Fire in Beirut
Michael Young | February 5, 2006, 12:18pm
Protestors today burned the Danish embassy building here in Beirut, in the latest response to the ballooning Danish cartoon fiasco. One aspect of the protests was particularly disturbing: the embassy is in the predominantly Christian neighborhood of Ashrafieh, and groups of protestors--most of whom were Sunni Muslims, not Shiites--ransacked properties and threw rocks at a Maronite Christian church nearby, provoking the predictably angry reaction from Christian youths. Below my building, in the center of Ashrafieh, the army and security forces had to intervene to prevent the situation from getting out of hand as Muslims driving or walking to the protest were taken to task by some youths. The fact that the demonstrators were traveling through Ashrafieh in the first place, assuming they wouldn't be molested, confirmed they had no idea of what was going on and that there was no general intention to provoke Christians.
Then who threw stones at the church? The official version is that "external groups" did so, which conveniently meant individuals manipulated by Syria. It's difficult to say. Certainly, there were Islamist groups involved in the demonstration that answer to Syrian intelligence, for example the Ahbash, and they may well have had something to do with church attack. On the other hand, what we saw today was the true extent to which Lebanon's Sunni community has a large number of Islamist groups, particularly in the North, that subscribe to an increasingly militant agenda; and that the main Sunni leadership, represented by the Hariri family, really only has nominal influence over many of them.
The dunce of the day was Interior Minister Hassan al-Sabaa, a Hariri appointee. He initially deployed far fewer anti-riot police than required, supposedly to avoid increasing tension. Sabaa's striking incompetence has been on display before, but this situation may speak to something more complex: My theory, and it's only a theory at this stage, is that the Hariri camp may have tried to ride the Sunni groups' anger (presuming the demonstration would remain peaceful), to show its sectarian political clout, but then had to watch helplessly as the whole thing spun out of control. One of those groups organizing the demonstration, the Jamaa Islamiyya (Lebanon's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood), is not under the Hariris' thumb, but it does answer to Saudi Arabia, and in last year's parliamentary elections the Saudis paid the group a hefty sum of money to avoid its voting against the Hariri candidate list in the North.
My theory would also explain why a leading Christian politician, Samir Geagea, who happens to be a very close ally of the Hariri camp, harshly criticized the security forces (meaning Sabaa, meaning the Hariri camp) for having allowed the demonstration to get out of hand, when it was amply clear in the past day or so that something big was about to happen. (Addendum: Geagea is now asking for Sabaa's resignation.)
Ken Shultz | February 5, 2006, 2:35pm | #
It would take a lot at this point to dissuade me from the belief that worldwide popular support for Islamic radicalism, in at least some of its forms, is broad and deep. So where do we go next?
Hear, hear!
...and in regards to the question of where we go next, I think we should ask ourselves first whether our present course has encouraged this radicalism.
There are big, background issues going back decades, from our support of Israel to our support of vicious dictators in the region. And Christendom too turned to religious authority for legitimacy when government failed, which is exactly what people seem to be doing in places like Nigeria, Palestine, etc.
...but when I look at these radical groups, one of the things they all seem to have in common is an utter disdain for the United States. So I have to wonder about recent stimuli--isn't the difference between self-defense and aggression an extremely important distinction in the Muslim world? How do we convince the Muslim world that we mean them no harm? For the moment, is that possible?
I remain skeptical regarding the
uma's embrace of our Constitution's Bill of Rights--people everywhere may not answer the same questions the way we do. I haven't seen a poll, but it's very possible that most of the people in the Muslim world don't want freedom of the press or freedom of speech if it means that the Prophet gets ridiculed in print. They may not think much of our ideas regarding justice either.
I wish we could wash our hands clean, and bring in the UN or something. I wish we hadn't acted, if we were going to act, without the full support of our traditional allies. Spilt milk, some will say, but I think we should keep those lessons in mind going forward.
...and I think we should concentrate on legitimacy rather than democracy. I remember watching
Control Room when one of the Iraqi journalists went back to his home town. He asked how many people present, given the choice, preferred Sharia to democracy--and every hand went up. The secularists done got whipped in the last Iraqi elections, or so I understand. What if the idea of democracy has legitimacy issues in the Muslim world?
I went to a Muslim conference in Long Beach a couple of years ago, and there was this guy in the audience that came up to the podium. He asked a question of the visiting imam, who had traveled here from Iraq, regarding whether democracy was compatible with the Qur'an. The imam responded that there was nowhere else in the world where Muslims could practice their religion more freely than in the United States of America. The man at the podium, as I recall, responded that such freedom was a function of law rather than democracy.
