Based on this "open-minded" op-ed, apparently "liberal" thinkers are no longer content with separating Islam from "radical" Islam: now, we are told, radical Islam itself is "not monolithic," and that there are perhaps some nuanced forms of "radical Islam" that are infidel-friendly. More on this story. "Extremist Movie Influences Election," by Tim Fernholz, for the American Prospect, September 24:
Obsession, a controversial movie about terrorism funded by a right-wing organization, is now being distributed in swing-states to perhaps millions of voters. Muslim groups are calling for an investigation to determine if this is being done to influence the election. Short answer: It probably is.[...]The film, such that I've seen, combines slow-mo footage of terrorist attacks and chanting terrorists with terrible analysis.
For instance, it conflates every vaguely related radical Islamist terrorist attack into one unitary war -- suggesting, for instance, the Beslan massacre in Russia was somehow connected to 9/11. And I thought we'd gotten past the idiotic monolithic theory of terrorism.[...]
Here's what we need to know: Radical Islam is not monolithic. It is not a clear and existential threat to the future of the United States of America...
"Here's what we need to know: Radical Islam is not monolithic. It is not a clear and existential threat to the future of the United States of America..."
-- from the article above
Posted elsewhere but relevant here as well, a comment on the phrase "existential threat":
Not a "threat" mind you, made by Camus to Sartre in the dark corner of a cafe -- something about grinding deux mégots, the worldly remains of deux cigarettes dans l'ombre -- -- into his, Sartre's, froggish face because of his failure to praise the deep philosophizing in "The Stranger." Not a threat made by Sartre to Simone de Beauvoir because she failed to notice a philosophical nicety in "Being and Nothingness" about which Sartre had been especially proud (and having nothing to do with her making nice, or making too-nice niceties, with Nelson Algren). Not a threat uttered against all of them, Sartre, Camus, Simone de Beauvoir, and whatever contributors to La Nouvelle Revue française happened to be present that night, by an exasperated Boris Vian, having a tough time making even his loud "Fais-moi mal, Johnny " heard over the din of all the back-stabbing and mutual existential threatening going on at various tables and au zinc.
No, that's not what the phrase "existential threat" means. An "existential threat" means, nowadays when everyone and his brother finds it a fine phrase and uses it unthinkingly (always the least stressful way to go about your business) a portentous way of describing a really big threat, a huge threat, a superduper threat, a threat to the continued "existence" of somebody or something, country, a people, a civilization. Iran is said, for example, to represent an "existential threat" to Israel. That's not a good way, that's a confusing way, of attempting to express what is meant, which is that Israel's continued existence as a nation-state, a Jewish state, is threatened by Iran, or more exactly, by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Everyone's quite stupid enough as it is. Do we have to encourage, by passing over in silence, these efforts to make us even stupider?
"I've only seen the first ten minutes of the movie
...
P.S. I'll try to watch the rest of Obsession when I have a chance, and offer a full critique."
:)
For that matter, Fascism wasn't monolithic. There were big differences between Franco and Hitler and Mussolini. So what? Does that mean that an ideology has to be monolithic to be a threat? What inanity.
Obsession didn't say that Beslan was tied directly to 9/11, but it did talk about connecting the dots and seeing radical Islam as a worldwide danger stemming from a common ideology, which is something this Fernholz moron can't grasp.
I won't even begin to use html tags to bold what Raymond did above, because there is just so much wrong with this fool.
As it seems to me, this is the first such declaration by any writer, journalist, pundit, whatever, to question the simple and open fact that every vaguely related radical Islamist terrorist attack is apart of one unitary war.
For G-d's Sake, do we need to abduct these people (Tim Fernholz, to start), lock them in a small room with nothing but the Korant and all other attendant zombie war manuals for say, six months. That the condition of his/her release is a perfect 100% pass rate on a 10,000 question test?
I certainly second Hugh's analysis on this very topic.
Not everyone can be this stupid. It takes real talent.
"P.S. I'll try to watch the rest of Obsession when I have a chance, and offer a full critique."
Why do we keep having to be bombarded by unashamedly infantile analyses? Can you imagine that sentence at the end of a junior high school paper (of course, but with a passing grade?)?
Here's what we need to know: Radical Islam is not monolithic.
You know what would really help this discussion? If the people who parrot this refrain would give us an example of something they do think is monolithic. We could them compare that entity to "radical Islam" to show in a side-by-side comparison that if their "monolithic" entity warrants the description "monolithic", "radical Islam" warrants it equally as much.
The west's young are being dumbed down. Has anyone watched Jay Leno's Jay Walking? as sneak peek into the problem. When you can't name the Vice President, recognize Pelosi's photo but can point to Maine on a map identifying it as Alaska, what should one expect from the leftard washed and gullible population in the making?
Concerned Citizen, speaking of a 'passing grade', a liberal commentator on one of the evening Fox or CNN shows (forget name) said Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President because she did not attend an 'elite' university. (As opposed to Obama that is) Their narcissism is astounding. This, it seems, is the new religion of our times.
I guess that's code for "Ivy League."
I would presume, then, that all of us "gradi-ates" from them thar SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 schools are uneducated, gun-toten', G-d worshippin', beer-drinkin' morons?
(No offense to conferences not mentioned.)
Here's what we need to know: Radical Islam is not monolithic. It is not a clear and existential threat to the future of the United States of America...
Does the author feel the same about Christianity, which has so many sects I can't count them all, or does he see all Christians as threats to the First Amendment's separation of religion from government?
THAT is just one threat posed by radical Islam. It would completely undo our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. But then again, this author probably has no religious convictions and so he doesn't understand the threat. He doesn't realize that he could be forced to obey the laws of another faith.
