James Lileks comments on TROP™, Muslim reaction to the Berg beheading and the future)

The Bleat ^ | May 12, 2004 | James Lileks

[quidnunc]

-snip-

Hugh Hewitt asked the big question tonight: of the world’s billion-plus Muslims, how many support the butchers who hacked the head off the Pennsylvania contractor? One percent? Ten? Either number stands for a lot of people. I was walking Jasper Dog while listening to the show, and a few thoughts popped up.

There are five reactions one could have to such acts, committed by a coreligionist: Endorsement, Indifference, Denial, Rejection, Participation.

Denial: I’m sure you’ve heard this before: “Islam is a religion of peace.” But those people committed horrible violence in the name of Islam. “Then they are not true Muslims. No Muslim could do this.” Rinse, repeat. It’s the theological equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and humming loudly.

Rejection: This would be speaking out singly or in concert with fellow Muslims, denouncing the acts without making the entire peroration an elaborate plinth on which to place the word “BUT.”

Indifference: I’m a Muslim in Indonesia. I work in a bank. I’m not particularly devout. I like a beer on a hot day, and you know what? They’re all hot days. Some guys slit someone’s throat in Iraq. I think that’s wrong and I think that’s stupid. And what do you expect me to do about it?

Endorsement: I’m not sure what constitutes endorsement — silent pleasure among others not of the faith, chortling delight when you’re with friends. Or perhaps nothing more than thanking Allah when you hear certain things have been done in Allah’s name, and never acting or speaking a way that supports the jihadist’s cause.

Participation. It’s obvious what this means.

Here’s the crux: of these five aspects, four assist the jihadists in one form or another, and the fifth — Rejection — all too often takes a passive form. Hugh had a Somali Muslim on his show from Minneapolis; they spoke for almost 40 minutes, and the guy’s heart was in the right place. He sounded like a decent fellow. He said the Imam of his mosque regularly preached against the nutball Islamists. One hundred million more like him, please. But where are the rallies and marches outside the Saudi embassies demanding an end to funding extremism?

-snip-

[The G Man]

How TROPical (TM) of him

[jocon307]

"[I]f a US city is nuked, the US will have to nuke someone, or let it stand that the United States can lose a city without cost to the other side. Defining “the other side” would be difficult, of course – do you erase Tehran to punish the mullahs? Make a crater out of Riyahd? "

It's obvious, if a US city is nuked Mecca and Medina become dust. 48 hours to evacuate, then, Kablooey.

[Pearls Before Swine]

It's obvious, if a US city is nuked Mecca and Medina become dust. 48 hours to evacuate, then, Kablooey.

It should be obvious. I'm afraid it's not.

[CatoRenasci]

Outstanding, if sobering.

Money Quotes:

The West doesn’t have the power to change Islam; it only has the power to destroy it. .... We could just take out a few troublesome nations, kill millions, and irradiate Mecca so that the Fifth Pillar is invalidated. .... Every pilgrim a martyr. I don’t think we’ll do either; God help us if we do, but inasmuch as we have the capability, it’s an option.

Strong horse, weak horse.

There is another path, of course. Simply put: if a US city is nuked, the US will have to nuke someone, or let it stand that the United States can lose a city without cost to the other side. Defining “the other side” would be difficult, of course – do you erase Tehran to punish the mullahs? Make a crater out of Riyahd? These are exactly the sort of decisions we never want to make. But let’s say it happens. Baltimore: fire and wind. Gone. That horrible day would clarify things once and for all. It’s one thing for someone in a distant city to cheer the fall of two skyscrapers: from a distance, it looks like a bloody nose. But erasing a city is a different matter.

Everyone will have to choose sides. That would be one possible beginning of the end of this war.

A minimal-casualty defeat of the Islamists will require the help of Islam. I'd like to think that will happen on its own, without some exterior catastrophe to force the issue. For that matter I'd like to think I'll win the Powerball. Every time the jackpot goes over 200 million, I buy a ticket. Every time I lose. I'm always disappointed, of course. But never surprised.

[The Great RJ]

The silence from the Muslim world about this latest atrocity committed in the name of Islam is about as deafening as the silence heard from Muslims on September 12, 2001. How any devout followers of ostensibly a religion of peace could see this and not react with condemnation is beyond my comprehension.

Imagine if terrorists committed such a heinous act and did it in the name of the Pope or Judaism? Wouldn't the followers of those religions rise up and say in no uncertain terms that those individuals did not act in their name or on behalf of their belief? But what do we hear from the Muslim world --silence.

[CatoRenasci]

Lileks puts it succinctly:A minimal-casualty defeat of the Islamists will require the help of Islam.

In stark terms, there you have it, and that's how it has to be put to Moselms, first in the West, and then in the rest of the world. Help us eliminate the Islamists or die.

[Psycho_Bunny]

I was pretty disappointed with Hugh.  

I admit, I kept turning off the radio during the Abi's (the Somali Muslims) call because he could only answer "Yes, however...." and I'm f*&^ing sick of "Yes, however..." a$$holes.  

So because I kept turning off the radio I don't know if Hugh asked the one question that was begging to be asked: the elephant in the room - and I don't think he did -"WHY ARE YOU HERE?"