I think the man at the podium was right.
mediageek | February 5, 2006, 9:39pm | #
"I'm not sure I'm following you, mediageek. What exactly are we going to achieve with this war?"
Ken, I'm not sure. It's just idle rumination for the moment.
Allow me, for the moment, to set aside the legion of domestic problems and usurpation of rights going on in the USA for a moment.
The way I see it, even the most liberal Middle Eastern nations are oppressive to a vulgar level.
Most of the populations of these nations seem generally incapable of even grasping basic concepts such as seperation of church and state, freedom of expression, etc.
Now, if they wanted to keep this within the confines of their own nationstates, I couldn't care less. Kim Jong Il may be a despicable, crazy, sadistic tyrant, but he pretty much keeps to himself.
But many of these virulently anti-western Muslims make no bones about wanting to strike the people and places like the US, or various European nations. Many of the immigrants from these nations engage in attempts to force their culture on everyone else. The Fatwah against Rushdie, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, any number of terrorist attacks, death threats against artists, writers, and reporters.
What's the tipping point? At what point do you finally say "enough" to people who take advantage of the good will and freedoms inherent in a liberal democracy?
"...Are we going to keep fighting until the Muslim street no longer object to ridiculous depictions of the Prophet?"
Yes. In a manner of speaking. To my way of thinking, a nation goes to war and doesn't stop until their declared enemy surrenders unconditionally or is wiped out.
I do not mean to say this idly or flippantly. God knows there are already more than enough frothing, irrational, hateful, war-mongering assholes, and I certainly don't much care to give credence to their arguments, or join their choir.
But ultimately there comes a tipping point. I find it unfathomable that a culture would react so terribly to cartoons.
Cartoons for crying out loud! How can one possibly expect to carry on a rational dialogue with people who behave so savagely? In the end, such nations have a limited number of choices: join the 21st century, or be destroyed. So far I've seen very little that indicates they want to take the first option.
Ugh.
Typing this whole thing just makes me feel kinda dirty.
Ken Shultz | February 5, 2006, 10:55pm | #
Most of the populations of these nations seem generally incapable of even grasping basic concepts such as seperation of church and state, freedom of expression, etc.
The "concepts" you're talking about--freedom of expression and separation of church and state--those are some of the things I'm talking about when I talk about culture. When I talk about culture, I'm talking about institutional and intellectual heritage, and although their culture shares some things in common with ours, it is very different.
Please notice that I'm not even addressing the question of whether our culture is superior or whether one culture
can be superior to another. Maybe it can, and maybe it can't. ...I'm simply stating that, believe it or not, many people in some cultures may not want what we want them to want. Even if freedom of the press and freedom of religion is, in practice, superior in every way--they may not want it. ..and I am yet to see an effective means by which to coerce them to do so.
It seems strange, even to my ear, but as a libertarian, I think it's wrong to coerce other peoples to adopt our culture--even if the culture we're imposing contains the very foundations of liberty. We have a term for imposing culture on other peoples; it's called "cultural imperialism", and it's a fool's errand. That way lies destruction.
What's the tipping point? At what point do you finally say "enough" to people who take advantage of the good will and freedoms inherent in a liberal democracy?
When it threatens our security. The outrage of Muslim fundamentalists regarding cartoons is not a threat to our security.
I don't remember where you stood on the Iraq War off the top of my head, . ...but if the Bush Administration had proposed the Iraq War on the sole basis of the impossible task of altering their culture so that it no longer poses a security threat, I would have opposed it on that basis alone. If the President's spreading democracy panacea turns out to be a Sisyphean task, then I think we should avoid such mistakes in the future. ...not compound them by trying them elsewhere.
To my way of thinking, a nation goes to war and doesn't stop until their declared enemy surrenders unconditionally or is wiped out.
Who should we wipe out? Who is the declared enemy? Is it the people in the streets, working their way through life, trying to make ends meet? ...Trying to provide for the their families, be good mothers, teach their children well within their own cultural context? As I've written elsewhere today, I suspect that many of the people who are denouncing the west for printing these cartoons are the very same people who are crying out for liberty or, at least, what they understanding liberty to mean. Our culture hasn't always had a clear vision of what liberty meant either.
I find it unfathomable that a culture would react so terribly to cartoons. Cartoons for crying out loud!
They aren't reacting to the cartoons, they're reacting to blasphemy. God is as real to them, to many of them anyway, as the Sun is to you. ...and our tolerance for blasphemy is as unfathomable to them as their intellectual heritage is to you.
andy | February 6, 2006, 3:19am | #
Check out this page:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/index.html
Besides the torching of Scandanavian embassies, Iraq's "transportation ministry" is "severing all ties with the Danish and Norwegian governments." Iran is recalling its embassador to Denmark.
