Asymmetrical Information

The millions are the millions dead from poverty and economic oppression. What this particular Islamic sect teaches is that the west, most specifically and recently the US, has systematically robbed their countries of oil wealth. The Saudi ruling family (now estimated at over 10 thousand) encouraged this doctrine and the spread of Wahibism in order to deflect the natural displeasure of the millions in their country who live in relative poverty while the ruling family lives in incredible splendor. So if you ever lost a family member to disease or hunger, it is the fault of the US, you see?

I don't know whether you ever look at MEMRI clips, but that is why it is so significant that some prominent Egyptian imams have begun to speak out against the relative lack of innovation and economic development in Arab countries. This is a contradiction of a cultural and religious meme which has been actively promulgated for over two decades. The Egyptians are leading (they seem to have a sort of love/hate with the Saudi claim to be the center of the Muslim world), but the Saudi government seems to be following.

This is also why the King and prominent princes of Saudi Arabia have responded to the terrorist attacks in their own country by calling for more education, more economic rights for women, and attempting to "Saudize" their economy by replacing foreign workers with Saudis. The battle has been brought home and now they can no longer deflect the economic discontent on the US.

"Where's that number coming from?"

through historical time?
through indirect consequences of policies like sanctions, etc?

what i find interesting, also, is that fire is not supposed to be used as a means of fighting a war:

"In the Hadith there is a saying of the Prophet that: "Punishment by fire does not behoove anyone except the Master of the Fire" (AbuDawood). The injunction deduced from this saying is that the adversary should not be burnt alive."

http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsEnemies.html.

so how to justify this act of fire? an interesting article i read by prof johnson at rutgers, says that this use of fire can be justified because of the "defensive" nature of bin laden's jihad (in which the usual rules of war can be suspended). islamic war in such a case can use other weapons--even those of fire.

"Bin Laden and his associates in the fatwa of course lack the religiously mandated authority to wage such war, as they do not bear the mantle of succession to the Prophet. That is why they try to describe the war against America as a defensive one. By painting the entire nation of America as guilty of “aggression,” the fatwa can set aside the limits imposed on warfare by normative Islamic tradition, which includes no direct, intended killing of noncombatants and no use of fire, which is prohibited among Muslims because it is the weapon God will use in the last days. Bin Laden’s jihad not only pits Islam against America, the West as a whole, and ultimately the rest of the non–Islamic world; it also seeks to overthrow the contemporary Muslim states and mainstream views of Islamic tradition among the great majority of contemporary Muslims."

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0206/opinion/johnson.html. i found this an interesting read.

looks like bin laden has found someone who agrees with him.

Thru projection of ones faults on to others.

If a religious leader in the U.S. said we have the right to nuke France, and suggested we do so, and this religious leader had thousands or millions of followers, what could the rest of us do? What would the French do?

So, why do we mainly appear to be approaching this in a military way instead of doing the things the rest of us and the French would do in the case above?

One could imagine them blaming the British, and the west by extension, for the deaths of Muslims in the subcontinent due to famine and partition. And that's only in the 1940s.

I am not making that argument and could identify several holes in it without additional help.

On the housing bubble:

What role does New York's rent control laws play in its housing bubble?

What a great idea, Mr Lonewacko. Let's surrender, just like the French would do!

Lonewacko, it's hard to believe you are serious. If such a leader began taking steps toward assembling a nuclear weapon, of course we'd arrest him and anyone else involved. Do you think we could have asked the Taliban to arrest Osama? Do you think we could ask the Iranian Mullahs to arrest themselves?

Anyhow, isn't the correct spelling "lonewhacko?"

Somehow I doubt the French would actually surrender in this case. At any rate, I don't think that's what Lonewacko was driving at.

I also doubt that, given access to a nuclear device, bin Laden would hesitate to use it just because he couldn't get permission from some religious leaders.

We asked the Taliban to arrest bin Laden. It did not work too well.

cas writes:

through historical time?
through indirect consequences of policies like sanctions, etc?

The United States has only been around for a couple of centuries. Even if you include "sanctions, etc." you get nowhere near even 1,000,000 Muslims killed by Americans in that time. Certainly not two million, as would be implied by the plural millions.

Somehow I doubt the French would actually surrender in this case. At any rate, I don't think that's what Lonewacko was driving at.

Thank you for being able to understand.

I also doubt that, given access to a nuclear device, bin Laden would hesitate to use it just because he couldn't get permission from some religious leaders.

But, in that case he'd be reduced to the level of the Baader-Meinhof gang or the SLA: a small group of people with an extreme ideology that has very little popular support and justification. It's the religious justification that allows him to have thousands or millions of followers. Without the religious justification and the support, countries like Pakistan might in fact hunt him down and the populations in which he and his followers embed themselves might turn them in.