If Islamic leadership is sooooo great, and the USA is soooooo evil, why was Abi in Minnesota?

Why didn't he move back to his Somali paradise?

I'm giving Hugh the benefit of the doubt and assuming he didn't ask the question because it would have ended the conversation.

[truth_seeker]

In 1945 we had the will and clarity to end a war.

It looks like today, we'd rather be popular, than to kill our enemies.

[Ima Lurker]

I wish I could believe that, but I don't.

[CatoRenasci]

Bump! Because everyone should read this and take to heart the frightening clarity Lileks provides.

[quidnunc]

FYI

[TexasGreg]

It's obvious, if a US city is nuked Mecca and Medina become dust. 48 hours to evacuate, then, Kablooey.

I have suggested this before, and when I suggested it I was only half-way kidding. Now I'm not so sure. WHAT, exactly, would be the best military response to the killing of ... let us say ... a couple million Americans?

Imagine, for a moment, what it would mean. It would make the United States the victim of THE worst single military strike in the history of the world. Hiroshima ... Nagasaki ... the death and destruction caused there would pale in comparison to the loss of life and material which would result from the nuking of a medium-sized US city. What would we DO in response? We couldn't do nothing ... not and survive as a nation. But WHAT?

If another country is the source -- China, let us say, or N. Korea -- then the response becomes easier. In the very least , we would demand their immediate and unconditional surrender ... then Nuke all of their military installations if they don't do as we say. Meanwhile, the UN and the Euros and the Middle East would be yelling at us to not taking any provocative action. Yeah, RIGHT.

If it's a terrorist organization that's the source, then we would have to think carefully about the best way to hit them back.

Nuke along the board with Afganastan ... several low yield devices in all those areas where OBL is expected to be hiding? Perhaps.

Nuke Mecca? Having suggested that in the past, that would be the most "satisfying" action in terms of a visible signal. But, in the end, it wouldn't do any good.

Nuke their source of support??? HECK ... we'd have to Nuke 20 or 30 cities in the Middle East! I don't see that happening.

Identify ONE sponsor of State Terrorism (Syria) and use them as an example and Nuke them back into the Stone Age? How is that any more just than what happened to us if that sponsor didn't have a DIRECT connection to the attack on us?

I suppose if we could trace the source and identify WHERE the nuke matieral came from, that might be a start. If it didn't come from us, or from Russia, but ... rather ... came from Iran's production centers, then Iran would be an excellent target. But what if it came from our supposed ally, Pakistan?

In short, responding to a terrorist's Nuke strike would be a real quandry. We would HAVE to respond, and in a way to strike terror back at the source of the attack. But WHO, WHAT, and WHERE are the principle questions. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

[mattdono]

Interesting....I had commmented something similar the other night on this thread. The finale of which was ...

2. Thousands of terrorists, in multiple terror groups (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc.), sponsored in one form or another by over a dozen nations, bomb and kill innocent people over and over again and the world yawns, no condemnations are forthcoming from any Muslim official.

There truly is very limited rejection of this type of barbarism.

Unfortunately, we are fighting by a set of rules. War is hell, as the saying goes. We need to take the gloves off and get our hands dirty. If beating up some terrorists gets the information we need to smoke these f*ckers out, then do it. If parading them around in women's underwear does the trick, fine.

I DON'T CARE ANYMORE!

Get the info. Find the terrorists and kill them. Don't talk to them, don't imprison them, don't give them 3 squares and a pack a cigs...KILL THEM! PERIOD!

I can think of no other description than the one that Rush uses "Human Debris". They need to be wiped from the face of this Earth.

[mattdono]

Oops! Meant to post a link to the other thread. Should have read "this thread".

I got to fanciful.

[CatoRenasci]

I understand your concerns, but I think that if one of our cities was nuked, the pressure for retaliation, even on flimsy evidence, would be very strong. And, if the Islamists took credit for it, they, I think we'd go to a full mobilization, DefCon4, and round up all the moslems in the country. We, and I think we'd get help from even the Europeans, would start squeezing every moselm and every source, and we'd let every moselm nation know that unless they coughed up the perps tuit suit they, too, were in line for early termination with most extreme prejudice. No one wants to do anything like that, but if the Islamists start playing with nukes, even with chemical weapons in the west, we have to. This is WAR, not a criminal investigation.

[TexasGreg]

This is WAR, not a criminal investigation.

Oh, I agree completely. However, would a President Kerry (SHUDDER) view it that way? Or, would he be too apologetic and whimpy to do what would be needed?

[LiteKeeper]

read later - TROP

[CatoRenasci]

Good point, unfortunately. The likelihood of a city being nuked would be greater by orders of magnitude if Kerry were president, and the likelihood of an effective response less by similar ordersof magnitude. Although, there is precedent for Democratic regimes to react and commit to a larger war, e.g. in Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson), Korea (Truman) and WWI (Wilson). Even Carter became (briefly) hawkish after the Soviets went into Afghanistan. But, he never quite "got it" viz. a viz. the Islamofascists in Iran.

[headsonpikes]

President Kerry might be too cowed to act, but, inter alia, President Hillary would certainly have no qualms about killing a few millions to cement her grasp on power, for instance.

I thank God that GW has qualms.