Who Is IOZ?: My Wife Is Not the Issue Here

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

My Wife Is Not the Issue Here

Look, book-burning is wrong, and I do not doubt that the scenes of a bunch of fat white Floridians cavorting around a Koran Kampfire will be receycled in the Muslim world, but honestly, Fred Kaplan et al., how many times will it bear repeating: the reason Muslims think that America is at war with Islam is because we keep bombing, invading, and occupying their countries! The reason "our troops" are in danger in Afghanistan is not that Rush Limbaugh hates mosques or that some Podunk preacher hates Islam's holy book, but because "our troops" are foreign occupiers.

63 comments:

LA Confidential Pantload said...: In addition also too, if the US of A wasn't involved in ongoing military assaults in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Where-the-fuck-ever, who would even be reporting on this clown? I mean, the whole hyperventilating media nonsense is about "endangering THE TROOPS," not "wingnut preacher torches rivals' Sky Fairy book." No TROOPS, no story.; 10:43 AM
Montag said...: book burning is wrong

aesthetically? or is it line in the sand stuff?; 10:59 AM
El Serracho! said...: well if you're gonna get all factual...; 11:16 AM
Leonard said...: That Koran really tied the room together.; 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Well I for one am deeply--deeply!--upset about the fact that David Petraeus's predator drones have burned at least one Koran every time they blew up a residential building in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Iraq. I mean, think about it. Is it plausible that a Taliban Number Three Leader would not have a Koran in his house? That's at least 341 Korans burnt right there! Not to mention all the houses they missiled on the suggestion of someone's neighbor who got sick of hearing their teenage son mangle the solo from Stairway to Heaven at 2 in the morning.

So someone tell David Petraeus to just stop burning Korans! It's inflaming the Muslim world.; 12:11 PM
Happy Jack said...: Is it plausible that a Taliban Number Three Leader would not have a Koran in his house? That's at least 341 Korans burnt right there!

Sure, but these guys are fundamentalists. They likely have dog-eared copies. I think I've read in the Boy Scout Handbook that the proper way to dispose of a Koran is with a Hellfire missile.; 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: book burning is wrong

What about e-books? Can I burn a kindle--that could have the King James and the Koran on it, not to mention the Da Vinci Code and Fanny Hill. And is it okay to delete a book from my hard drive?; 12:36 PM
Inkberrow said...: L.A. Confidential---

"Ongoing military assaults", with occasional interruptions, usually after military defeats, neatly characterizes the entire history of Islam to date. This consigns IOZ's "their countries" to its proper ahistorical context---you know, as when villainous non-Amerindians speak of America as "our country".

Nevertheless, in the sense that Muslims include the Holy Land as "our country", we do arrive at the modern-day version of the Real Reason our troops are at risk, in addition to being infidels. They are mercenaries of the great abomination that is the Israeli nation-state. The planned Koran burning is merely the latest noise or shiny object catching Godzilla's baleful eye in the middle of a Tokyo wade-through.; 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Inkberrow, the god of chum.

Doesn't "ongoing military assaults" kind of neatly characterize the entire history of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Nazism, Communism, Chinese corporate Socialism, and more or less every organized form of human religious observance other than Mary Kay Cosmetics selling? Mind you, you have to count Victorian England and Jacksonian America as "Christian," which I for one would be loath to do.; 12:59 PM
zencomix said...: It's all unicorns and rainbows when you're selling Mary Kay, until that Avon Lady Bitch tries muscling in on your turf.; 1:46 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 12:59---

Agreed, but in view of the topic here, haven't you proved too much?; 2:00 PM
rowan said...: You could flip it around just as easily - the reason Preacher Terry Not Monty Python Jones is burning Korans because he sees that we're at war with several Islamic countries.; 2:08 PM
LA Confidential Pantload said...: Inkberrow,

I'm reasonably sure that Islam hasn't constituted anything like a "nation" since the days of the Caliphate, nor do most of its adherents so regard it. But the US gummint seems to be doing its damndest to bring back those thrilling days of yesteryear by focusing its military attentions on regions (mostly nation-states, though that's a bit of a stretch for Somalia) that have high percentages of Muslims as inhabitants.

