h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was listening to the radio last night - K-FYI, to be exact - and therein they were repeating a section of an interview between Sean Hannerty (think I called him John in another post) who is a republican talking head and author of the book 'Deliver Us from Evil' and a senior christian type.

Senior Christian type, some kinda southern minister blokey, was of the opinion that the situation in the middle east is a holy war.

I will paraphrase what he said, because it horrified me.
"There are camps in the United States where Muslims are being taught to hate and kill Christians and Jews. There are camps in middle east countries, funded by the Saudis, where this is going on. It is not about poor folks in the ghetto. One of the men who flew the aircraft into the WTC was a trained architect. He was not poor or disadvantaged. This is also not a war against Islam, because the vast majority of Muslims are true to their faith and people of peace, but there is a minority who want a Muslim dictatorship in place in the USA, they hate Americans, they hate freedom and they will not stop fighting until they get it."

Another commentator said that the American military had been told to prepare for a 'twenty year effort'.

This scares the bejeesus out of me for several reasons.
1: Muslims are already insecure enough. It is unlikely that fundamental Christian groups (hi Justin!) need much reason to hate Islam, but this kind of thing is fuel for the fire.

2: The USA is becoming paranoid. One commentator said 'If we have a problem we need to solve it, to face up to it, instead of pretending it won't happen to us like the Clinton administration did'.

3: The USA has more guns and bombs than anyone else. Heck, the population is better armed than some small nations. They aren't shy about using them either.

4: What happens if this blows up into a full-on Jyhad? Are we going to see the deportation of muslims from the USA as 'security risks'? Are there going to be Internment Camps?

There's more, but I suppose what really bothers me right now is the possibility, no matter how remote, that this perversion of Islam (in the self same way that White Supremacist groups who claim to be Christian are perverting Christianity) is going to drag the civilised world screaming into a war in the middle east. It's a major fear. Given that the US has a love for putting troops into nations which won't cooperate, how long before they have a less than quiet word with the Saudis? Sheesh...this situation sucks.

I'm hoping that it's all Republican scaremongering. I'm hoping that all this is being hyped to keep George in the White House by making people afraid of having a 'weak' or Liberal President.

Whereas, of course, what they really need is a President who understands foreign policy.

Did I say they?
I mean we.

Hi Gradient,

Hope you don't mind me making a comment - I just saw your contribution on the "who are you" thread and seeing that we are both children of the late '60's I thought I would pop over and say Hi.

The more we see of Mr. Bush, the more I am convinced that he is the scariest president of America since, oooh, lets say Nixon - I can't really go back further than that. None of the European networks have much sympathy for him, and I have noticed more recently also that some of the American networks are pointing out his (many) flaws. The editor of Newsweek International wrote a damning article on the Bush Admin's ruinous economic policy recently that really left you asking questions as to whether anybody was running the country at all.

I was in the US shortly after 9-11, and I have to say that paranoia was rife at the time. The view that "Bush is dead right" was unchallengeable in late 2001 and 2002, but it seems to have diminished quite a lot since, and a lot of Americans I talk to have major problems with the pronouncements and decisions coming from the White House. With Carter and Clarke coming out with vicious indictments of the administration today, it seems they are now constantly on the defensive.

As to whether the West is on an inexorable slide into war with the Middle Eastern countries, wow. It's the 60 million dollar question, isn't it? Logically and rationally you would expect that this should never happen, but the history of our planet shows time and again that it is not always organised around logical and rational principles. I mean, if many middle-eastern countries started to fall under the heavy hand of some sort of pan-Islamist rule, what would the West do? What particularly would a republican adminstration under Bush do? Similar questions could be posed should there be another terrorist atrocity along the lines of 9-11 in the US. These are speculative questions, that hopefully will not ever require an answer.

These events aside, I am not sure if the US is going to provoke any aggression because, quite frankly, Iraq is a mess. It's the US's new Vietnam without the jungles. The sheer level of resistance that the US would face from within America alone (not to mention outside of it) must surely be a dis-incentive to do anything to the situation in Saudi or anywhere else.

Just some thoughts.

Take care,

Woodpigeon

Woodpigeon,

Hi! Thanks for stopping by. My Journal is always open to comments and musings!

I keep reminding myself that this is an election year, that Bush is trading on his reputation as a war leader and that in order to make that reputation valid he needs to be 'at war' with something, so the Republican Machine is probably trying to make people nervous.

I don't believe they would be so irresponsible as to stir up anti-Muslim hatred. I have been privileged to know a few Muslims, a couple of them devout and devoted to their faith, and cannot imagine a faith LESS likely to push an agenda of hatred and violence.

But there are always exceptions to the rule, and the fear of these exceptions is what the Republicans are trying to promote.

It's worrying for the simple reason that America is isolating itself slowly but surely with jingoistic nonsense and it seems that very few people here have the world experience or the education to see the mythology for what it is.

