Arabs Shouldn't Have to Apologize (Editorial)

I am fed up with the ceaseless requests by columnists, religious personalities and other American public figures for Arabs and Muslims to apologize for terrorist acts committed by thugs and murderers in the name of Islam.

As far as I am concerned, the final straw came a couple of weeks ago when the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, paid for a national advertisement repudiating terrorism in the name of Islam.

As soon as the advertisement was broadcast on America's media, I read a column by one of the nation's most ardent Islam-phobic columnists, Cal Thomas, now also a FOX News personality, which plowed into CAIR's reconciliation efforts. Long before 9-11, Thomas' writings were full of venom for Arabs and Muslims. He represents a despicable and ignorant attitude that, unfortunately, a sizable segment of America has come to share. There is nothing American Muslims can do to satisfy this group short of packing up and leaving the United States.

I disagree with what CAIR did, and I also disagree with this groveling and begging for forgiveness, as though American Arabs and Muslims are responsible for those atrocities. CAIR knows better, and those running it know that Islam rejects all acts of violence outside self-defense. Arab and Muslim Americans are responsible for neither the twin towers nor the London subway bombings, and as Americans they should never accept responsibility for actions they did not instigate, commit or condone.

Furthermore, in spite of the fact they are constantly condemned for one thing or another, they — like other Americans — are victims of these murderers. Does anyone think they are pleased to have their movements and telephone conversations monitored or that coercive and freedom-depriving laws are tailored for them? Does anyone in his or her right mind really believe that being an Arab American or a Muslim is pleasant in America today?

The United States has lost 3,000 souls to terrorist thugs, but that figure is miniscule compared to the 60,000 Algerians or the 25,000 Iraqis who also have died at their hands. These thugs don't differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim, Arab and non-Arab when they plant a bomb or enter a village at night and murder everyone.

It is rejection of U.S. and British policies in the Middle East, not Islam, that has promoted terrorism against America. And for the benefits of those who do not know, 95 percent of Middle Easterners are Muslims. Hence, it is only natural that those opposing the United States and Britain in the region would be Muslims. In India, they would have been Hindu; in Latin America or Northern Ireland, they would have been Catholic.

More important, it was the British and the United States that drew first blood. The Middle East didn't come to America or go to Britain; rather, America and Britain went to the Middle East. Both powers used and abused regimes, toppling some and keeping others in power. They never thought that the people they were helping suppress were human beings with needs, beliefs and emotions. They didn't care as long as their interests were served.

America's experience in the Middle East is no different from its Southeast Asia stint, and look at the mess it left in that region.

However, while the calamity of Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea might be rationalized by the Cold War or even a domino theory, there is nothing to rationalize the invasion of Iraq except ideological stupidity. The United States illegally invaded and decimated a country that did not threaten its security and, in the process, unleashed one of the most vile and ruthless insurgencies the region has ever seen. And as it did in Vietnam, when the going got tough, it is planning to pull out. The result will be a protracted instability and turmoil that no country in the region can escape.

Future turmoil in the region is exactly what the instigators of the Iraq invasion have planned all along. They had made their desire for strife in the Middle East known long before the invasion of Iraq. Yet they underestimated the consequences of their lunacy and set into motion processes and events that will make the United States less secure and threaten the lives of Americans for many years to come.

It is rejection of U.S. and British policies in the Middle East, not Islam, that has promoted terrorism against America.

This guy either doesn't understand or identifies with the fanatic mindset behind terrorism.

What causes fanaticism and why is it dangerous?
The fanatic has an elitist view of himself. He holds a firm belief that he is "special" and has something that others, not like him, do not and that this unique "something" imparts an unquestionable and unassailable power to himself. Because of this basic self-view any disagreement with the elitist or any resistance to his actions causes anger. This "supreme" view of himself is an excuse for justifying his anger and thus justifying any act from deception to murder against those who disagree or refuse to comply with him. He is comfortable with hatred, revenge, lying or any gross deception in defense of his "superior" position and will act out against those who do resist or refuse to validate his view.
It is impossible to reason or negotiate with someone who holds the POV that they are morally and/or ethically superior by virtue of the belief that they are inherently so. Everything you do to accomodate his "concerns" (demands), short of complete capitulation, will be discounted due to your "inherent" inferiority. Any resistance to him, anything other than complete submission, becomes self-evident proof of his superiority. The elitist's POV presupposes the rationale of rightness and righteousness as inherent to himself by virtue of his personal belief not as a measure of the quality of his actions or the resulting consequences. His belief that he is superior may hang on an ideology or philosophy but regardless of whether the doctrine supports his view or not he is simply never wrong about himself. Of course the opposite is true for non-elites in the fanatic's mindset. You can never be right if you're not one of the "righteous" simply because you are not. More precisely; you are not "him."
It should be obvious why a fanatic is dangerous. Any and all negative and evil acts can be justified on the basis of any disassociation with his self-view and the "inherent authority" he carries with that. The intent and motivations of an outsider are irrelevant no matter how positive. The results of an outsider's actions are irrelevant no matter how accomodating or constructive. The non-elites are always wrong because they don't hold or submit to the fanatic's view.
The world is full of fanatics of every kind and they can base their elitist self-view on any pretext. Some belong to large groups of "like-minded" fanatics and some are individuals who cling to the delusion that they alone are "special."
In today's world the United States in particular, and western civilization in general, is under a concerted assault from two separate groups of fanatic elitists. Fundamentalist Muslims and leftists. The Islamo-nazis and the Marxists. Both leftists and Islamo-fascists hold a firm belief that they have something that rednecks and infidels don't have that carries a special authority with it. For leftists it is "intellect" and "social sophistication" and for Islamo-nazis it's a "call from Allah," a "holy annointing."
Both groups are manifestations of a mass psychological disorder resulting in fanatic elitism. Both are extremely unstable and are unfounded upon and unaffected by reasoned logic. Convinced of their own "inherent" superiority they will both press their respective agendas as far as they can without regard for the consequences to themselves or to others. In both cases the blame for all of their actions will "logically" fall on the shoulders of others, the "outsiders." Negative consequences of their actions simply become another tool for self-vindication.
The fanatic elitist mindset is the same as the mindset of the rabid dog. Nothing else exists for them except for their personal perception of themselves. Nothing else can; their POV is, by design, unaffectable by outside influence. Change can only occur from within and this means a change in the "prime directive." Change requires the abdication of their most basic point of reference, their self-view, the view that they are unique in a superior, inherent and authoritarian way. This is a view that reasonable people must either completely reject or ultimately submit to. Those are the only choices the fanatic will leave to "the others."
TigersEye - 7/27/05

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.