America vs. The Narrative

[JihadJane]

“Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.”

- Thomas L. Friedman

'America vs. The Narrative'


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/op..._r=1&th&emc=th

This made me laugh out loud. What happy delusions!

[funk de fino]

Did they go into Bosnia or not?

[gtc]

Quote:

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things.

You didn't really read the article, did you JihadJane?

[JihadJane]

I've read it several times, gtc.

Friedman's fairy tale narrative is as bad as the one he criticizes.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I've read it several times, gtc.

Friedman's fairy tale narrative is as bad as the one he criticizes.

Post # 2?

[Skeptic]

So you post an article that completely disagrees with your own point of view? Go figure.

[Peephole]

Just a small reminder:

Quote:

Tom Friedman, The Charlie Rose Show, May 30, 2003:

ROSE: Now that the war is over, and there's some difficulty with the peace, was it worth doing?

FRIEDMAN: I think it was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie. I think that, looking back, I now certainly feel I understand more what the war was about ... What we needed to do was go over to that part of the world, I'm afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble...

And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going from house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: which part of this sentence do you understand? You don't think we care about our open society? ... Well, Suck. On. This. That, Charlie, was what this war was about.

We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That's the real truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOF6ZeUvgXs

[Pardalis]

A reminder of what?

Of course they attacked Iraq when they could, they didn't want to attack it when it had rearmed itself. The idea behind a military intervention is to win it.

[cornsail]

Quote:

We could have hit Saudi Arabia.

I knew Friedman was embarrassingly ill-informed about a lot of things, but I didn't realize he was completely clueless.

People who think we're at war with Islam are clueless as well (although if Friedman was in charge maybe we would be). It doesn't take much to figure out that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are our allies. We've just ****ed over a lot of other countries that happen to be Muslim, along many that are not (i.e. South America, the Caribbean, South-East Asia...)

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

A reminder of what?

Of course they attacked Iraq when they could, they didn't want to attack it when it had rearmed itself. The idea behind a military intervention is to win it.

It's a reminder of Friedman's own pretty part in promoting the "Narrative" he's now preaching against.

[Praktik]

Friedman is a joke. I have no idea how its possible that he still garners so much attention. Those excrements he calls books shoulda been the nails in the coffin. Oh please. Tell me more about how the world is flat Mr Friedman, I need some larger pain to distract me from my root canal...

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Friedman is a joke. I have no idea how its possible that he still garners so much attention. Those excrements he calls books shoulda been the nails in the coffin. Oh please. Tell me more about how the world is flat Mr Friedman, I need some larger pain to distract me from my root canal...

I see alot of personal attack, but no actual content in this post.

[Praktik]

Ya sorry man, Friedman represents a target-rich environment.

[Praktik]

Possibly one of the funniest things on the internet.

[Praktik]

Someone Take Away Thomas Friedman's Computer Before He Types Another Sentence

[Pardalis]

Can't you criticize him with your own words?

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

I see alot of personal attack, but no actual content in this post.

I think that, looking back, I now certainly feel I understand more what the post was about. What we needed to do was basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of Thomas Friedman's stupidity and burst that bubble...

And what they needed to see was JREF boys and girls going from thread to thread, from General Skepticism and The Paranormal to Social Issues & Current Events, and basically saying: which part of this sentence don't you understand? You don't think we care about intelligent discussion? Well, Suck. On. This. That, Paradalis, was what this post was about.

We could have hit George Will. He was part of that bubble. Could have hit Lou Dobbs. We hit Thomas Friedman because we could. That's the real truth.

[Praktik]

Thats like the easiest challenge in the world Pardalis, so I can only assume your use of the word "can't" was a mistake, and perhaps that sentence should have started with "why won't you", since critiquing friedman is something my 6-year old niece could do.

Friedman asserts the following:

Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.

Then, a few paragraphs following, says this:

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.

So tell me, what "different kind of politics" is being created? The Afghan population is alienated from a thuggish government of selfish, nepotistic parasites, there's torture perpetrated by both Afghan and Iraqi authorities. Iraq censors its press for news stories critical of the regime and sues journalists that cross the line. Women in Afghanistan are no better off than they were under the Taliban. Sounds real "different" to me.