Yes - I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Of course there are lots of Americans with a refreshing world-view (I was sitting beside a wonderful member of this group on a recent trip to Chicago), but I think that they seem to be in the minority still. I guess that the elections will come down to the classic split between a) those who believe everything that Bush says and would vote for him even if he sprouted horns and a pointy tail. b) those who hate everything the man stands for and would vote against him even if he made everyone in the US millionaires c) those who don't care who gets the vote so long as they have a job and don't have to pay much taxes. The outcome really depends on how late the last group wake up to the fact that you can't keep on lowering taxes while going on the biggest spending spree the world has ever seen.

My personal view is that I think this is a weird time for the US and by extension, the World. It's somewhat akin to the McCarthy era of the 1950's and I'm sure will be remembered as such. The US is being propelled in a particular direction which is far from a point of equilibrium, but there are plenty of forces now pulling in the opposite direction again. Maybe I'm just being naive but there you go.

Woodpigeon

You're right.
The US is being dragged in several different directions at once.

One of the things that interests me most is that the Republicans seem to think that Liberals (Democrats) are irresponsible, and that their attitude encourages people to think and act irresponsibly in the name of 'freedom'.

The current fuss over same sex marriage is one such issue. Personally speaking, I think of the institution of marriage as a series of legal rights and entitlements; as such it should be available to anyone and everyone. I think the spiritual and emotional side of marriage is not something you could or should legislate about, although people here seem determined to do so.

Given that it's a civil ceremony only, the Mayor of San Francisco did the right thing in allowing same-sex couples to marry because to do otherwise would have been discriminatory. But now, despite the real issue (a City official broke State law) it's become a 'Freedom' issue and a question to be debate by spiritual leaders. It's a morality thing, apparently.

The same approach is being taken over the War on Terror. Americans don't understand, at various levels, that their nation's treatment of other nations makes them internationally less than popular. They also don't understand that people do not see Americans as they really are. It's a peculiar time to be an American and a very worrying time for those of us making the effort to become American.

I know I'm very confused by it all.

I know. What was strange was that during my last visit in the US, people kept coming up to us, inquiring about how the US was perceived internatinally, and sometimes apologising for the recent conduct of America!

That same-sex marriage thing is very odd, and what's odder is an American president getting into the fray. It reminds me of Bush's daddy getting all hot and bothered about the burning of the US flag back in the early 90's.

Y'know, that's what gets me about Republicans. They are supposed to be all about "small government" and government non-interference - they would privatise every school, fire-station, police force and prison in the nation if they got a chance - but yet they feel a need to continuously intrude on the conduct of people's private and intimate lives. And now, somehow, they want the world to conform to their narrow-minded views also.

Woodpigeon

In the last any-number-of-thousand years there have been religious wars on and off every few decades. What's new about this one? Nothing, except we all now have access to so much history we should bloody well know better.

Bush and the Republicans: can they get away with calling people who stop and think "irresponsible"?

I was a teenager in the sixties, when the threat was the USSR and we confidently expected to be wiped out any day by nuclear war. I was surprised when my Dad said he didn't expect the Russians to be the source of danger, because they were chess players and could work out the consequences of their actions. He was more frightened of the Americans, because they weren't, and didn't. He also saw the middle east as the future flashpoint.

He wasn't right about everything; he expected South Africa to explode in violence. A good thing they didn't all steadfastly continue to refuse to talk to that terrorist Mandela.

Woodpiegeon - President Bush got dragged into the whole same-sex marriage issue because there was an attempt to change the constitution by the Judicial branch of the government. That's a no-no.

The President getting involved was the springing of a Democrat/liberal trap, allowing Deomcrats the country over to point out that Bush is a bigot because he does not recognise that homosexuals have the same rights under the constitution as everyone else. And boy did he fall for it. I feel bad that this cynical political move was made and that an issue like same-sex marriage, which now stands a chance of having the constitution ammended to ban it entirely, was used.

Recumbentman - hi!
I seem to remember my own Dad not worrying too much about the Russians on the basis that unless someone started a war of aggression against them, the Russians were unlikely to do anything stupid.

He didn't worry about the Americans.

South Africa did explode, but very quietly (from what I understand from several fleeing whites). I admit a certain schaudenfreude at their plight, but mostly I'm worried that the country will self destruct, just like everywhere else colonial whitefolks messed with and left.

Religion is such a nightmarish matter to deal with. There's never any hope of 'you believe in your god, we'll have ours and let's all be nice to each other' because belief inspires fanaticism and fanatics don't do compromise.

Mandela? A terrorist? Surely that was his wife!?

Here's a question that has just struck me: you would think that if the US was to do something positive to avert "holy war", that it would be trying in many ways to reach out to the Islamic community, both in the US and the Middle East. I mean, I doubt if there is a Muslim adult anywhere on the globe these days that does not harbour deep concerns about the motives of the American administration. Now there are slightly more Muslims in America than Jews (each are around the 6m mark), but the US administration continuously puts the concerns of one community way above the other, at least particularly when it comes to the Israel / Palestine issue. From an electoral point of view it doesn't seem to make sense.

You'd think that.

I suppose it's time to roll out the conspiracy theories, or point the finger at the vast Jewish business wealth >sigh<

I guess that Israel is the one country in the region which is even a little friendly to the USA on a reliable basis. It pays the USA to keep Israel sweet long term.

What's interesting is that the USA is taking great pains to make sure everyone understands that the ordinary Muslim in the street is not responsible for anything. Even hardline religious types are saying that it's a minority who are perverting Islam.

Conversely, no one is making the same distinction about Christians or Hebrews.

If America's defence estimate is accurate, there is no dealing with Islamic terrorists and there will be a slow burning protracted conflict, similar to the one in Ireland that's been going on since 1969.

I don't believe it's a war that America can win.

I guess that the situation in Ireland was better in that it was solvable. All it took in the end was for somebody in a position of influence to point out to the IRA that all the reasons for going to war in the first place were completely gone, and that their aims would be much better served democratically.

You would think though, that lessons could be learned from the Northern Ireland situation in terms of how to tackle the causes of terrorism, and how to deal with it over time. That said, the IRA never, in even their bloodiest phase, committed such callous outrages like Madrid or 9/11. It's a very different enemy, I guess.

Interesting point on Israel being a friend to the US. It begs the question though - why couldn't Jordan, or Egypt or Morocco be considered equally as good friends? Ho hum...

The Jewish vote is the richest sector in the USA. The second richest apparently is the Irish vote. Presidents of the USA turn up here one after another like good lttle boyos, but is it the Emerald Isle or the Emerald Vote they're interested in?

Let's be just a teeny bit cynical here. The Muslims may be plentiful but they're not yet rich in the US. That can change.

And yes, there is a religious leader who welcomes religious diversity. He is both highly respected and officially ignored by the west. His book "The Good Heart", meditations on Christian texts seen from a Buddhist perspective, makes inspiring reading. Clue: he is the exiled ruler of a Himalayan country.

Ah yes, him.

The man who's first words were once rumoured to have been
"Anyway, lads, as I was saying..."

He also has the rather dubious distinction of being the only religious leader I actually want to meet.

These are testing times for all of us, one way and another. I was wondering about the Muslim vote, but how integrated is the Muslim community in this country anyway? I think I said elsewhere that down one street in Phoenix I counted sixteen Christian churches and one Bhuddist temple, but no Mosques or Synagoges. Now, it could be that I'm in the wrong part of town. It could also be that, as in England, there are religious and racial groups who simply want to live here and make no actual impression on the socio-political scene other than perhaps providing a different kind of late-night take out.

The effective reasons for going to war may be quite different from the stated reasons. Many wars (Falkland springs to mind) produce domestic results that greatly outweigh the results on the battleground.

More thoughts on war: Once you hear the details of victory, it is hard to distinguish it from a defeat. (Jean-Paul Sartre)

It is strange that in towns like The Hague and Dublin the Arab sector is also the Jewish sector. Neighbours are the greatest enemies. Reminds me of the wonderful Baptist joke by Emo Phillips.

Good one - I just googled it.

You know, that preacher guy quoted at the beginning of the post calls to mind the hypocrites who always start their sentences with phrases like "Well I have nothing against homosexuals. Some of my best friends are homosexuals" etc. etc. In reality, there is a vein of bigotry in what he says, and I suspect he really feels that Muslims are "all like that".

The killing of Sheikh Yassin a few days ago has not helped one bit. True, he was a keen supporter of suicide bombings, but the consequences of the Israeli action could be dreadful - particularly in that another tranche of disenfranchised Muslim youth now has another strong reason to run to the radicals. They used to call Ian Paisley the IRA's recruiting sergeant, and this is equally a title fitting Ariel Sharon. I can see why America would have difficulties condemning the killing of Yassin (in that his modus operandi were not that different to Bin Laden's), but here again is another example of America being perceived to hold the rights of one group of people over another.

Longer term, I think there is a way out of this mess, and it involves genuine engagement and dialogue by the West with the Islamic world at all levels of society. America might talk about Islam as being a peaceful, wonderful religion, but this is all lip-service if the actions on the ground belie this.

"The killing of Sheikh Yassin a few days ago has not helped one bit."

This cues a quiz. Name any killings that actually helped someone or something, and who it was they helped. Here's two for a start.

Killing of Socrates: helped philosophers.
Killing of Jesus: helped Christians.

" America might talk about Islam as being a peaceful, wonderful religion, but this is all lip-service if the actions on the ground belie this."

I think this is more than lip-service.
Look at what the new leader of Hammas is saying about actions against the USA.

It might be that Hammas is leaving the door open to the USA to start talks again, and that Hammas is now hoping that by directing action against their aggressor (that would be Hammas' POV, not mine...cuz I still don't know who started it) they will win some international understanding. Unfocussed Palestinian rage isn't going to do them any favours and they know it.

Do you have a link? I just checked the BBC but I didn't see any pronouncements regarding the US from al-Rantissi there.

My source was Fox news.

I'll see what I can scare up.

Here ya go:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115046,00.html

It's sort of mentioned in passing mid way through the article.