Regarding religious justification : That bar is set much, much lower over there than it is here. You'll get a raise in pay, Allah be praised; a cookie for dessert, Allah willing, a new pair of shoes, if Allah wills it. And they mean it!

The middle Eastern/Arabic/Islamic religion is a pervasive groupthink mindset almost unrecognizable here.

Bin Laden has LOTS of popular support and needs little justification - but of course he'd like official approvals, too.

Can anyone explain this? Sure: these people are the non-lonewackos. Math is not a focus of the madrasa.

As for the Lonewacko, might I suggest a tagline for his blog: "What Would the French Do?"

More seriously, the Lonewacko's analogy has a tiny little flaw in it. No one in the U.S. has masterminded a series of religiously-motivated terror attacks against France and French citizens worldwide. If such a person existed, I suspect that France would treat a story like this one seriously. Indeed, France treats its terror suspects in ways that would be illegal in the U.S.

However, I agree with the Lonewacko's implication that France would not respond with force, as France has almost no military force to project. They are very stretched, having sent 600 troops to Afghanistan and with their lone aircraft carrier docked due to disrepair.

What role does New York's rent control laws play in its housing bubble?

Eric, I don't see a major role for rent control in the current NYC real estate bubble. Long term, rent control reduces the incentive to build rental housing, which might be converted to condos (or co-ops, in NY); rent control also reduces the incentive to convert existing buildings to rentals. Either way, the effect is to decrease supply by discouraging construction, and so drive up the long-term price for NYC apartments.

Rather OT, but rent control is less stressful to ponder than a nuke in Manhattan.

The number is coming from the same place the "500 Palestinian civilians" killed in the "Jennin massacre" numbers came from: They make them up.

In a report released on Thursday the UN said the overall number of Palestinians killed was 52
- around half of whom may have been civilians
- while Israel lost 23 soldiers there...

"A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April [2002] that some 500 (Palestinians) were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged," the report says."

Using figures from Jenin hospital and the Israeli military (IDF) it says only 52 Palestinian deaths could be confirmed.

Eric:

That question is marginally less complex than calculating how many Muslims died by US policy.

Where's that number coming from?

Maybe they asked The Lancet?

An internationally-known terrorist has just been given religious approval to use a nuclear device, and you're worried that their math might be in error?

Remember OBL talking about all the Iraqi children supposedly dying because of sanctions? That might be part of the figure.

Where exactly was the U.S. propaganda campaign to show that Saddam was spending OFF money on building palaces, and that the sanctions wouldn't have such an effect on Iraqi children if Saddam hadn't built those palaces?

Instead, what we got was a propaganda push against the... French.

I also seem to recall an attempt to claim that what OBL was doing was akin to piracy rather than fighting a war.

Heard anything about that lately?

What we really need to do is stop concentrating almost exclusively on making things blow up real good, and devote some energy to the hearts and minds and propaganda front.

It is ridiculous to lay the deaths of millions of muslims at the feet of the US. Its just as ridiculous to state radical Islam hates us for our freedom. We have a history of supporting middle eastern despots that keep order and keep the oil flowing. Its not completely wrong to say our policy on oil has contributed to the poverty of the Islamic world.

The Saudis, Syrias, and Irans of the middle east have in no way distanced themselves from terrorism. The Saudis have financed the Iraqi insurgency, their 25 most respected clerics have just called for global jihad on the US, and are the source of most of the suicide bombers in Iraq. The Syrians are financing the insurgency, have "cleaned" Saddams billions, have opened their borders for foreign fighters going to Iraq, and may be in possession of Saddams wmd. Iran continues to work on nukes, have provided training and sanctuary for terrorists and foreign fighters on their way to Iraq, and continue to challenge SA and Pakistan as the largest exporters of terror in the world.

Millions? Maybe they're lumping the Crusades in there. If UBL believes the US is the culmination of The West, then perhaps he seeks to settle the score of all scores. Hasn't he been implying that for years?

We have a history of supporting middle eastern despots that keep order and keep the oil flowing.

Yes, exactly! For example, we supported the repressive regime of the Shah! And since he was overthrown, Iran has been a haven of civil liberties and...oh, wait.

That's the problem. Every time someone says our support of despots has fueled terrorism, I have to wonder where he's been for the past 25 years. Are the terrorists rebelling against oppression? Or are they angry that they're not the oppressors? Going on past form, seems more like that latter.

Its not completely wrong to say our policy on oil has contributed to the poverty of the Islamic world.

