It’s Spreading! Monitoring Internet Activity Proposed in Europe

I’m not really picking up your point here, Josh. Is the President supposed to be concerned with winning popularity contests in Arab countries? I wonder what FDR’s popularity was like in Japan, in say 1943. Were you to have posted something regarding his popularity here, at least there would be a discussion. Certainly, a politicians favor with his/her constituents is a valid measure.

-Chin

It looks like you meant to leave this comment on a different post…

The point of the post in question was to juxtapose the recent polling in Arab countries with Bush’s 1999 statement on the campaign trail that he is a uniter, not a divider.

I wouldn’t say the President should be “concerned with winning popularity contests in Arab countries.” I do, however, think the statistic is quite telling and is something to be concerned about. For most of the world, George Bush represents the American people. Muslims living in the Middle East will never know you or me, so they judge us by our leaders. Do you think it is acceptable that our “leader” has given them such a negative impression of us?

Regarding Bush’s popularity here, that horse may have ran its last race. His approval rating seems to have been flailing between 30 and 35 percent for quite a while with no sign of improvement. If you’d like to discuss that, we could. I just thought the extent to which he is hated in the Middle East was a more interesting, and less talked about, issue.

A NOTE TO LIBERALS: Many of you like to claim that Islamic hatred of the west is seeded in the interventionist policies of the Republican Admistration. Here’s some food for thought. Perhaps Muslims, devoutly religious, are deeply offended by the debauchery routinely beamed to them by your friends in the media and Hollywood. Simply consider that their attitude toward us may, at least in part, not be based on what we do ‘over there’ but how we live ‘over here’.

That may be true in part but I assume that is a very small part of it. I have a really hard time believing that they are more concerned with what we do here than with what we do there.

Look at the other side of it. Most Americans couldn’t have cared less about radical Muslims before September 11th. Sure, some in Academia or public policy paid attention, but that was far from the norm. As soon as they brought their aggression here, we began to take notice.

So yes, I can agree that the images of our culture projected by television may play some small part in the overall picture. I don’t, however, think this compares in any way to the impact made by our foreign policy blunders.

To Chin in response to your “note to liberals” -

Which Muslims? Living where? “Devoutly religious” - who does that refer to? All Muslims? Of what social class are the “devoutly religious Muslims” you refer to? What race do they belong to and what language do they speak?

If we lump all Muslims into one group and then say “they hate our freedom,” which is what you seem to be leading up to, then we’ve wandered far from facts. There are hundreds and thousands and millions of Muslims in the world, and generalizing for all of them would be extremely difficult. Do Muslims hate American media? I don’t know - I live in Senegal and I know a lot of Muslims whose lives are informed a lot more by 50 Cent than by bin Laden or Sayyid Qutb or any other Muslim radical you could cite.

You can wait for my article on the notion of “islamofascism” in the forthcoming issue, but for now, I will stand by the idea that the way people feel is usually a reaction to their circumstances. And before you yourself dismiss the idea that American interventions abroad in the 1970s and 80s fueled hatreds, maybe you could explain to me why most of our “enemies” in the War on Terror now - Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran - were places where America intervened financially, politically, and by giving training (including training in terror, in the case of bin Laden and other former Afghan mujahideen) throughout the 1970s and 80s.

If you want to debate the causes of “muslim hatred of America” with me, you better have some history and some facts. One cannot debate intelligently over sweeping generalizations of the entire Muslim world.

A NOTE TO LIBERALS: Many of you like to claim that Islamic hatred of the west is seeded in the interventionist policies of the Republican Admistration. Here’s some food for thought. Perhaps Muslims, devoutly religious, are deeply offended by the debauchery routinely beamed to them by your friends in the media and Hollywood. Simply consider that their attitude toward us may, at least in part, not be based on what we do ‘over there’ but how we live ‘over here’.

That may be true in part but I assume that is a very small part of it. I have a really hard time believing that they are more concerned with what we do here than with what we do there.

Look at the other side of it. Most Americans couldn’t have cared less about radical Muslims before September 11th. Sure, some in Academia or public policy paid attention, but that was far from the norm. As soon as they brought their aggression here, we began to take notice.

So yes, I can agree that the images of our culture projected by television may play some small part in the overall picture. I don’t, however, think this compares in any way to the impact made by our foreign policy blunders.

My point was directed more toward the hegemon argunment. I’m certainly not dismissing our governement’s foriegn policy. Far from it. I’m simply submitting two principles.

(1) Hegemony, on it’s own, is not evil. The term seems to be generally used only to describe official US foreign policy.
(2) The hegemony projected by the United States in cultural and economic ways no related the government far out-weighs it’s official (particularly military) actions.

And to some (not nearly all) those cultural and economic models on an affront to their sensibilities. Certainly, there are Millions of Muslims the world over who have integrated certain aspects of US culture. And some of that has been reciprocal.

But the current unrest revolves around religious motivators. Some altruistic, some contrived for political leverage. So it seems foolish, IMO, to not address the issue wholly and at least acknowledge that many aspects of Western culture are deeply offensive to certain segments of conservative Muslim culture.

You’ll note that I addressed this in my note to conservatives. The point being…Many of the things that offend a conservative Muslim also offend me. So I, as a conservative find that I am in agreement with Islam on certain issues. But that is not what is projected to the world from a “PR” standpoint.

What is projected is “Girls Gone Wild”, “Same sex marriage”, no fault divorce, the celebrity of promiscuity and poor parenting, consumerism, waste, fraud that goes on punished, laziness and a desire for ‘easy and ‘quick’ fixes. What we export to the world is McDonald’s and Coca-Cola.

I’d just ask that you take a little tour of the world and see what they see. Then decide whether that perception represents you and your values. Then ask yourself what impression you would have of yourself if that were the only picture presented. The term “Great Satan” could easily come to mind to a person of faith.

I would ask you again, which Muslims are you referring to? Many of the writers here at The Seminal are currently at various places in the world, “taking a little tour,” as it were, and it would help us to debate issues if you could be more precise.

I think I’ve made that clear. It would seem to be an excercise in semantics to continue that path of questioning. The central point is that amoral behavior is offensive to people of faith, which would include Muslims. The more devout the individual and/or the more offensive the behavior is a a matter of degree and will vary from culture to culture, household to household. Wouldn’t you rather address the crux of my statement rather than in engage in a litany of qualifiers?

You have not made your subject clear to me.

Check it out. What if I gave you a statement like this:

“Many deeply religious Christians in America support the killing of doctors who perform abortions.”

Is this statement true or false? I don’t know - and maybe we need more information before we can talk about it. Similarly, talking about “deeply religious” Muslims being hostile to American culture is simply too broad to be meaningful. My “endless litany of qualifiers” is rather a request for facts - in fact, basic matters of geography, nationality, etc. Such information is hardly trivial. I cannot address the “crux of your statement” until you tell me what we are talking about.

I repeat, I live in Senegal (a 95% Muslim country) and I know a number of deeply religious Muslims who are in fact interested in traveling to America and learning about our culture; they receive our media messages constantly and while American culture is not their culture, they are influenced by it and their relationship with it cannot be described as one of hostility. So who are we talking about? Because I would argue that there is no one - not you, me, or any Muslim person - who can speak for Islam as a whole or for Muslims in general.

If you cannot or will not specify which Muslims you are talking about, then I think we should put this discussion on hold until you have read my Islamofascism article, which drops here at the Seminal March 1st. Maybe we’ll have more to talk about after that, instead of going in circles, which we could perhaps both agree is what we’re doing now.

“Many deeply religious Christians in America support the killing of doctors who perform abortions.”

Strawman. Nowhere in this thread have I equated killing with Islam. Perhaps too, you should visit my site and read up on the posts I’ve made regarding Moderate and progressive movements within Islam. I think you saw ‘Conservative’ and “Muslim” in the same post and jumped to some conclusions. Maybe A brief glance around can help with some of the intitial jab-parry. That said, I WILL call a spade a spade. Religious fanaticism has caused countless lives over the history of mankind. Islam is not immune.

Religious fanaticism has caused countless lives over the history of mankind. Islam is not immune.

Of course Islam is not immune, but I think the point here is extremists are extremists, wherever you find them. One’s faith or ideology are only incidental to the heart of the matter. For example, extremists can be found in Christianity, Hinduism and Judais, or communism and nationalism for that matter. An extremist’s ideology may inform the context in which they present their arguments, but extremist views don’t necessarily flow from their professed “isms”. That’s why I think Ish was trying to define the argument a bit more, seeing as Islamists don’t trend towards violence just like any other “ism” doesn’t. And obviously lumping together all variations of Islam as a violent or extremist religion does a great dis-service to everyone. Not that this was what you are saying, but it is a common mistake these days unfortunately.

All point I agree with. And nothing I have posted should lead one to conclude otherwise. Antone want to address the point now?

I cannot resist a joke - religious fanaticism has certainly “caused” a lot of lives over the history of mankind, as deeply religious communities are often known for their high birthrates. But “cost lives” or “caused deaths” is also true, sadly.

I’m leaving this debate until after the March issue drops. Chin, throwing around terms like “strawman” and “semantics” might work in high school debates, but if you want to really get into an issue with me you need to be specific.

I looked around your site some. From what I see, you parrot the party line from the Bush Administration. While I share your patriotism for America, I do not come to the conclusions you do. Maybe we can end on that note, that we both have a love for our country and are passionate about our ideas.