Bill Herbert, I'm off to bed, but I must say one more thing-- I would really appreciate it if you would retract the "ignorant fools" comment-- I sort of take it personally. :)

masaa' il-kheer, lewy, all

lewy14:

Since we're talking about newspaper editorials and not scholarly Islamic tracts, I doubt you're going to see that much introspection.

And I'm not denying that there are scriptures that the Islamists point to as justification of their acts. I'm not an Islamic scholar, but frankly, when I hear or read about Muslims saying, no, these heinous acts are not justifiable under Islam -- and they are saying it to their fellow muslims, not just for Western ears -- then yes, "no it isn't" is good enough for me.

But I take your point on the Leviticus comparison. And no, I'm not saying that it would be too much to ask, or that asking the question is "islamophobia." All I'm saying is that it should not be a prerequisite for not being considered the enemy.

Thanks for the reasoned response. Sorry I lumped you in with people like jinnderella.

Bill,

And I thank you for your reasoned response in turn, although I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. What you find satisfactory remains for me substantially insufficient.

An article in the New York Times pointing out problems with Leviticus is not only a possibility, it wouldn't even raise much of a controversy. An article in a mainstream Arab newspaper pointing out analagous problems in the Quran is, in my estimation, and impossibility in the current social and religious climate in Islamic society. My opinion is that this needs to change before real progress can be made getting a consensus around the inhumanity of terrorism.

And this, I believe, is the essence of what Jinnderella was saying, and I don't think it's bigoted at all. But I'll let her defend herself, she's a big girl.

Actually, jinnderella made blanket statements about popular attitudes, not simply taking issue with Islamic scripture.

Are you sure you want to associate yourself with statements like The problem with your survey, is that for every every muslim critic of the Breslan horror, there are ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, or even ten thousand that will excuse it, and Mostly (like Irshid Manji) when they declare their "moderation" they are no longer reguarded as muslims by other muslims?

Interesting that a statistician would make such statements, then refuse to back them up with any data. Opinion surveys are available on attitudes among Muslims and Arabs, and while they don't exactly provide cause for optimism, they certainly demonstrate that jinnderella has no idea what she's talking about.

sorry, but I don't see how such sweeping -- and simply asinine -- statements are part of any healthy debate about Islam, unless you agree with Vandeervecken's argument that we really are at war with all muslims.

Bill, Whoa - slow down - I knew I should have slammed Vandeervecken right off the bat. I sure as hell don't associate with him.

Jinnderella specifically cited Palestinian reaction to 9/11 as her basis ("data") for believing that condemnation of Beslin would be narrow, and popular opinion would support the terrorists, by a margin of several orders of magnitude.

There are several things which may be wrong with view but after the Palestinians celebrated 9/11 I wouldn't claim she's a bigot for being profoundly pessimistic about Beslin. I'm somewhat pessimistic than jinn, but from what I've seen and heard about popular reaction to previous attrocities, I think it's unfair to throw the word "bigot" at someone who displays cynicism about Arab society in this regard. Bitter, cynical, possibly misinformed (attributes I probably share, hey, I'll even sign up for "asinine"), but not bigoted.

So what's in the attitude surveys you mentioned? I really am curious. I don't have a set position to maintain, I'm quite aware I don't have all the data - so share some.

Bill Hedrick: I too would be interested in hard data supporting your position. I'm unaware of any sentiment surveys like the ones you describe. It would be great if what you say is true.

I said, the Qu'ran stipulates excommunication of dissentors. Also, for example, consider Salman Rushdie. Is he considered to be a Muslim or a heretic? Manji is apostate also on account of her public sexual preferences. Does she have any influence over orthodox practitioners of her faith? Would any muslim cleric say she is a muslim in good standing? I doubt it.

