How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

  On 4/14/2013 at 4:31 AM, luke viia said:

I read your post -- it was a damn interesting point indeed. I wish I was more educated in the international politics and US involvement in the middle east, but the concerns you raise seem valid to me, and I am largely on the same page as you when it comes to most political topics. I had no idea about that anthrax bit though.

The Anthrax thing is especially egregious because even if you believe it was a crazy 'lone nut' that sent it out on his own and tried to frame muslims, the fact is that the Bush administration made sure that the emotion and terror of thinking we were going to be continually attacked still remained (even after they knew it wasn't external). 9/11 wasn't enough to get us into Iraq, they needed something else and Anthrax was the knockout punch. John McCain appeared on the David Letterman show in October of 2011, just 1 week after the Anthrax letters sand said that someone in the Whitehouse told him it 'may have come from Saddam Hussein' . I just find it utterly psychotic, and not surprisingly Glenn Greenwald is one of the only writers to have written extensively about this fear mongering.

  On 4/14/2013 at 4:46 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 4:31 AM, luke viia said:

I read your post -- it was a damn interesting point indeed. I wish I was more educated in the international politics and US involvement in the middle east, but the concerns you raise seem valid to me, and I am largely on the same page as you when it comes to most political topics. I had no idea about that anthrax bit though.

The Anthrax thing is especially egregious because even if you believe it was a crazy 'lone nut' that sent it out on his own and tried to frame muslims, the fact is that the Bush administration made sure that the emotion and terror of thinking we were going to be continually attacked still remained (even after they knew it wasn't external). 9/11 wasn't enough to get us into Iraq, they needed something else and Anthrax was the knockout punch. John McCain appeared on the David Letterman show in October of 2011, just 1 week after the Anthrax letters sand said that someone in the Whitehouse told him it 'may have come from Saddam Hussein' . I just find it utterly psychotic, and not surprisingly Glenn Greenwald is one of the only writers to have written extensively about this fear mongering.

 

sounds like a good plot for a hollywood movie.

Craziness.

  Quote

As early as October there were indications that the anthrax attacks would be used as a pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

On an October 18 appearance on the David Letterman Show, Senator John McCain stated: "There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq." Then-ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross began circulating a story linking the anthrax to Iraq through the alleged additive bentonite, stating on October 26:

 

sources tell ABCNEWS the anthrax in the tainted letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was laced with bentonite. The potent additive is known to have been used by only one country in producing biochemical weapons — Iraq.... it is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program... The discovery of bentonite came in an urgent series of tests conducted at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and elsewhere," ⁶

In fact, that the compound bentonite was not found in the anthrax samples was admitted by ABC News in 2007. ⁷ Yet ABC News has failed to disclose the "well placed sources" on which the bentonite claim was based -- sources who used the network to promote a highly consequential deception.

 

(shitty formatting, my bad)

I know I've linked this before, but it's another good example of the media's selectivity:

Dirty bomb plot in US

Hey John, I read your post and it was interesting. And I agree with what usagi said about the need for nuanced opinions.

In fact, I was a polisci major as an undergrad, and I seem to remember it being said that, at least on paper, Islam is pretty decent towards women (unless you take offense at the whole "4 wives" business). For example, the power women have to initiate a divorce (the "triple talaq" thing). So, if we want to say that the abuses of Islam that we see around the world are "cultural misinterpretations of the text", I could be persuaded. I'm certainly out of my depth if we start discussing a strict or liberal interpretation of the Koran or the hadiths or whatnot. It certainly doesn't seem, on the face of it, that it's possible to have a "liberal interpretation" of Sharia law. But maybe I'm wrong. I know Turkey has been straddling the precarious divide between Western values and Islamic craziness for a long time, and they seem to be making it work, more or less.

And yet. No matter how you slice it or explain it away, women get shitty treatment in most (all?) Muslim countries.

There's another thing that really bugs me about the way I see Islam practiced. The whole "rote memorization and brainless repetition thing." The indoctrination and brainwashing seem (seem) quite extreme, even compared to other religions. Of course brainless repetition annoys me when Jews or Christians do it, too.

Anyhoo...

Greenmantle.

  On 4/14/2013 at 1:59 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'm curious what people think of untouchable islamic law countries like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Does the United States ...Or perhaps it's evidence that we use ... If US foreign policy ...?

...

Even the Palestinian celebration footage, such hardcore emotional manipulation during collective anger that is totally unparalleled in American history besides perhaps Pearl Harbor.

 

What I think would be important when reading lumpenprols post would be the question to what extent women are protected -by law. Or, in this context, women in a sharia- society (to put a horrid label on it). Imo, this discussion shouldn't be about us policy, other than: for all it's faults, there are still so many examples which are far worse when taking all you complaints against us policies into account. I know I wont get you to move one iota on your point of views, and that is not my intention either. I'm only trying to get you to understand that even though our opinions may be widely changing, that doesn't mean one is better than the other. IMO.

And to give you another form of propaganda, here's a non-islam related example of an attrocity where justice seems non- existent (as seen through a westernized set of eyes) :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/indian-girl-rape-stoning-threatened_n_3069177.html?utm_hp_ref=world

So my questions back: regardless of all the attrocities that take place in the us, what do you think of examples like this one? Are these incidents? Is this propaganda? If it isn't an incident, what could make that a society accepts this? Culture? Religion? What should a Western country do when it sees examples like this? Or better, in the example of lumpenprol, when a us civilian marries a man and moves to syria, what should the us diplomacy do in cases like this?

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:22 AM, Deer said:

...

Islam's tracking record on women's right is atrocious but to use this story against Islam is kind of bullshit because the whole thing would be different if the guy was a non abusive muslim.

The discussion is not about which society does it more, or which religion is worse, imo. It's about the kind of justice that takes place in certain cultures and what we, with our westernized set of beliefs should, or could think about it. As I 've mentioned earlier, violence against women is part of all cultures. But the difference is to what extent women are protected by law, instead of her family, for instance (see the young girl in the previous post).

Let me make sure I understand this. I am accused of hijacking the thread by talking about Islam's intolerance and then when the thread apparently gets back to the real topic at hand, we are talking about conspiracy theories.

edit: @ John

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:47 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:22 AM, Deer said:

...

Islam's tracking record on women's right is atrocious but to use this story against Islam is kind of bullshit because the whole thing would be different if the guy was a non abusive muslim.

The discussion is not about which society does it more, or which religion is worse, imo. It's about the kind of justice that takes place in certain cultures and what we, with our westernized set of beliefs should, or could think about it. As I 've mentioned earlier, violence against women is part of all cultures. But the difference is to what extent women are protected by law, instead of her family, for instance (see the young girl in the previous post).

Ignore that last sentence. I got confused by an example where a pakistani girl fled to afghanistan after she was married to (and abused) by a 60 year old, and almost got killed by her brother because of her running away from her pre- arranged marriage.

In regards to GoDel's point... I'll just leave this here:

  On 4/14/2013 at 6:40 AM, lumpenprol said:

Hey John, I read your post and it was interesting. And I agree with what usagi said about the need for nuanced opinions.

 

In fact, I was a polisci major as an undergrad, and I seem to remember it being said that, at least on paper, Islam is pretty decent towards women (unless you take offense at the whole "4 wives" business). For example, the power women have to initiate a divorce (the "triple talaq" thing). So, if we want to say that the abuses of Islam that we see around the world are "cultural misinterpretations of the text", I could be persuaded. I'm certainly out of my depth if we start discussing a strict or liberal interpretation of the Koran or the hadiths or whatnot. It certainly doesn't seem, on the face of it, that it's possible to have a "liberal interpretation" of Sharia law. But maybe I'm wrong. I know Turkey has been straddling the precarious divide between Western values and Islamic craziness for a long time, and they seem to be making it work, more or less.

 

And yet. No matter how you slice it or explain it away, women get shitty treatment in most (all?) Muslim countries.

 

There's another thing that really bugs me about the way I see Islam practiced. The whole "rote memorization and brainless repetition thing." The indoctrination and brainwashing seem (seem) quite extreme, even compared to other religions. Of course brainless repetition annoys me when Jews or Christians do it, too.

Anyhoo...

i was also a polisci major in undergrad. got a lot of exposure to muslims because of the area of the country i live in and the school i went to. i want to agree with you because in a lot of cases women in islamic countries are spit out by a system designed to subdue them. but then...i know enough cases that run counter to everything you're saying. maybe these are americanized or westernized muslims who are practicing a more liberal version of islam. i'm an atheist personally and don't really "get" conservative religious practice, but i've always believed that the stories we tend to latch on to in the media are the exceptions, the very extreme cases of abuse. and then how much of that abuse has to do with the religion itself and how much is on the people in power? how much is the ideal vs the reality that the men in power will use the religion for exploitation. it's a difficult thing for me to reconcile because while i find compson's posts to be utter nonsense, there is certainly a discussion to be had about islamic states oppressing personal freedoms for both women and men. i just don't think white people living outside of those societies should be the ones to have the conversation.

  On 4/14/2013 at 8:14 AM, zaphod said:

i just don't think white people living outside of those societies should be the ones to have the conversation.

 

Well too bad. This is a free country.

lol, zaphod's thoughtful post followed up by...that

you really are a troll aren't you?

next time just post "i know you are but what am i?" it's got the same power in an argument

Compson, last time I checked your postcount in this thread was in the 120s when the runner up was in the 40s. Could you please take a step back for a bit? I know I've made too many posts here as well, so I'll gladly join you.

My point is people in those countries can't have these discussions.

I agree with parts of the post. I don't mean to be a dick.

edit: Actually I did, but only because I have been called an idiot and other things. I am not a troll, but I'll admit that I do stir up the pot on purpose (and not in a way that helps my argument)

My apologies (seriously), I will step aside now

Peace

  On 4/14/2013 at 8:20 AM, lumpenprol said:

lol, zaphod's thoughtful post followed up by...that

 

you really are a troll aren't you?

absolutely 100%, if he was serious before he has become a full troll in the thread at this point. For saying something perfectly reasonable on the previous page I got called a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Its hard to have a conversation with you and Godel with that kind of shit happening.

@usagi

good to have you "come out" in the thread, as it were, with your credentials. Very curious to hear more about your thoughts on this. I guess what you are saying regarding rote memorization matches my impression (apart from the Imam Ghazali you mention).

Question: so, is there any tradition of inquisitive, free thought within the madrasa or higher education system in Islam?

So far, if I can try to sum up some of the points in this thread that maybe everyone would agree on, they might be as follows:

1) at very least, Islam has an "image problem"

2) we're all curious whether or not there's any tradition within Islam or Islamic countries similar to the West's enshrinement of: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly, basic human rights, etc

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:36 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 1:59 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'm curious what people think of untouchable islamic law countries like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Does the United States ...Or perhaps it's evidence that we use ... If US foreign policy ...?

...

Even the Palestinian celebration footage, such hardcore emotional manipulation during collective anger that is totally unparalleled in American history besides perhaps Pearl Harbor.

Why do I get the impression you're not really interested in what people think about Sharia law run countries? It's mostly about us politics and media. The only thing that seems to interest you about peoples ideas of sharia law is the extent to which people are brainwashed. Well, have fun with running that show. Been there, done that.

 

This is true, It's not something that interests me in the least. I'm more interested in the effect it (our Western impersonal view of sharia law which has been polluted by demonization) has on Americans and westerners who were sold the concept of the 'War on terror' as something worth investing in. I'll be continuing to 'run that show', feel free to come on the show at your choosing.

I think there are plenty of rational reasons to be critical of aspects of Islamic societies. Blanket criticisms like saying the Quran is 'evil' or things like that are blatantly ignorant and jingoistic. Which is why I appreciate in part your more rational approach to criticizing it, but yeah my focus right now is where the levels of fear instilled upon us as a population intersect with this supposed 'organic' well spring of criticism leveled towards islam. More often than not that intersection reveals a fundamental belief or faith in the state (in this case the UK and US government). I haven't run into very many people who focus this heavily on how Islam is bad that aren't also 'coincidentally' on board with the general flow of current US foreign policy. Now I'd be far more interested in having a debate about the dangers of Islam with someone who utterly rejects the premise in which current US foreign policy is framed. Without that framework for a debate I have a hard time even believing people's honesty in regards to their feeling about Islam. I'm just a cynical dude when it comes to this stuff, as you can probably tell. So it's not personal, and I hope no one is offended by me questioning their underlying reasons for focusing on Islam, especially if they also defend things like existence of Gitmo or indefinite warfare through drone strikes, etc.

In some ways it becomes circular at that point, if one has been a supporter of the war on terror more or less (maybe not of W himself but of his ideas) it's hard for me to believe their same views of Islam would exist at all if it wasn't for the amount of fear mongering they were bombarded by in concert by the entire western media and US government.

  Quote

 

So my questions back: regardless of all the attrocities that take place in the us, what do you think of examples like this one? Are these incidents? Is this propaganda? If it isn't an incident, what could make that a society accepts this? Culture? Religion? What should a Western country do when it sees examples like this? Or better, in the example of lumpenprol, when a us civilian marries a man and moves to syria, what should the us diplomacy do in cases like this?

 

I hate to seem apathetic, but again I'm not really that interested in dissecting these types of events, but I don't see it as propaganda specifically. Interestingly though you will rarely see stories like this about violent punishments leveled on citizens in Saudi Arabia, because they are our 'friends'.

I'm using the term propaganda probably more loosely than you're used to. For instance the fact that stories about Saudi Arabian atrocities are omitted from the Western press, or the Bahrain documentary was censored from CNN to me imply a lie by omission. Why do we only hear about atrocities committed by muslims in countries that the US generally has a completely different problem with? The problem being that they were at one time Soviet clients who still resist US imperialism.

  On 4/14/2013 at 11:57 PM, lumpenprol said:

@usagi

 

good to have you "come out" in the thread, as it were, with your credentials. Very curious to hear more about your thoughts on this. I guess what you are saying regarding rote memorization matches my impression (apart from the Imam Ghazali you mention).

 

Question: so, is there any tradition of inquisitive, free thought within the madrasa or higher education system in Islam?

 

So far, if I can try to sum up some of the points in this thread that maybe everyone would agree on, they might be as follows:

1) at very least, Islam has an "image problem"

2) we're all curious whether or not there's any tradition within Islam or Islamic countries similar to the West's enshrinement of: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly, basic human rights, etc

Ok, good questions!

I can at the very least direct you to the history of pre-Cold War Afghanistan. Mohammed Zahir ruled as King of Afghanistan from the 1930s to 1973? i think?. During his rule he modernized the economy, and drafted a new constitution which among other things, advocated certain freedoms of the press, and free elections, which were based upon universal suffrage rights (women and men could vote). His cousin and successor expanded on these policies, but factionalism and the rise of a communist party disrupted some of these progressive movements. The Communist democratic republic of Afghanistan had a bicameral parliament, emphasized coalition governments with many many other political parties, and oversaw significant economic growth as a result of the previous rulers' expansion into Western trading systems. Not to mention they were incredibly secular.

But basically the government collapsed due to Soviet/U.S. power-games behind the scenes, the Afghani war decimated their coffers, and of course the U.S.-backed Muhajedeen end up seizing power in 1992, putting an effective end to that.

So I'm glad you asked that question, because the case of Afghanistan illustrates how nuanced and complex the variables are in allowing extremist governments to take over.

I think there is a similar case with Egypt in the 1950s-1970s but I can't be arsed to look it up right now.

ok, started reading that Wiki entry on Al Ghazali. Interestingly, it sounds like he may have been partly responsible for the end of rational free thinking with the Islamic tradition:

  Quote

His 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. The encounter with skepticism led al-Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God.

The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna and Al-Farabi) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. Al-Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith.^{[citation needed]}

 

um...why do you like this guy, usagi?

fascinating stuff:

  Quote

 

Al-Ghazali's influence has been compared to the works of Thomas Aquinas in Christian theology, but the two differed greatly in methods and beliefs. Whereas al-Ghazali rejected non-Islamic philosophers such as Aristotle and saw it fit to discard their teachings on the basis of their "unbelief," Aquinas embraced them and incorporated ancient Greek and Latin thought into his own philosophical writings.

 

  On 4/15/2013 at 12:10 AM, lumpenprol said:

ok, started reading that Wiki entry on Al Ghazali. Interestingly, it sounds like he may have been partly responsible for the end of rational free thinking with the Islamic tradition:

 

  Quote

His 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. The encounter with skepticism led al-Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God.

The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna and Al-Farabi) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. Al-Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith.^{[citation needed]}

 

um...why do you like this guy, usagi?

yeah, I can't say I'm a particular fan of Al-Ghazali for the same reasons.

fun fact: there was actually a big opponent of Ghazali's works (i think it was Averroes but not positive), and challenged his publication of Incoherence of the Philosophers with a scathing critique called Incoherence of the Incoherent.

  John Ehrlichman said:

...

I'm using the term propaganda probably more loosely than you're used to. For instance the fact that stories about Saudi Arabian atrocities are omitted from the Western press, or the Bahrain documentary was censored from CNN to me imply a lie by omission. Why do we only hear about atrocities committed by muslims in countries that the US generally has a completely different problem with? The problem being that they were at one time Soviet clients who still resist US imperialism.

 

Wrt to your final remarks about Saudi Arabia, a couple of things need to be mentioned, I think. What I don't understand to begin with, is that this lack of open journalism wrt to SA basically holds for a large part of western society. And I think the reason is not as obvious as you would make us believe. For instance, France is fairly often on a completely different wavelength than the US. Almost to the point where it's comical. As far as I can tell, this is not some act which is being played out at the international podium. Regardless, my point is that I have difficulties believing the entire western society shuts up about SA because they're dependent on SA oil. At a point in time, the same would hold about Libya, but that didn't stop the Western media taking a critical look at it.

So, something else might be at play as well. Two things enter my mind:

1. SA have important investments in western media companies

2. SA has, like Birma for instance, a very closed society where not much can come out. So, it's very hard for any kind of journalism to take foot, regardless of some invisible hand behind the curtain.

What I do think is odd, is the point which Ayaan HA made in that youtube about her at Maher I posted earlier, and you referred to as well. If a significant part of the alleged 911 hijackers are from SA descent, how come the US didn't openly question SA? And even if they did, it was done behind closed doors carefully sidestepping any opportunity to criticize SA even if it would be perfectly understandable to do so.

Even when Israeli secret service had some killed by people with fake foreign passports a couple of years ago, the criticism was pretty/relatively open. Much more open than in the case of SA.