Plus there's the matter that the first quote doesn't jive with the second. Friedman is holding two incongruous ideas in his head at the same time: America the benighted has based its foreign policy on "helping muslims", also we "punched a fist into the Arab world".

There is little recognition that the "punching" of the "fist" is what feeds the narrative he's talking about. As Johann Hari documented recently in The Independent:

To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy -- which was real, and burning -- emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. . . .

But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community -- they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 -- from Guantanamo to Iraq -- made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think -- anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was -- they stressed -- also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.
...
He started to recruit other students, as he had done so many times before. But it was harder. "Everyone hated the [unelected] government [of Hosni Mubarak], and the US for backing it," he says. But there was an inhibiting sympathy for the victims of 9/11 -- until the Bush administration began to respond with Guantanamo Bay and bombs. "That made it much easier. After that, I could persuade people a lot faster."
...
Maajid's Islamist convictions were about to be challenged from two unexpected directions -- the men who murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Amnesty International.

HT [the Islamic group which he had headed] abandoned Maajid as a "fallen soldier" and barely spoke of him or his case. But when his family were finally allowed to see him, they told him he had a new defender. Although they abhorred his political views, Amnesty International said he had a right to free speech and to peacefully express his views, and publicised his case.

"I was just amazed," Maajid says. "We'd always seen Amnesty as the soft power tools of colonialism. So, when Amnesty, despite knowing that we hated them, adopted us, I felt -- maybe these democratic values aren't always hypocritical. Maybe some people take them seriously ... it was the beginning of my serious doubts."

Friedman is essentially saying: "why aren't the muslims more grateful for US foreign policy?" and while there is no doubt that a CT-based irrationality feeds the jihadist mindset, there is no question that American policy has exacerbated that. Friedman's listing off of help after natural disasters in muslim countries is not enough to offset that. And he breezily asserts that muslims should see America's two foreign occupations as bringing positive change, of "changing their politics" for the better.

Isn't it obvious how dumb that is??

[Pardalis]

Islamists will always blame America for everything, nothing new. They will always rationalize their actions and transfer the blame on America.

Oh, and you still use other people's words. I got better things to do than to read biographies of some Islamist turds.

[Praktik]

Of course I use other people's words - to buttress and support my points.

That Hari article should be required reading for anyone interested in the jihadist mindset.

To claim openly that you are uninterested in reading the words of jihadists who have moderated and come away from the "struggle" in later years is to shout proudly your willful ignorance. The sub-title reads:

A generation of British Islamists have been trained in Afghanistan to fight a global jihad. But now some of those would-be extremists have had a change of heart. Johann Hari finds out what made them give up the fight

A worthwhile read for those who want to understand what we're up against. Not so much for jingoists and sloganeers who wave away these kinds of inspections in a Manichaean appeal to implacable evil.



Also: Friedman is a putz.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Praktik

To claim openly that you are uninterested in reading the words of jihadists who have moderated and come away from the "struggle" in later years is to shout proudly your willful ignorance.

I'll read what they have to say when they actually confront their Islamist counterparts, and not use their "coming out" as another way to have a go at America. Otherwise they're just a milder version of the same thing.

Quote:

Also: Friedman is a putz.

Yes, we got that.

[Praktik]

Pardalis: "nothing to see here".

Your reaction to that article is amazing... If you read it you would find that they are actually confronting their peers. In fact, they're broadcasting their change of heart to a worldwide audience.

How can you continue to justify wilful ignorance on a skeptic's forum? Shouldn't you be engaging with the material, even from a critical perspective?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Also: Friedman is a putz.

I suppose.

Friedman is a journalist. He began writing for newspapers, then got a few books published, then got a syndicated column, and all of a sudden, he started believing his own news clippings. That doesn't change what his basic approach to the world is: tell people a story.

Friedman is a trend chaser, or maybe a meme chaser. His stories are 'the stories about what's happenin' now" which is why after "Lexus and Olive Tree" I stopped paying money for his books. I also added extra grains of salt to his published news stories, and finally just stopped paying him any attention. I see no reason for his books to have internal consistency, since he's a bit of a toad, hopping from lilly pad to lilly pad.