I'll cite again the law of large numbers. I'd be interested in seeing how your anecdotal experiences correlate with muslim populations in Indonesia or Africa. Perhaps you can speak truths about muslims of your acquaintance, and I'm fine with that. But unless you show me differently, I'll go with the publically expressed tacit and even overt support for Palestinian suicide bombing as a legitimate tactic for muslims. I've seen those surveys.

I still don't understand why interface with real live muslims is a requirement for understanding the problem. I've read the Qu'ran, have you? It is clear on this-- dissent is not allowed, dissenters are cast out, or even killed.

Actually, I don't think we're "at war with all muslims". In population genetics terms, I think Islam is a competitive sub-genome with a relatively high reproductive fitness, both genetic and memetic. I think I can support that hypothesis with raw conversion rates and birthrates. Is that war?

You came in here and called me an ignorant fool (I've commented a long time at LGF, and Colt has commented there longer), and now you call me a bigot? On what basis do you make those accusations? Am I ignorant? Umm, I'm pretty well educated. Am I a fool? Subjective judgement, decide for yourself. Am I a bigot? I don't make value judgements about Islam, I'm restating Qu'ranic policy. I think you're the one making sweeping generalizations.

The patron saint of statisticians is St. Thomas, y'know, "...put my hand into the wound in His side..", etc. All I have to work with (unless your sentiment surveys exist) is a priori data and the law of large numbers. Does that demonstrate ignorance, foolishness, or bigotry?

And, lewy, I'm not a girl! I'm a grrrl!

Jinn, whoop, sorry grrl. At least I was right about your ability to defend yourself 8).

Personally I think Beslan will receive much wider and more heartfelt condemnation in the ME than 9/11, even in Palestinian areas. With Beslan, there was no slain mythic giant of glass and steel, only a bunch of bloody half naked dead kids. The photos and clips were not epic scale, they were up close and personal. The jihadis have crossed a bridge too far with this one.

It is important that we don't judge muslims by our own values. Multicultural relativism demands that we allow others to act according to their own value systems. A significant number of muslim jihadis in Palestine, Afghanistan, Russia, and elsewhere feel that it is okay to target young children.

This is not an aberration, or a case of "going too far." This is just one of many strategies considered viable by the jihadi value system. You should not judge them since your values are different.

Landon: I am sure that is true, except for the judging part-- How can we not judge when it is our children being killed?

>>I want to feel encouraged by the public relations being put out by prominent muslims, but I feel that actions speak louder than words. When the Saudis and Iranians stop using oil money to finance their pet terrorists, perhaps it will be time to take their anti-terror verbiage more seriously.

I want to feel encouraged by the public relations being put out by prominent Americans, but I feel that actions speak louder than words. When the Americans and Russians stop using tax money to finance their pet terrorists, perhaps it will be time to take their anti-terror verbiage more seriously.

>>The problem with your survey, is that for every every muslim critic of the Breslan horror, there are ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, or even ten thousand that will excuse it.

Of course most Muslims won't condemn atrocities committed by other Muslims. That's what tribalism is all about. The US "tribe" behaves similarly. "Atrocities" are defined to be those actions committed by the other team. Tolerance of Palestinian suicide bombers is quite analogous to tolerance of WWII-era strategic bombing crews. Humanists should view both groups with utter disgust, while tribalists hail their side's murderers as heroes. Many cultures operate like this.

TJ,

So let me get this straight. Soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are the US's pet terrorists? I know a few military people, including my father and brother who would probably disagree.

And the US has deliberately targeted school children or even done anything remotely resembling deliberately attacking civilians, much less children? Or are you saying that collateral damage done in attacking military targets--even though we've taken the greatest care possible to minimize it and even left military targets standing and put our soldiers at risk to do so--is the moral equivalent of Beslan? If so I think your moral compass has become demagnetized.

Many of the pet terrorists historically have been USG puppets. I'm talking about people like Suharto, the Shah, Karimov the Boiler of Uzbekistan, the Turks, Mr. Hussein, the Contras, etc.