Ignorance truly is bliss.
I'm certainly not a scholarly intellectual but I am amazed, confounded, and completely mystified by people like this idiot. Likewise the idiots that consider Obsession "hate speech". I have really tried to understand how some people do not feel threatened by islam and muslims and I always end up with the same conclusion: they do not understand the ideology or the people. What other explanation could there be? But intelligent, educated, well-read people watch the news, read newspapers, surf the web, and listen to the radio and learn that muslims are killing, bombing, decapitating, torturing, stoning, hanging, maiming, raping, rioting, and incessantly whining about being persecuted. Why aren't they outraged? Why can't they see the religious motivation? Why do they defend barbarians? Even if muslims had legitimate grievances, how could anyone condone their savage behavior? How could people who are supposed to be so learned, informed, and wise be so blind and stupid?
Are they like Dinesh D'Souza, who is too lazy to study islam for himself and is content to believe the drivel of apologists like Esposito? Or are these people too scared to face the truth, just like muslims are too scared to face the truth about islam? Are they too lazy and complacent to contemplate the mess we're in, so they simply deny there is a problem with islam?
I need to understand this for the sake of my own sanity, to understand why so many people either deny or downplay the most serious threat we have ever faced. I know I am not crazy, paranoid, or inclined to exaggerate and overreact. How can something so obvious, blatant, ubiquitous, deadly, and so easily verified be ignored, gainsaid, or trivialized by putatively intelligent people?
I never thought I would live to see the day people would be castigated, condemned, and cursed for telling the truth or trying to warn others of a lurking, deadly menace. I can understand the muslim anger and distress over the distribution of Obsession; they've been busted and they don't like it. Too bad. But for American newspaper executives to refuse to distribute it because it might offend muslims is reprehensible. Islam offends me; what can I do about that? Why are a few muslims more important that the security of the entire country?
The American Prospect is a "progressive" or liberal rag partially funded by Soros.
Its only good if you want to know what the opposition is thinking. Beyond that its agitprop for its rabid secular liberal readership.
As for the article in question, the author's view of Islam is typical. To them Islam is just like Christianity or Judaism. Though many liberals already view Christians in a even worse light - they see them as our version of the Taleban.
But why do they defend Islam and its barbarities? because many of them hate the U.S. and West whom they were taught it is the chief source of misery and oppression in the world. .
How bad is their hatred? I remember after the 7/11 attacks in England how many liberal bloggers were estatic over them. Comments like "they had it coming", "thats the price for supporting Bush", were commonplace. Few expressed any sympathy for the murdered.
It seems to be concerned with the innocent and truly persecuted and to know evil is beyond them.
The article above says.. Radical Islam is not a clear and existential threat to the future of the United States of America...
Hey, then neither is the worlds biggest dam built with cracks in it above a city...
Every one knows the aims of the Mafia, thus if an operation is carried out by only a dozen of them does this mean that the rest of the Mafia are not in agreement with the operation.
Would it not be more so when the gang involved had a god who orders them to slaughter anyone who wont join their gang .
Doesnt it then stand to reason that these slaughters are sanctioned by it's gang leaders (government/clerics/Imams) especially when non of those involved are EVER charged there for not punish.
It would stand to reason that one would suspect that as these horrors are push and taught by many Imams/teachers as the honorable thing to do and these teachers/Imams are not stopped by the ordinary gang members and governing powers, that in fact the killers are the ones who are honored and look up to, after all the gang members are told that their god promises wonderful things in the after life if they are killed while slaughtering people from rival gangs, and that they and their families will be honoured and looked after by their leader.
Seeking more information about the author, it is revealed he was a senior at Georgetown University in 2007 (Saudi funded Esposito influenced campus)where he was Editor-in-Chief of The Georgetown Voice and wrote the following: Georgetown Voice, "Facing East, Living West"/"Two identities, two challenges"
and
". . .we decided to visit the Levant over the Eid al-Fitr fall holiday."
For instance, it conflates every vaguely related radical Islamist terrorist attack into one unitary war …
Here's what we need to know: Radical Islam is not monolithic…
Say what? These are some of the most wildly obvious "it's good to have an open mind, just not so open your brains fall out" statements I've read lately. The two sentences, and several others later in the article, are internally contradictory; they identify a single ideological source of terrorism in order to deny it as a single ideological source.
It is not a clear and existential threat to the future of the United States of America...
Talk about hubris. This is a real head scratcher too; it's pretty clear this ideology and the actions it inspires are existential threats to our constitutional government and the rule of law. Does the author actually need to see a smoking hole where a city used to be to get it?
Apparently the film goes on to suggest the roots of Islamic extremism lie in Nazi ideology, which is just completely wrong; if Nazism did have a tangible influence on radical Islamists it was negligible at best.
It seems more likely the influence was in the other direction: that Islamic theology influenced Nazi ideology. Hitler didn't have qualms about borrowing ideas he thought would work for him. He was said to have spoken glowingly about the militancy of Islam and lamented the fact that he would have build his army from Christians instead of Muslims. It makes more sense from a historical perspective.
Regardless of which influenced the other, if the author is unwilling to even spare the time to watch the video in it's entirety, won't read and educate himself enough to understand the parallels in the ideologies and acknowledge that they've worked together in the past, I can't see how he can be of much help. His tenacious ignorance is more of a hindrance than a help.
Hugh, although it's slightly OT, I'm with you in being irritated by confabulated phrases such as existential threat to to mean threat to the existence of. Same complaint about enormity being confused with enormousness, and other such mistakes and misuses of words. Your superb command of English means you must have a very long list of these. Would love to see you to do a full column about how misused words and phrases are used by Muslims and their apologists to distort reality.