Well, except, of course, when the Malaysians treacherously attacked us at Pearl Harbor. And don't even get me started on Iran...; 2:19 PM
Inkberrow said...: Rowan---

Now that you've reminded me of it, the contemporaneous reactions to "Life of Brian" are germane to this conversation!

L.A. Con---

I was using "nation" the way I thought mod-progs wish it used, as artificial or pretextual! But once we've acknowledged the obvious yet again, that Muslims are not a monolithic entity, please let's not spend too much time trying to convince ourselves that for most practical purposes all Muslims have in common is the word "Muslim". If I defile the Kaaba during pilgrimage season, the national background of those in the vicinity won't really matter. Nor if I say the word, "Israel".....; 2:31 PM
le sans-culottes said...: ok, we get it. actually at war with islam. you've stated the same thing like 10 times in the past 2 weeks.

can we move on now?; 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Inkberrow. My post was primarily a critique of Mary Kay Cosmetics, you were only incidental to the ultimate design.

But since you ask, your "their country" schtick strikes me as a loony prejudice which you try to mask in a veneer of jocularity or irony. It seems little different from Gingrich (I think) purporting to interpret the Cordoba Project as a reference to the Muslim conquest of Christian Europe, i.e. that they want to colonize Ground Zero.

I don't think it's all that complex. Americans invading a country and destroying people's homes makes them angry at Americans. Same for Israel. Religious symbolism is just a way of expressing that anger metaphorically in a way that might be useful as a coalition building exercise, not least because getting invaded can be dispiriting.

Petraeus rightly points out that framing the conflict in religious terms is stupid from the standpoint of the secular American state, because it hands a weapon to people who are otherwise vastly outgunned. But this pastor doesn't give a shit because his target is not Islam at all, his target is the secular American state.; 2:33 PM
LA Confidential Pantload said...: Inkster, do you think that Salafi Sunnis have more in common with fellow-Muslim Shia than Prots and Papists in Ireland have with each other?

And regarding people behaving badly at the mention of "Israel," there are an awful lot of Christian Palestinians who do so (one of whom was a neighbor of mine for several years). Indeed, some of them even (gasp) resorted to violence - teh Google can probably fill you in on the history of George Habash and the PFLP.; 3:15 PM
Jack Crow said...: Don't tell Inkberrow about all those Muslims (Hafiz) and Muslim-Hindu mystics (Kabir) who don't fit his parochial, purist, Wahhab mimicking style of sweeping generalization...; 3:37 PM
Inkberrow said...: Sans-Culottes---

"Can we move on now?" Believe me, I'd love to. You might want to inform our host as well, to whose post we're responding here.

And who won the war, anyway? I only wish you'd had Major Hasan's ear instead of Al Awlaki. Are you available for a diplomatic mission to Yemen?

L.A. Con---

For our purposes here, anyway, yes, I do. Unlike the Orange and Green, the Sunnis and Shiia have common external enemies which trump their own mutual emnity when push comes to shove. The Orange are the legatees of the Green's hated external enemies. Like Israel is to both Sunnis and Shiites.

On there being violence and blame to go around in the Holy Land, agreed. My point is that most regulars here seem to explicitly and implicitly afford Muslims alone a spot-zone exception from personal and group accountability, from the obligation adults have to control themselves. They yell their their pain the loudest, I guess. When I point out the spot-zone in operation, it's "Why are you singling Muslims out?".; 3:49 PM
la Rana said...: The "implicitly" is meant to absolve your gross incompetence, because the dynamic here is perfectly plain: every time IOZ mentions that some muslims have legitimate greivances (like, say, exploding their families and friends into tiny bits on a daily basis), you concoct some racist but otherwise inscrutable nonsense, and when people call you on either the racism or the nonsense you declare them to be practicing apologetics for murder. No one ever says muslim violence is ok, or excusable, but you repeatedly insist its what we meant to type if only we spoke from the heart. I mean, we've played this game a'plenty.