(I bought From Beirut to Jerusalem to give to a friend, so I've only paid for two. That was a decent book, and covered in part a time in my life when I was floating off of the coast of Lebanon).

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Pardalis: "nothing to see here".

Your reaction to that article is amazing... If you read it you would find that they are actually confronting their peers. In fact, they're broadcasting their change of heart to a worldwide audience.

How can you continue to justify wilful ignorance on a skeptic's forum? Shouldn't you be engaging with the material, even from a critical perspective?

They say Guantanamo is what made them radicalize. But what about 9/11? Nobody died in Guantanamo. People who think 9/11 wasn't a big deal but Guantanamo was are not worth my time.

They smack me of being intellectually dishonest, and delusional. As I said, milder versions of Islamists, same excuses.

[Praktik]

Oh god pardalis just read the article!!

Let me do it for you. On confronting their peers:

Once the foundation stone of literalism was broken, he had to remake the concepts that had led him to Islamism one-by-one. "Jihad has many levels in Islam – you have the internal struggle to be the best person you can be. But all we had been taught is military jihad. Today I regard any kind of campaigning for truth, for justice, as a type of Jihad." He signed up to the pacifist Movement for the Abolition of War. He redefined martyrdom as anybody who died in an honourable cause. "There were martyrs on 9/11," he says. "They were the firefighters – not the hijackers."


He says he found himself making arguments he once thought unthinkable – like arguing that women should be allowed to show their hair in public. Jihadi websites run by his old friends started to declare him an apostate, a crime that under their interpretation of sharia is punishable by death.


There have been demands that he should be ousted from the mosque, but his father is its founder and chief imam, so he is protected for now. He says – leaning forward, his voice losing its public school composure – that the threats have only made him more sure of the need for reform. He has started to call for Muslims to abandon the "medieval interpretation of the sharia" that calls for the killing of apostates and homosexuals. He has said there should be a two-state solution in the Middle East. He has reached the conclusion that evolution is "a scientific fact".
...
After more than 20 years in prison, they had reconsidered their views. They told him he was false to believe there was one definitive, literal way to read the Koran. As they told it, in traditional Islam there were many differing interpretations of sharia, from conservative to liberal – yet there had been consensus around once principle: it was never to be enforced by a central authority. Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law. "It was always left for people to decide for themselves which interpretation they wanted to follow," he says.


These one-time assassins taught Maajid that the idea of using state power to force your interpretation of sharia on everyone was a new and un-Islamic idea, smelted by the Wahabis only a century ago. They had made the mistake of muddling up the enduringly relevant decisions Mohamed made as a spiritual leader with those he made as a political ruler, which he intended to be specific to their time and place.


Maajid's ideology crumbled. "I realised that the idea of enforcing sharia is not consistent with Islam as it's been practised from the beginning. In other words, Islam has always been secular, and I had been totally ignorant of the fact." But he says he found this epiphany excruciating. "I knew if I followed these thoughts wherever they would lead," he says, "I would go from being HT's poster boy to being their fallen angel."
...
In September 2007, Maajid appeared on Newsnight – the BBC's flagship current affairs show – to announce that he recanted not just HT, but Islamism itself. "What I taught has not only damaged British society, it has damaged the world," he said.


With a small band of other ex-Islamists, Maajid decided to set up an organisation dedicated to promoting liberal Islam and rebutting Islamism. They named in the Quilliam Foundation after William Abdullah Quilliam, an English businessman who converted to Islam in the late 19th century and set up the first British mosque. They are taking the organisational skills and evangelical fervour of HT, and turning it against them. They are also taking nearly £1m from the British government – the only way, Maajid says, to do their work effectively.


The last time I speak to Maajid he is on the refugee-strewn North-West frontier of Pakistan, touring the country's universities. He is lecturing to huge audiences about his own experiences, and arguing against literalism in Islam. The massed ranks of the neo-Taliban are not far away. "People here and in Britain keep saying – we've been waiting for something like this for such a long time," he says over the telephone. "They're so happy people are starting to speak out. They're terrified to do it themselves, but this emboldens them."


A large audience of young Muslims is waiting for him. Maajid says assertively: "You know, back when I was an Islamist, I thought our ideology was like communism – and I still do. That makes me optimistic. Because what happened to communism? It was discredited as an idea. It lost. Who joins the Communist Party today?" I can hear the audience applaud him as he walks onto the stage, and with that, Maajid hangs up.

And here's my parting cheap shot. You call them "dishonest and delusional", well so does this jihadi:

I wanted to see what the people the ex-jihadis have left behind make of them – and to sense if they are seen as a real threat. Anjem suggests meeting me in the Desert Rose Café in Leyton, not far from Usama's mosque. The 41-year-old lives here on social security benefits, paid for by a populace he believes should – in large measure – be lashed, stoned or burned in the hellfires. A long beard covers his chubby face, and long white robes cover his swollen form. I was surprised he agreed to meet me. He rarely speaks to print journalists. The last time he did, he stormed out, accusing the reporter of being a paedophile.

He immediately launches into a lecture about how the ex-Islamists are all liars and charlatans. They are "government bandits, set up by them and funded by them to do their dirty work within the [Muslim] community ... They were never actually practising! They were ignorant of Islam."

[Praktik]

on 9/11:

He started to recruit other students, as he had done so many times before. But it was harder. "Everyone hated the [unelected] government [of Hosni Mubarak], and the US for backing it," he says. But there was an inhibiting sympathy for the victims of 9/11 – until the Bush administration began to respond with Guantanamo Bay and bombs. "That made it much easier. After that, I could persuade people a lot faster."

[Pardalis]

And all this relates to Friedman and America being "bad" how? I lost track.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Praktik

on 9/11:

He started to recruit other students, as he had done so many times before. But it was harder. "Everyone hated the [unelected] government [of Hosni Mubarak], and the US for backing it," he says. But there was an inhibiting sympathy for the victims of 9/11 – until the Bush administration began to respond with Guantanamo Bay and bombs. "That made it much easier. After that, I could persuade people a lot faster."

Frail sympathy. Didn't take much to overcome it with blind hatred.

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Possibly one of the funniest things on the internet.

Originally Posted by Praktik

Someone Take Away Thomas Friedman's Computer Before He Types Another Sentence

Good god those are hilarious. I need to find more articles by this guy.

[Praktik]

It doesn't. But you ignorantly waved away the import of one of my sources. And dug in your heels instead of doing what's right as a skeptic, and engaging with the source directly.

instead you passed off some one-liners that displayed for all to see your dismissal of my source without actually having read it, since the your criticisms that they weren't confronting their fellow muslims or underplayed 9/11 are easily dismissed with even a cursory reading of the article.

[Pardalis]

So because some former-Islamist rationalize their actions and pretend it's because of what Bush did with Guantanamo and Iraq, therefore Friedman is a putz?

[Pardalis]

If you're trying to say the Iraq invasion helped radicalize Muslims, well so did the Danish cartoons, and probably that Swiss minaret thing will radicalize some more.

It seems it doesn't take much to radicalize a Muslim. Victimization is a powerful force.

Still has nothing to do with Friedman.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

So because some former-Islamist rationalize their actions and pretend it's because of what Bush did with Guantanamo and Iraq, therefore Friedman is a putz?

There shouldn't have to be a proof to demonstrate Friedman's putziness, he does that all on his own. Much like you don't need a proof to demonstrate that Ahmadinejad is un-hinged, just pick any random speech.

The point was that his editorial glosses over things like running two occupations in the Middle East and Guantanamo bay in order to support his contention that America's foreign policy has been "pro-muslim". He has to gloss over this to make the same point you do, essentially that Jihadist hatred is all formed around irrationality, when there are very concrete things that drive it underneath that irrationality.

To ascribe it all to irrationality is to whitewash the underlying drivers to muslim recruitment. I quote the hari article to show, from ex-jihadists themselves, how much easier it was to recruit as a result of American policies.

Whatever America's purported "best intentions", it should be obvious on its face that Jihadis care little for whatever warm fuzzies were passed around at cocktail parties in the Washington party circuit. The perceptions of those policies don't exist in an American vaccuum and we should take into account how others around the world will percieve them.

At least, if winning the war on terror and serving the national interest is your goal, that should be true.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by cornsail

Good god those are hilarious. I need to find more articles by this guy.

Quote:

So, yes, Friedman is suddenly an environmentalist of sorts.

What the **** else is he going to be? All the other ideas he spent the last 10 years humping have been blown to hell. Color me unimpressed that he scrounged one more thing to sell out of the smoldering, discredited wreck that should be his career; that he had the good sense to quickly reinvent himself before angry gods remembered to dash his brains out with a lightning bolt. But better late than never, I suppose.

Or as Friedman might say, "Better two cell phones than a fish in your zipper."

Amusing, he is, except he referred to Americans as a race. That made no sense.

DR

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Can't you criticize him with your own words?

Can you give him some praise in yours?

I’d like to know why he is so respected.

I can see why someone (Matt Taibbi) might call him “the perfect symbol of our culture of emboldened stupidity” but why would someone else call him "the most important columnist in America today" (Walter Russell Mead)?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Can you give him some praise in yours?

I’d like to know why he is so respected.

I can see why someone (Matt Taibbi) might call him “the perfect symbol of our culture of emboldened stupidity” but why would someone else call him "the most important columnist in America today" (Walter Russell Mead)?

What is it about Mead that you don't like?

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

If you're trying to say the Iraq invasion helped radicalize Muslims, well so did the Danish cartoons, and probably that Swiss minaret thing will radicalize some more.

It seems it doesn't take much to radicalize a Muslim. Victimization is a powerful force.

Still has nothing to do with Friedman.

The cartoons constitute the most important point. I lost much of my faith in the assertion that our wars were more destructive than helpful after that point. Simply put, a sketch of Mohammed caused a significant number of Muslims to lose their @#& and burn churches. I can't remember the death toll; what was certain, though, was that many were placed in danger by their incorrigibly moronic sense of victimhood.

We're talking about a radicalized population that will fly off the handle en masse in response to CARTOONS published in a European newspaper. We should be careful that we don't change proven methods simply because they'll remain resentful because we don't. They will always be that way.

Don't get me wrong: I thought, and still think, that indefinite detention was a terrible idea. I believe America should have the integrity to hold itself to its own commitments against torture, including waterboarding. But we shouldn't back down from something solely because it will inflame Muslims in the Middle East.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Don't get me wrong: I thought, and still think, that indefinite detention was a terrible idea. I believe America should have the integrity to hold itself to its own commitments against torture, including waterboarding. But we shouldn't back down from something solely because it will inflame Muslims in the Middle East.

But now - far more than before - America's national interest is intimately tied to muslims in the middle east. There are two major military committments, Israel, the resources there - isn't having a sensitivity to the consequences of policy decisions on the middle east crucial to success on all those counts?

Otherwise you're just smacking the hornet's nest for no other reason than NOT doing that, somehow, is "backing down"...

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

What is it about Mead that you don't like?

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Praktik

But now - far more than before - America's national interest is intimately tied to muslims in the middle east. There are two major military committments, Israel, the resources there - isn't having a sensitivity to the consequences of policy decisions on the middle east crucial to success on all those counts?

Otherwise you're just smacking the hornet's nest for no other reason than NOT doing that, somehow, is "backing down"...

We do have our reasons for being involved there, besides PR to the greater Muslim community. Of course, one of the primary goals is tracking and killing terrorists. Let's use this example. Lefty mentioned this somewhere; some Afghanis consider Predator attacks to be cowardly, among other things. Do we stop Predator attacks because they are inflaming some people? No, they are growing more effective by the year in taking down the al-Qaeda collaborators and leadership.

In this respect, you might say that the benefits outweigh the costs as we are operating by our principles.

Now, Abu Ghraib is the poster child for the need for sensitivity. Yet, not only is this quite damaging to our reputation in the ME and the world at large, an incident like this is excluded out of possible options a priori. It violates our principles.

In conclusion, when a particular tactic accomplishes what it sets out to do and abides by the principles we try to align other nations to, striking it down on grounds of "a number of Muslims in the ME will get mad" should not be given as much weight.