The modern USAF is much cleaner than the murderous barbarians of the WWII and Vietnam eras. Technology has helped, as has a much improved attitude on the part of the leadership. The present conflict has been remarkably clean, with only ~10,000 civilian fatalities, or roughly 20 Beslans. (Sadly, I'm in agreement with Mr. Telenko that this military humanism is a passing phase. Once the US has absorbed enough terrorist attacks, the Cans of Raid will come out.)

>>And the US has deliberately targeted school children or even done anything remotely resembling deliberately attacking civilians, much less children?

In the present conflict, no. In previous conflicts, most certainly! Think Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Laos, Cambodia. But those children were on the wrong side of some line, so they had it coming, right?

Maybe your father was involved in combat activities that were merely illegal and unconstitutional, rather than murderous and barbaric. Not everyone in the military was involved in napalming villages -- many more were needed to provide the support services!

Let me guess TJ, you were educated in Latin America and have swallowed whole the party line that if the US fights fire with fire vs evil regimes, then the US is even more evil?

Let's talk about your "US atrocities" shall we? Actually, let's simplify it and limit our pleasant little discussion to Japan (thus avoiding those nasty reds and the possability of being labled zionist..)

Japan and the US were in a state of Total War. Both countries were commited to fighting on multiple fronts and for a while, the Japanese were winning. Let's leave out the "outdated" diplomatic niceties of actually declaring war before attacking and let's look at Japan's peace loving record.

Can you say Nanking? Can you spell Korean confort women (sex slaves for the troops). Can you say rice offensives? Can you say fanatical and suicidal resistance at all costs? Can you say mix military targets with civilians?

No, I didn't think so. You're too hung up on what the Yanks did to care about what drove the yanks to do it.

Yes it is sad and apalling that the yanks had to vaporize a couple of japanese cities in order to FINALLY make the japanese see sense and surrender but let's timewarp you back into Truman's shoes and see what decision YOU would make after signing hundreds of thousands of dear ma'am letters with the promise of many many more to come.

With the latter two exceptions, your examples of US "atrocities" were due to the USA being forced into war against its' will. And as any compitant general will tell you, if you're forced to fight, then bring every bit of firepower you have available.

The nice thing about the US military now is that they have such a technological and firepower advantage that they can actually, for the first time in the history of mankind, be selective about their targets without excessive risk to Yankee soldiers.

The US military may have made blunders, stupid decisions, etc over their history but they have very very little to be ashamed of in comparison to the vast majority of other countries.

And then again, when does active warfare compare to kidnapping infants, torturing them and bayoneting them if they ask for a glass of water? Show me one example of a child being held in US military custody being told to drink his own piss.

>>Can you say Nanking? Can you spell Korean confort women (sex slaves for the troops). Can you say rice offensives? Can you say fanatical and suicidal resistance at all costs? Can you say mix military targets with civilians?

I know all about Nanking. I find it very amusing that people would use it as a reason to justify the wholesale slaughter of Japanese civilians. People who do this have accepted the basic moral principles of the terrorists, notably that retaliation against civilians is acceptable. Why was 9/11 atrocious? Because people who had nothing to do with whatever real or imagined grievances the terrorists had were targeted. Nanking, Dresden, etc. were atrocious for exactly the same reason.

If we're unwilling to condemn USG attacks on civilians, then all the moral arguments against Al Qaeda, the Japanese, etc. reduce to "they aren't part of Our Tribe -- they are the Other. Therefore whatever we do to them is justified, and whatever they do to us is an atrocity."

>>Yes it is sad and apalling that the yanks had to vaporize a couple of japanese cities in order to FINALLY make the japanese see sense and surrender but let's timewarp you back into Truman's shoes and see what decision YOU would make after signing hundreds of thousands of dear ma'am letters with the promise of many many more to come.

If I was in Truman's shoes, maybe I'd listen to what Doug and Ike had to say about the situation before killing another 200,000 people. You do remember what Doug and Ike had to say, don't you?