Er, completely wrong? Maybe. The Islamic world was poor when oil was discovered. The fairest, most humane oil policy we could have would be to grab the oil outright, sell it, and set up a EUtopia of free education and medical care for all the inhabitants, thus bypassing the despots. Good luck selling that idea. Otherwise we sort of have to work with whoever is pretending they're in charge at any given moment.

As for the "millions" figure, it's pulled straight out of their hindquarters. It's a product of ignorance, fantasy, paranoia, and manipulation. It's not particularly surprising that Muslims living under repressive regimes believe it. They have few other sources of information. What's surprising (and depressing) is how many Westerners buy it.

FYI, this fatwa is not new; Scheuer mentioned it in his book Imperial Hubris. The full citation is "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction against Infidels," by Shaykh Nasr bin-Hamid al-Fahd. It was published May 1, 2003 at www.al-fhd.com, but the site isn't up anymore. I haven't been able to find a copy elsewhere.

http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/recruitment-posterNAT.gif

Interestingly enough, there are many articles attesting to the fact that the US has long had political and millitary influences in the Gulf region after oil became a commodity. Not only was the Shah of Iran, and butcher Saddam Hussein once our boys, but we actually supported, along with other western countries, BOTH SIDES of the Iran/Iraq War.
There is a long dark history of American political and millitary influences that resulted in countless deaths.

http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book73e.htm

I know it's nice to hang ribbons, wave the flag and sing along to Toby Keith, but due to our government's actions in the past there are alot of people in this world who have a legitimate reason to hate Americans.

--Cobra

"Can anyone explain this?"

I can't explain much these days... all I know is that if someone wants to blow up NYC I'd like them not to.

But- I guess that's not good enough- so... basically, people are bastards. It's hard to really come to that realization, cause so many of the people you know are so nice... But it's the norm- it just gets widely publicized, in this instance, cause he plans on killing us rather than some hapless set of bushmen.

The worst thing for a well-dressed chimp- whether that dress is a great loincloth, or a tux- is to see a better dressed chimp. Well, we're the best dressed monkey in town, these days- we're also the sheriff, I guess. Note that Bin Laden was not underprivileged as a youth- also note that he was in a sense king of the world, but in another sense subject to all us Americans- must suck to be a gazillionaire and still have to kowtow to Akron...

This isn't about proportionality- which is an obscene concept anyway, expressed in numbers like this.

It's primate dominance, writ large. The number is irrelevant- whether it's 10,000 or 100,000,000 those monkeys will never be satisfied till they are the best dressed monkeys in town, and every other monkey kisses their feet when they walk into a room- they were raised to do that... why doesn't _everybody_ recognize their right to rule?

Bin Laden claiming to want to kill or subjugate only a certain number of us should not be taken seriously- he isn't joking about the Caliphate. He's like a Kennedy on Islamic fundamentalist steroids... born to rule, and willing to eradicate any populations that stand in the way.I have a few ancestors like that, actually- nice guys, in their own historical way, but there weren't a lot of nukes back then.

Anyway, I'm surprised that you're surprised that Bin Laden would nuke us- of _course_ he would.

>>>>>If a religious leader in the U.S. said we have the right to nuke France, and suggested we do so, and this religious leader had thousands or millions of followers, what could the rest of us do?

We burnt the Branch Davidian compound flat to the ground over a few assault weapons, and they weren't threatening anybody. I think your hypothetical religious leader would probably find himself trapped in a plywood building somewhere, surrounded by ATF, FBI, and a few National Guard tanks.

Jane, You're forgetting your MCFs...Muslim Conversion Factors...1 Muslim = 1000 Heathens.

Um...Muslims don't "blame us for a lot of Muslim deaths." Sure, some Muslims do, but I know plenty of 'em who don't. Don't extrapolate the actions of a few to all followers of that religion. It sullies your otherwise good blog.

We burnt the Branch Davidian compound flat to the ground...

I saw that on the news. Unfortunately, while my analogy was flawed, I would hope people would be able to see beyond those flaws and make an attempt to understand what I was getting it.

For some thoughts, look at Saudi Arabia's PR campaign. "The 9/11 report says we weren't involved", etc. etc. Plus, donating money to CAIR to put books in libraries, etc. etc.

If, for instance, Pat Robertson started an anti-Saudi campaign, don't you think it somewhat possible that the Saudis would try to start an anti-Pat Robertson campaign or otherwise try to discredit him? Perhaps they'd use their surrogates to answer Pat's statements. Like, if Pat said the Saudis were responsible for deaths under sanctions, then the Saudis might send people out to show how the Saudis weren't responsible.

Back to our reality: remember that big PR campaign the U.S. went on about Iraq sanctions? Remember how the U.S. took reporters around the world on tours on Saddam's palaces and showed how he was spending the OFF money on himself and not on the children of Iraq? Remember how the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Saddam" treatment partially discredited the notion that Iraq sanctions were responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children?

You do all remember that, right?

Lonewacko:

I agreee that hearts & minds are important. But I think that, in this case (Iraq) "...making things blow up real good..." is the most expedient way to hearts and minds. I'm basing this on the Knight-ridder story:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/special_packages/iraq/10166880.htm

...and the comments:

"An outsider (a Yemeni fighter) beating an Iraqi in his own town?" Hudaifa asked, outrage still in his voice. "It's such a shame for us."

His friend Amer interrupted: "But we have to respect them. They left their families to come fight with us."

It has come down to giving them a choice of working with us or being part of the explosion. That sucks, and I have *no* idea how to do something different during the battle.

It will come down to the amount of $$ and effort we put into rebuilding the city when the explosions are done. The "heart and mind" stuff has been about rebuilding infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) which has been impossible to date because of the 'insurgents'.

Leelu

Where does bin Laden get "millions"??

The correct number is between 20 million persons and 1 person. Taking a mean value gives around 10 million, plus or minus. That is a serious amount of murder.

Works for Lancet, works for me.

You people are largely missing the point.

Until (possibly) now, bin Laden has been constrained from using nuclear weapons. Yes, some of this constraint was due to the practical difficulties of obtaining a bomb. Some of the constraint may even have been due to a personal reluctance to kill people on that scale. While most Americans cannot conceive that someone who would kill 3000 civilians by flying planes into buildings filled with tens of thousands of civilians would be reluctant to use a nuclear weapon, I find it not only possible but probable that someone who would commit such an act would rationalize it by telling themselves that they restrained themselves, out of mercy, from committing a worse act.

Regardless, the largest contraint on bin Laden has always been that using nuclear weapons would have been considered utterly unacceptable by the vast, vast majority of muslims and arabs. Did we side too often with Israel? Did we prop up corrupt governments for oil? Invade their cultures with secular trash? Sure. Was there jealousy and resentment over our economic superiority? Of course. But blowing up NY, L.A. or D.C. is going a tad far.

Hell, even 9/11 was considered beyond the pale by most people. So much so that conspiracies of Israeli culpability rose to meet the demand for an alternative, more palatable explanation for a hideous atrocity.

The great crime of the Bush administration has been that they have been sleeping while Al Qaeda has been making its case to the Islamic world that there may be no other option. In message after message, Al Qaeda has been "giving an opportunity" to the American people, to Europeans to avert a catastrophic fate.

Rather than address this real message of Al Qaeda, rather than try and "win the hearts and minds" of muslims on behalf of civilized society, American politicians and media outlets have chosen to pretend that bin Laden wanted to affect the U.S. election. As if a guy who was prepared to fly a plane into the Capitol building gives fuck about American political parties.

America ignores this rhetorical war at her peril. Indeed, the danger is less that bin Laden or his followers will convince millions of muslims that nuclear weapons are justified. The danger is that they will convince themselves that they have made their case.

Unless you believe that freeing Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein was so important that it warranted dramatically increasing the risk of a nuclear terrorist attack on a U.S. city, then you can't help but see the Iraq war, with all its civilian casualties and mosque-busting, as the most counter-productive military idea in U.S. history.

'Where's that number coming from?'

Does it matter? I'm less interested at this point in OBL's justification than his intent.

space: You're missing a major factor here. UBL does not care if millions of other Muslims would disapprove of his using a nuke. He considers Muslims who do not share his eschatological view as apostates. He would happily nuke them as well.

He's not in a public relations battle. He's in a religious war between good and evil: He's good, we're evil.

He will use whatever WMD he can get his hands on, as soon as he can get his hands on them. The only real questions are 1) when will that be, and 2) who's the target.

There's really not a lot of use in trying to reason with this kind of thinking. It's exactly the sort of of mindset that inspired the Branch Dravidians in their attempts at exegisis of the "Seven Seals". This war is being fought--by UBL--on a religious plane. There is no compromise when you fight for God, because God told you to do so. To do any less would be to fight on the side of Satan.

The US, as leader of the Western world, is deemed the target of his animus. Whether or not the US is culpable in fact is immaterial. We are the stand-in for Satan. Only when Satan is defeated can the true, peaceful, just world come into being.

There are other terrorists--who are also Muslim--who are engaged in a more traditional, political war over land, power, money. The Palestinians, for instance. The results of the combat--dead innocents--are the same, but they are not at all fighting the same war. That suggests that somewhat different tactics are necessary. It also suggests that lumping them all under a UBL umbrella is not the best way to approach the problems.

Comments are Closed.