The dynamic you describe only exists in your head, and you are determined to thrust it from page to reality through repetion, lest you acknowledge, as you surely know, that without it you are little more than a racist monster.; 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't call him racist, poor little lamb, call him a Person of Affinity.; 6:07 PM
le sans-culottes said...: dude, why?; 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: it's the sheer silliness that gets me. like, how is Israel the "legatee" of Saudi Arabia's or Pakistan's or Prince Waleed's hated adversary??? These are opinions that only work in a universe of pure symbol. So I look at it as a cognitive defect. also, my sense is that getting pissed only puts wind in his sails.; 6:21 PM
Professor Coldheart said...: the Sunnis and Shiia have common external enemies which trump their own mutual emnity when push comes to shove.

Was the Iraq Civil War just static to you? Just a big mess o' gibberish?; 7:10 PM
Cüneyt said...: Ooh, yay! We got Inkberrow to abandon the notion of any national sovereignty, because guess what! Every country has been taken by force.

Fucking hell.; 8:11 PM
LA Confidential Pantload said...: Inkberrow, actually I chose the Irish example specifically because it doesn't conform to your Borg-like impression of Muslims, which makes no sense and that I am starting to suspect is a parody. Consider Wolfe Tone, often regarded as the father of Irish nationalism, or for that matter Charles Parnell. Green? Indeed. Catholic? Well....no.

Religion sucks, period. I'm no defender of Islam or any other religion, but I don't see anything you say that has a point. Sorry.; 10:36 PM
Rojo said...: Well, pardon me for hijacking the thread and crying pardon to those who might accuse me of being a "fan-boy," but I thought this might slightly tickle the funnybone of various ne'erdowells that frequent these parts.

I give you "Why Mommy is a Democrat" and "Why Daddy is a Democrat" here: http://littledemocrats.net/Democraticbooks.html

(Be sure to click the samples!)

And "Mama Voted for Obama" here: http://littledemocrats.net/Obama.html

I found the first to be far more amusing than the second, but ymmv.; 12:19 AM
Soj said...: When do we get to burn the US Constitution? Or can you burn a hypothetical document HMM...; 12:55 AM
Anonymous said...: If Jane Fonda was a traitor, what does that make the Rev? Considerin he's gonna do somethin that's gonna hurt the troops, ccordin to Petraeus.

So saieth the Old New Left.; 1:26 AM
davidly said...: Nothing is fucked.; 5:51 AM
Gridlock said...: I heard this clown on the radio saying that your policies are wrong and that it's time to do something about terrorism. I wholeheartedly support his platform of fewer invasions and more destruction of Bronze Age fairy stories.; 6:19 AM
Dunc said...: What about e-books? Can I burn a kindle[?]

You really don't want to be inhaling the fumes. That shit's carcinogenic. If you must, be sure to stay upwind.; 6:35 AM
Inkberrow said...: To Muslims anywhere, the Israeli state is the legatee of the Western European powers' resented "meddling" in "their" lands after the fall of the Ottomans and Balfour. Likewise, the Orange in Ireland are Cromwell's legatees.

And the Iraq civil war? Just what is the provenance of "Iraq", anyway? Ah, the storied history of that traditional nation-state.....

No one here "defends" Islamist violence---instead it's excused, rationalized, contextualized, and mitigated as a function of the same hackneyed Bad America/Bad West mod-prog tropes, along with the laughable (and patronizing) notion that violent Muslim orthodoxy is Just A Stage They'll Grow Out Of. It's never, ever deplored straight up, on its own demerits.; 10:31 AM
Mr.Fundamental said...: No one here "defends" Islamist violence---instead it's excused, rationalized, contextualized, and mitigated as a function of the same hackneyed Bad America/Bad West mod-prog tropes, along with the laughable (and patronizing) notion that violent Muslim orthodoxy is Just A Stage They'll Grow Out Of. It's never, ever deplored straight up, on its own demerits.