As Michael Young so eloquently stated earlier today (or yesterday(?)), in a manner far too mild for me to imitate,
very fucking few Muslims are able to comprehend that a newspaper could be free from government coersion; that a newspaper could print something without the government of the country in which it's printed either being able to censor it or coerce it to print it. As some have already said on this thread (for all intents and purposes) we are at war with a completely different mindset, a totally different culture. A culture that not only abhors our western concept of a liberal democracy but actively tries to destroy it. Sure, there are liberal Arabs, but they are the
vast minority! For the most part, the people in the ME are nothing but medieval, fascist scum. I'm praying to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will be. WE ARE AT WAR, PEOPLE, AND WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR THESE BARBARIANS! No longer can we indulge ourselves in such liberal bloviating. Indeed, the entire western concept of a free society is at stake. If the past couple weeks haven't persuaded certain people among you, I don't know what will. I kindly ask that you step out of the way, then, and allow the rest of us to defend our way of life, a life free of forced subjugation to shari'ah.
Liberal Arabs/Muslims, please escape while you can. Call me pessimistic, but I don't think the time when Western governments will be forced to plain eradicate the people of your region is far off.
mediageek | February 6, 2006, 11:27pm | #
"and I am yet to see an effective means by which to coerce them to do so."
There isn't. This is a fundamental problem that the LP has. You can't spoon-feed someone liberty, and you certainly can't force it on them at gun point. One must
choose to embrace it.
"I think it's wrong to coerce other peoples to adopt our culture--even if the culture we're imposing contains the very foundations of liberty. We have a term for imposing culture on other peoples; it's called "cultural imperialism", and it's a fool's errand. That way lies destruction."
Agreed.
"When it threatens our security. The outrage of Muslim fundamentalists regarding cartoons is not a threat to our security."
Does it threaten our security? No. In the end, more people will probably die from the hail of bullets fired into the air. What I see is a test that this culture is failing miserably.
"I don't remember where you stood on the Iraq War off the top of my head,"
Until this point, I've tried to not espouse a stance for a number of reasons. Boiling it down to a single sentence, I am not in favor of the current war in Iraq.
"but if the Bush Administration had proposed the Iraq War on the sole basis of the impossible task of altering their culture so that it no longer poses a security threat, I would have opposed it on that basis alone. If the President's spreading democracy panacea turns out to be a Sisyphean task, then I think we should avoid such mistakes in the future. ...not compound them by trying them elsewhere."
This gets back to a point you touched on earlier. You can't coerce people into freedom.
"Who should we wipe out? Who is the declared enemy?"
Those nations whose theopolitical leaders aid, abet, and encourage the attacks on and undermining of western nations and the ideals of modernity.
"Is it the people in the streets, working their way through life, trying to make ends meet? ...Trying to provide for the their families, be good mothers, teach their children well within their own cultural context?"
What really bothers me is the answer to this question would have to be an unreserved yes.
"I suspect that many of the people who are denouncing the west for printing these cartoons are the very same people who are crying out for liberty or, at least, what they understanding liberty to mean."
I would very much like to agree with you. But outside of a few westernized Islamic writers, I simply don't see anything of the sort.
"They aren't reacting to the cartoons, they're reacting to blasphemy. God is as real to them, to many of them anyway, as the Sun is to you."
God is just as real to James Dobson and everyone else at Focus on the Family, yet the local media here regularly lampoon, indict, and hurl invective at them with nary a fire being set.
" ...and our tolerance for blasphemy is as unfathomable to them as their intellectual heritage is to you."
But ultimately, that's the point. We're willing to tolerate those we disagree with, even vehemently, for the sake of a civil society.
Gun owners don't go out and murder gun control advocates.
The pious don't tie the faithless to posts and set them ablaze.
Logging corporations don't murder the greens who chain themselves bodily to the trees they wish to harvest.
No matter how uncivil, uncouth, and just plain wrong Bill O'Reilly may be, no one has attempted to kill him.
And that's the point of a civil society. Regardless of how hateful the vitriol and spite, in the end people know when to cool it.
I see no such behavior in the Middle East. I would like to think I'm wrong, that I'm mistaken, or that the media is spinning things, or that it's all a fabrication, but I just don't see that.
For crying out loud, on another forum where I'm a member, one of the other posters was threatened with death over some remark he'd made.
It's getting to the point where I can no longer excuse the barbarity of the Middle East, no more than I can excuse the brutality of an organization like the LAPD or the BATFE. For me, at least, there are far too many occurrences to be dismissed as simply isolated incidents.
And that's what sucks. It's doubly infuriating and saddening, because you can see these cultures hammering their own epitaph into a tombstone, and they don't even know it.
