Preliminary links on Islam II
On the same Sullivan 'E-Mail of the Day' was this commentary on a certain opinion about Muslims (or Arabs - they are unusually conflated in the American mind) that I am certain is quite common.
I hear the most dreadful things from Americans I'd thought had decency. These are women, mind you, middle aged women who've never known anything but comfort and privilege. They're women who have raised children and done a good job of it, women who do charity work and who go all out to help dogs and cats and any other animal in need. But they don't see this issue as you and I see it. They talk about the people tortured as if they're not human beings. They see every Muslim, every Arab, as another species. Their usual term is "scum" but "murdering bastards" is also a favorite. Yes, all of them are guilty, all terrorists. These are women who've traveled extensively, some who were even born in other countries. Thus it's not all foreigners who come under this sub-species heading, only the people they've labeled terrorists without knowing what they're talking about. It's racism at its worst and that, sadly, is what Bush and his cronies are playing to.
None of the people I know who think torture appropriate would admit to being racists, of course. High IQs, high incomes, no brains at all -- or is it no hearts? Perhaps no empathy is the key. To one of them, I said, "This sort of thing can escalate and next they'll be coming for us." She replied, "Oh, for God's sake!" with disgust, the implication being that such methods would never, ever be used for us fair white middle class people.
This is, in a nutshell, the attitude I picked up from Simmons' short story that this is all leading up to. Expressed as a personal opinion over the kitchen table it is just that, a personal opinion. Written by a skilled and published author, though, and posted on the internet, it takes on the appearance of neo-con propaganda. Which may not be what was intended.
posted by Clemens @ 1:11 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I hate that attitude too, I just don't see what it has to do with George W Bush.
After Sept 11, which was truly horrible, I went through a period of thinking all Muslims were responsible and hating them for it. Temporary insanity, a very sobering and enlightening experience.
In large part it was actually Pres Bush and Australia's John Howard who brought me back to my senses.
Pres Bush said a lot of true and positive things about Islam (and has never varied in this), and enlisted help from the Muslims themselves against the terrorists. Who has suffered more from the barbarity of the terrorists than the long-suffering people of Iraq and Afghanistan?
These things softened my heart toward our Muslim brothers.
George Bush is a good Christian. He has had some painfully difficult decisions to make, but I think every decision he has made is morally sound. In fact, where morality and expediency have clashed I believe Pres Bush has always chosen the moral path.
I am appalled by the extreme remarks of some on the Blog-Right (even the Anchoress has crossed the line). But although they represent a majority of right wing opinion on the web, I'm sure they represent just a tiny fraction of the real life conservatives and Christians.
"George Bush is a good Christian. He has had some painfully difficult decisions to make, but I think every decision he has made is morally sound. In fact, where morality and expediency have clashed I believe Pres Bush has always chosen the moral path."
He is the authentic article when it comes to being a Christian, but that is one of the things that makes him so painful to watch. From where I set, he almost never choses the moral path. Starting a war of choice is not the moral path. Authorizing torture is not, as they say, what Jesus would have done. His campaigns are infamous for the dishonest and cruel tactics his satellite Rove endorses and uses. The list could go on, and on.
But, I could be wrong. Let me know where you think Jesus stands on unjust (using Augustine's yardstick) wars, torture, and lies.
In gen'l, I don't think Jesus would endorse the career callings of very many politicians.
Hi Clemens,
In my opinion, Iraq and Afghanistan were both military operations that were long overdue. Afghanistan, courageous allies of the West against the Soviet Evil Empire, had been cruelly neglected to the point where a demented Pol-Pot type regime had usurped them. A disgraceful situation. Those of us with Buddhist friends and family (my wife and her family are Buddhists) had fumed for years at what went on there.
And as for Iraq. The conduct of the *first* Gulf War was the real injustice. The wickedness of realpolitik had left the Butcher of Baghdad in place -- it had wounded and enraged the beast, but left the innocents in his power!
Iraq was like a botched amputation with the limb going gangrenous. To call it 'unfinished business' was an understatement.
In both cases the reasons given for going to war (and there are many things worse than war) were just the tip of the iceberg of worthwhile reasons to smite those wicked men.
Oh, and the other part of your question: torture and lies.
I guess I draw a distinction between real torture -- the sort of horrific barbaric things that still go on in parts of the world (like North Korea), which I utterly oppose; mistreatment (like Abu Ghraib), which I also oppose, but I recognise sadly it happens in the stress of war (it happened plenty on our side in WWII); and tough, harsh interrogation techniques.
I don't believe sleep deprivation and discomfort (like 'water boarding') rightly fit the definition of torture. I wouldn't like to see them in widespread use, but considering (1) the terrorists who have been subjected to these things would rightly have been shot on the spot in earlier wars (in keeping with the rules of war), (2) their responsibility for many evil acts was not in question and (3) the lives of hundreds if not thousands of innocents were potentially at risk; I will trust the good men who serve Bush and Rumsfeld to be given discretion to use these harsh but necessary techniques if they believe they must.
As for the lies, well, there we'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't even think Bush was wrong about the WMD (but it will take years for the truth to come out), but even if he was, it was an honest mistake regarding a risk not to be endured.
Post a Comment
<< Home