I guess I just don't get out that much. 9-11 was what, ten, eleven years ago? sumfing like that.

you're living in the fucking past.; 11:22 AM
la Rana said...: I appreciate the subtle retreat, but this is the same shallow ass-covering indignation we saw in 1999 and 2003: UNLESS YOU DEPLORE STRAIGHT UP MILOSEVIC/SADDAM YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YUGOSLAVIA/IRAQ. The point is the same in each case - to obscure the fact that the one making the demand is, in fact, the war crimes apologist.

deplored. straight up. on its own demerits.

now what? moral relativism kicks in? unless the concession that killing people is bad makes killing people right, you just cornered yourself.; 11:23 AM
Gridlock said...: YEAH BUT THEY KILL PEOPLE WITH STONES SO WHY DON'T YOU EVER COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT?!?!!1; 11:53 AM
Charles F. Oxtrot said...: Be kind to Inkberrow. He has tried to walk a mile in Binny Net & Yahoo's shoes. These Muslim-hating posts of his are just a hangover from trying to be like Binny.; 12:08 PM
PDA said...: fifteen hundred years of beautiful history, from Abu Bakr to Yasmine Bleeth, you're goddamn right I'm living in the fucking past!; 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: To Muslims anywhere, the Israeli state is the legatee of the Western European powers' resented "meddling" in "their" lands after the fall of the Ottomans and Balfour.

Haha! If you talk to an Arab on the subject of the Ottomans, you will get a right earful. It is just conceivable that Inkberrow may not know what hes talking about.; 2:11 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 2:11---

Think of what I wrote chronologically---fall of the Ottomans and then Balfour. Most people are aware that the Arabs fought the Turks in WWI once Lawrence showed them how. How that bears on Western hegemony and IOZ's "their [Muslim] land" characterization is unclear. Meanwhile, your feckless parsing is a poor substitute for substantive refutation.; 2:25 PM
PDA said...: well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.; 2:53 PM
Professor Coldheart said...: No one here "defends" Islamist violence---instead it's excused, rationalized, contextualized, and mitigated as a function of the same hackneyed Bad America/Bad West mod-prog tropes, along with the laughable (and patronizing) notion that violent Muslim orthodoxy is Just A Stage They'll Grow Out Of. It's never, ever deplored straight up, on its own demerits.

All right, fine.

For the record: I deplore anyone who uses an aerial vehicle (manned or otherwise) to kill civilians en masse for the ostensive purpose of regime change.

I deplore any culture that lynches gays and turns a blind eye toward men who beat women for not being sufficiently "subservient."

I fear any country that might acquire, or has already acquired, nuclear weapons, yet requires their President to meet the approval of a religious sect.

That good enough for you? I'll hyperlink this comment so we can refer back to it in the future.; 4:23 PM
davidly said...: There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.; 5:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Well my fine-feckled friend, the point is that if you talk to Arabs about the Ottomans today you will get a right earful. The Ottomans in case it has escaped your historical scholarship were Muslims. Their land by your calculus was Muslim. and yet, somehow the Muslim Arabs are to this day not thrilled about their occupation. It is therefore conceivable that the issue for many people in the region is not some violation of collective religious property rights but rather a specific pattern of abuse of people they identify with. Like, they think Israel is actually doing them wrong! And you know what? I think they're probably right!

What all this has to do with justifying violence is yet another mystery of your spotless mind. Consider this thought experiment. I believe my uncle to be an asshole. I believe him to have treated my aunt badly. I do not however believe my cousin would be right to beat him up.

Is that so hard?; 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: @5:32 Anon

Ja, becaus Amerika ist GUT!

Und vat ist GUT, ist not VRONG!

Vat iz zo hard to understant? Ju vill marsch all night untill ju understant!

Haupts'führer Obvious; 5:46 PM
K. Ron Silkwood said...: I deplore "violent Muslim orthodoxy" straight up, on its own demerits. Easy for me to do as I deplore all violent assholes, especially those who form gangs.; 6:15 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 5:32---

With your family thought experiment, we reach total agreement, and it feels good. Neither should your cousin single out your uncle's friends for retributive violence, nor people with his same surname. That would be almost as foolish as sanctimoniously casting poor Terry Jones as a Player here, and the proximate cause of harm to U.S. troops at the hands of Islamist thugs.; 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah but the other side of it is that you'd have to be pretty asinine to infer from the fact that my cousin did what he shouldn't of, and tore the old man a new asshole, that cousins of me have a predisposition to violence. It would be almost as dumb as making a moral issue about U.S. soldiers harmed by "Islamist thugs"!