TJ you bring into play some arguments that are valid on an intellectual level. I could quibble with many of your conclusions in their particulars but that would be a discussion, though interesting, I certainly don’t have time for at the present time… I will say that I consider the firebombing of Dresden the most egregious act committed by the Allies in WW2, it was punishment, pure and simple. Nevertheless, the conflict had escalated into “total war” and every person in Germany, military or civilian, knew it and I’m sure it wasn’t unexpected under the circumstances. But lets do a little thought experiment here. Could you imagine the US doing something similar today? I suppose it is conceivable. But how quickly would Saddam have gone a similar route or how likely would a Muslim theocracy such as Iran go a similar route compared to a Western nation today? The answer my friend is blowin in the wind.

But the bottom line to everything you say is “so what”. I’ll readily concede what I believe is your major point – it is the old “One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter” maxim (so beloved by the BBC & Rueters).

Islamofascists may sincerely believe they are in the moral right and I’m not going to spend time worrying about that. I also don’t need to get on my moral high horse to vehemently oppose them. They have declared war on me and wish to impose their political and cultural hegemony on me. And their vision for how I should lead my life is an anathema to me.

They do not accept our cultural, scientific, economic, military, and political preeminence (hegemony in their view). At one time in the worlds history, any group so relatively weak in all the above factors had no choice but to accommodate themselves. Modern possibilities for asymmetrical warfare and absolute ruthlessness allow them to punch far above their weight. I decry their war tactics (terrorism) but that isn’t the real basis for my moral contempt for them. They are morally contemptible because they cannot win – they know it and we know it. So their whole campaign is nothing more than a nihilistic acting out of their own pique and the forced degradation of us all.

Just zipping into this discussion. Glad the discussion with Bill hit a more rational level eventually. Bill, understand you felt strongly but probably wasn't a good idea to use a word like bigot until... well, until you look.

That said, thanks for adding the quotes Bill! We've become (deservedly) cynical about this stuff thanks to terror apologists/supporters like CAIR and the AMC here in North America, but Bill is right that you can't make the generalization unless you actually look... and the discussion it triggered with Lewy14 about what a real change of heart looks like was worthwhile and enlightening.

Bill Herbert.

Persistent, vicious, personal slurs on the person you are talking to don't make them less credible. They make you less credible. And, so long as you persist in this sort of behaviour, they make you repulsive and unworthy of debate.

I don't agree with the theory "he/she is a big boy, he/she can take care of himself/herself". There are or should be reasonable standards. If you're way over them, and in my view you are, it's not the sole problem of the person you attack.

It's not you versus your target. It's you versus everyone that believes in the standard of behaviour you violate. That may not be many people. But I am not ashamed to be one of them.

Joe, feel free to delete my post if you feel what you said is right and that I went too far. But personally I stand by what I said.

Back on topic, and on reflection, I think Landon is very much to the point, although I wouldn't go that far and I also suspect there's a deal of irony in there.

We are dealing with a different value system, and we should respect that and recognise the difference rather than expecting Muslims to judge things by standards we prefer but that their culture does not uphold. We should not expect that, even though our own cultures make that seem a natural expectation, simply because it's not about to happen.

Terrorist atrocities (other than those against Jews) are regularly criticised by Muslims for bringing Islam into poor repute, and there is a parallel rhetorical strategy of denying the connection between Islam and these jihad activities.

I think we under-rate the weight of these criticisms in a Muslim context, because they spring from a strong Muslim value that we do not share, that is the supremacy of Islam and Muslims, which must be maintained in speech as well as action. This is why, for example, the martyr in Beslan commanded the infidels to pray to Allah: because Islam is the truest and best religion, in other words supreme.

Forced prayer, denial of the connection between Islam and the terrorists undertaking the martyrdom operations, and a common criticism of terrorists and terrorist operations are only radically opposed from our point of view, but from the a more sympathetic perspective they are all expressions of a strong value held in common by all Muslims.

A world religion, a culture (and Islam contains multiple cultures though Arab is radically privileged) is a big thing, not a narrow thing. That makes it easy for us to cherry-pick, in a friendly or a hostile way. If we have an antagonistic attitude, we can pick out terrorist activities and say "this is Islam," when really these particularly shocking things are only one part of a whole spectrum of jihad activities. Or we can pick out statements that we like, but that's equally false. It's really the underlying unities that are decisive.

A rainbow covers the spectrum. You can't pick out one colour and say "it's only that" (if you want to make Islam look bad), not can you have the rainbow without (say) the red and the indigo (if what you want is Islam but not violent jihad and the permanent struggle to dominate other religions and cultures). It's not about us and what we want. It is what it is.

David,

Bill saw something that he himself thought was out of bounds in terms of standards of behaviour. A fight ensued.

I think his approach wasn't really necessary, and that there were better ways for Bill to make his points that would probably have won the debate for him. But that's water under the bridge now. Ideally, we can get past it and have everyone keep on making useful contributions here - all of the parties involved in this contretemps certainly can.

Speaking of useful contributions, great comment once you got back on topic!

OK, Joe. Thanks for the kind words. And letting bygones be bygones works for me.

Obligatory on-topic:

Getting back to brass tacks, I think the public Muslim objections to what happened at Beslan are genuine, not phoney. Some of them look phoney to us, but Muslim values are different.

(Even so, not so different that we can't find any parallels to help us understand them. Don't Christians cry out that Christianity is being brought into disrepute when Christian terrorism in Northern Ireland is in the news?)

So this is genuine good news. But only so good.

The Jewish exception is bad. It suggests to me that Muslims feel that moral superiority (which they reserve for Islam) requires being innocent of terrorism - when we unselfconsciously insist on that. When we don't insist on that, as we have (shamefully!) not insisted on the equal sacredness of Jewish life, then this is not so much an issue.

Also, Muslims seem to be deeply and pervasively angry about the "demonisation" of Islam in the war on terror, about negative statements about and perceptions of Islam. Truth doesn't come into it. This suggests to me that our moral requirements are significant primarily because we can voice them with impunity. To the extent that modern Islam can get on top politically and in the courts, an attractive alternative to heeding infidel moral standards (or a parallel solution) might be to get us to shut up. And to the extent that Islam can get on top more directly (the ideal state of affairs), a preferred solution might be a fist in the face to make us shut up. (That is: enforcement of dhimmitude.)

In other words, I do not see moral suasion and forces as alternatives for us. Though Muslims keep insisting that our armed force offends them / makes us unpersuasive to them, actually that's instrumental talk: part of pressing for their ideal state, which is that they fight while we appease. And in fact the opposite of what they say is true.

Also, how deep does the Beslan blip go? Calling it a "blip" gives away my guess. Trends are deep and long term. Media bubbles are shallow and temporary. (But I'd still much, much rather have a good blip, which we have, than a bad one.)

You know after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, there was a huge media fuss, and lots of discussion about whether the role of the press was really changed, the media were going to (going to have to) stop stalking celebrities and so on. If you judged by public statements then, you'd have to conclude that there was a revolution in Western cultural attitudes towards celebrity, privacy and the media. Was there?

It wasn't that we were insincere. We were sincere. Just not very deep in our sincerity. The basic guidelines that direct our (partly very trashy) culture were decisive, and the sentiments of the moment faded into inconsequential memories, then not even that.

David Blue,

To the extent that modern Islam can get on top politically and in the courts, an attractive alternative to heeding infidel moral standards (or a parallel solution) might be to get us to shut up.

I could have old facts easily disputed, but Truman did not authorize either bomb dropped on Japan. Both were in the works, and under military control before he became President. He quickly issued an order after the second bomb, and had no intention (from everything I have read on him) to ever allow its use again. Truman DID think, ponder, and care very much about casualties.