Anyway, as a history buff the term "thug" may not be one you want to use in this context.; 7:31 PM
Charles F. Oxtrot said...: It's pleasing to see the focus shift from a religion in Inky's case, to whole countries (in Prof Coldheart's 4:23 PM case -- no offense, Prof... just using an example), without anyone examining the personal level of behavior.

So this is about

how "Muslims" behave?

how "a whole country" behaves?

And not about how a particular person has behaved?

That Inky, he's so clever, with his distractions and detours!; 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, we'll likely agree that general behaviour of some groups of hominids is the issue here.

It's just that the group is not the "muzzlimz", rather the 'merkin gubmint, its willing enforcers, and the enabling 'merkin public.

Such worship of "might gets right" was last seen in Europe in Nazi Germany. Burma, NorthKoreea, Cuba,and Kampucha do offer more recent examples. Does the 'merkin's german ethnic background play a role in usa's downfall style?; 11:06 PM
NutellaonToast said...: How come I have to deplore Muslim violence but Inkie doesn't have to deplore American violence?

IT'S NOT FAIR!; 2:37 AM
davidly said...: Won't somebody please think of the troops!?; 4:09 AM
Anonymous said...: If we all just deplore Inky really hard at the same time, will he go away?; 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Fair? Who's the fucking nihilist here?; 8:44 AM
IOZ said...: Some girls' mothers are bigger than other girls' mothers.; 9:06 AM
NutellaonToast said...: Alright, fine, I'll take the money you have on you and we'll call it even.; 11:11 AM
Inkberrow said...: Nutella---

I do have to. Drone attacks, for instance, are rarely defensible (ethically I mean). It's just that here and in too many other places only the indefensible-American-violence egg is de-plored, to the feckless exclusion of the indefensible-Muslim-violence chicken. All because of a few generations of anti-imperial (read: anti-capitalist) conditioning in the cultural-Marxist academy.

Charles F.---

What I object to is the functional conception of certain patronized Aggrieveds as pull-string automatons once some Righteous Rage button has been pressed. Individual choice and group orientations are not quite mutually exclusive where activist Muslims are concerned.

Anon @ 8:00---

Do you really want me to go away? What good is the ritual choir if there's no rear nave?; 12:51 PM
Charles F. Oxtrot said...: Look at how you slipped it in there, Mr Date-Rape!

"...where activist Muslims are concerned."

Fucking triumphant!; 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Rear nave? More like a back passage.

If there were a genuine counter-argument being offered I'd be interested. Instead what we have is this tiresome, repetitive effort to shut down a fairly uncontroversial causal analysis (U.S. military presence has provoked violent acts) by harping on an ethical point that few if any disagree with. It's just noise, and it sounds a lot like intestinal gas.

By the way, of course the reaction to Terry Jones, and to the "Danish cartoons," and to Salman Rushdie and so on are pretextual. No one says otherwise. The sepoys in 1857 did not really revolt (and commit atrocities against civilian British colonists by the way) because they were forced to lick rifle cartridges greased with pig fat. They revolted because they had been trapped in a colonial enterprise and it made them feel powerless. People are like that, it's not for me to approve or disapprove, it's just the way it is. If that makes Inkberrow uncomfortable he should find some other species to yammer on about.; 1:48 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: I suppose it is better to burn the Koran than to burn actual Muslims, so there's that. Inky prolly thinks we're weak sauce for not burning real live Muslims.; 4:14 PM
Kafka said...: I'm pretty sure we do burn real live Muslims...if I'm reading the post right; 7:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes we do.; 1:13 PM
mac cosmetics outlet said...: I think this is a great post. One thing that I find the most helpful is number five. Sometimes when I write, I just let the flow of the words and information come out so much that I loose the purpose. It’s only after editing when I realize what I’ve done. There’s defiantly a lot of great tips here I’m going to try to be more aware of.; 8:10 PM

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

My Wife Is Not the Issue Here

63 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive