Mr. Friedman is correct. It is quite simply delusional to pretend that certain interpretations of Islam (not nearly so esoteric as we'd like to believe) have nothing to do with the extremist violence we're witnessing - just as delusional as claiming that the entire religion is to blame. Let's not fall into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. The people committing these atrocities *are* Muslims, and their understanding of Islam has plenty to do with their actions; just as American Christians who decide to murder abortion doctors *are* Christians, and their understanding of Christianity has plenty to do with their actions. The ways in which people interpret belief systems, and indeed the holy texts at the foundation of those belief systems, MUST be subject to criticism.
25
Islamophobia is far deadlier and more dangerous than Islam has ever been.
4
The author of this article is obviously a Republican. It's so transparently biased against Obama his arguments can't be taken seriously.
2
Peter King had no problem demonizing the entire Muslim population of America. Surely Friedman does not approve of that? Especially since King has always shied from condemning IRA violence in Ireland.
Next we see that Boehner has invited Netanyahu to address Congress. No doubt many approve of that, but it surely smells of failing to condemn violence when it needs condemning, and accepts that "real Americans" can flaunt custom, and practice their own brand of exculpatory diplomacy (it also brings in campaign funds).
Next we see that Boehner has invited Netanyahu to address Congress. No doubt many approve of that, but it surely smells of failing to condemn violence when it needs condemning, and accepts that "real Americans" can flaunt custom, and practice their own brand of exculpatory diplomacy (it also brings in campaign funds).
4
It's sad how many of my fellow readers, who are so reasonable about all other issues, are still stuck on the "blame the west/US" mentality for all religious-inspired terror. It's sad and is only obscuring the actual motivations of those who commit terror. The Charlie Hebdo massacre has nothing to do with the West, or imperialism, or Iraq. It has everything to do with a very specific religious belief, believed by many (polls confirm this) but only acted upon by few.
Boko Haram has nothing to do with the west. It has everything to do with their religious beliefs, one only has to look at what they actually tell us.
The Islamic terrorism that occurs everyday in Syria has little to nothing to do with the west. It has everything to do with Assad slaughtering his own people at protests, which lead to the civil war and chaos.
Western imperialism does not explain a hideous human rights record in many (most?) Muslim countries (I am specifically talking about the rights of women, homosexuals, and anyone openly secular living in these countries). Even Indonesia has horribly high rates of female circumcision, which is a dreadful and barbaric practice. It's not a coincidence, just about all of the human rights violations are justified by the government through the scripture.
ISIS has been unbelievably clear in their public statements that their actions are motivated by their religious beliefs. They couldn't be clearer if they tried.
Boko Haram has nothing to do with the west. It has everything to do with their religious beliefs, one only has to look at what they actually tell us.
The Islamic terrorism that occurs everyday in Syria has little to nothing to do with the west. It has everything to do with Assad slaughtering his own people at protests, which lead to the civil war and chaos.
Western imperialism does not explain a hideous human rights record in many (most?) Muslim countries (I am specifically talking about the rights of women, homosexuals, and anyone openly secular living in these countries). Even Indonesia has horribly high rates of female circumcision, which is a dreadful and barbaric practice. It's not a coincidence, just about all of the human rights violations are justified by the government through the scripture.
ISIS has been unbelievably clear in their public statements that their actions are motivated by their religious beliefs. They couldn't be clearer if they tried.
33
I am in complete agreement with the general thrust of this piece. The mealy-mouthedness of the press secretary sounds like a Saturday Night Live sketch to me. It would indeed be comical it it were not so dangerous. the summit will be a waste of time if it does not address the ideological source of the majority of terrorist attacks around the world in the past few decades.
At the same time I understand the need to make a distinction between these monsters and good, peaceful Muslims who live and work among us and who do not accept that these acts represent them or their religion.
We need language that allows us to identify the bad guys while not lumping in the good guys or feeling like hand-wringing racists.
Can we not call the terrorists "Islamic-inspired extremists" or "self-designated Islamic jihadists" ? Any other ideas?
At the same time I understand the need to make a distinction between these monsters and good, peaceful Muslims who live and work among us and who do not accept that these acts represent them or their religion.
We need language that allows us to identify the bad guys while not lumping in the good guys or feeling like hand-wringing racists.
Can we not call the terrorists "Islamic-inspired extremists" or "self-designated Islamic jihadists" ? Any other ideas?
11
There are increasing and hurried voices who seem, like Friedman, very much
eager to have Islam and ISlamists named and categorized even as,
it is clear all over the world , stories and rumblings of anti Semitism push to the fore. IS this a zero sum game?
eager to have Islam and ISlamists named and categorized even as,
it is clear all over the world , stories and rumblings of anti Semitism push to the fore. IS this a zero sum game?
1
Mr. Friedman, your analysis is spot on. Thank you for sharing it.
16
My take on Obama is that he’s a Christian because he lives in a Christian country. If he lived in a Muslim country, he’d be a Muslim; in Israel, a Jew; in India, a Hindu; and so on. His natural place would’ve been among the old Universalists, because he seems to believe that there is a common faith experience, a natural religion that precedes revealed religion if you like, of which the distinctions of the various religions are cultural expressions, and the “details” of different creeds and confessions, which properly belong in the literature and self-help sections, can become an obstacle to appreciating their commonality, but those details are of great importance to many of us—and to some of too much importance: if others, who are not so high-minded (or indifferent), don’t believe that God is necessarily a nice guy, who would never hurt His creation, and all of His creation are brothers, there could be a problem.
4
Did you read Mr. Obama's account of his conversion to Christianity in "The Audacity of Hope"?
5
"Something else is also at work, and it needs to be discussed. It is the struggle within Arab and Pakistani Sunni Islam over whether and how to embrace modernity, pluralism and women’s rights."
This doesn't explain the fact that Western-born and bred, French- and English-speaking Muslims are flocking to the ME seeking glory with ISIS, AQIA etc. The Kourachi brothers certainly had plenty of opportunities to "hold a job and a girl's hand." So did the Tzarnaev brothers of Boston marathon fame.
This doesn't explain the fact that Western-born and bred, French- and English-speaking Muslims are flocking to the ME seeking glory with ISIS, AQIA etc. The Kourachi brothers certainly had plenty of opportunities to "hold a job and a girl's hand." So did the Tzarnaev brothers of Boston marathon fame.
15
Following in the footsteps of the Christian lads who responded to Bush's call to arms, eh?
2
If the terrorists are committing these acts for political, rather than religious, reasons, why do we not hear their political demands? There were no political demands made by the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. Rather, what we heard from them was the equivalent of "you insulted our religion so we must kill you." In short, if there were a true political agenda motivating these terrorist acts, there would be a list of political and economic demands. There truly aren't, beyond the global, and religiously infused, demand that all infidels leave, convert, or submit.
23
Political correctness is neither an attribute of liberals or conservatives. Rather it is a sign of obsequiousness to your boss. In the case of the case of the President, the boss is the American people.
4
Nonsense. Friedman is just parroting talking points for right-wing blowhards. (Sarah Palin made these same claims before.)
The question here is about the connection between Islam and various groups of Islamist extremists, and the connections that these various groups of Islamist extremists have towards one another.
There is good reason to see a significant break between Islam and these extremist communities, since the jihadists are not interested in listening to the many Muslim religious authorities who argue that indiscriminate murder in the name of Islam is wrong. (These authorities are not all "reformers"; this description suggests that they are going against the norm here in rejecting terrorist violence when in fact there is no such traditional norm to go against.) Blaming Islam or Muslims for the actions of these extremist groups would be like saying Christianity is a hateful religion because of the reprehensible actions of the Westboro Baptist Church: both untrue and an insult to Christians.
There's also good reason to see significant breaks within the jihadist community, since various jihadist groups have competing interests and take up arms against one another. Going to war with "radical Islam" would be dumb because there is no single enemy called "radical Islam" to fight against.
It is hard to believe that Friedman is ignorant of these facts. Which makes you wonder: why exactly DID he write this piece?
The question here is about the connection between Islam and various groups of Islamist extremists, and the connections that these various groups of Islamist extremists have towards one another.
There is good reason to see a significant break between Islam and these extremist communities, since the jihadists are not interested in listening to the many Muslim religious authorities who argue that indiscriminate murder in the name of Islam is wrong. (These authorities are not all "reformers"; this description suggests that they are going against the norm here in rejecting terrorist violence when in fact there is no such traditional norm to go against.) Blaming Islam or Muslims for the actions of these extremist groups would be like saying Christianity is a hateful religion because of the reprehensible actions of the Westboro Baptist Church: both untrue and an insult to Christians.
There's also good reason to see significant breaks within the jihadist community, since various jihadist groups have competing interests and take up arms against one another. Going to war with "radical Islam" would be dumb because there is no single enemy called "radical Islam" to fight against.
It is hard to believe that Friedman is ignorant of these facts. Which makes you wonder: why exactly DID he write this piece?
3
The percentage of American Christians who sympathize with Westboro (all 12 of them!), who've never committed a single act of violence by the way, probably hovers around zero. The percentage of the muslim world community - and I include my wide association of acquaintance with Muslims here in America - that at least privately sympathize with fundamerntalist Islamic violence against the west is astoundingly high, quite possibly a majority. To compare the two is an act devoid of purpose & logic.
18
I think Mr. Friedman has this wrong. It is fundamentalism, not the particular religion, that is dangerous. And these are deranged people looking for an ideology to hang their hate and frustration on. Mr. Friedman makes that point himself later in the piece. There is nothing "Islamic" at all about their violent actions or agenda, so why honor them with that name.
4
Mr. Friedman clearly has an important point about the Western response to terrorism, but he seems not to have any better answer than President Obama. He wants us to "help create space for [an] internal dialogue" within the Muslim world, but has no suggestions for how to do that. Does he think it would be helpful for the West to say that there is a problem in Islam and Muslims had better solve it? I believe Mr. Friedman understands all these issues very well and I hope he can offer concrete ideas for progress.
9
But is a conference on terror to be useless simply because it refuses to limit its purview to Islamic terror? There are and have been many authors of terror. The president may be unnecessarily dancing around the radical Sunni Islamists but this doesn't mean that terror us limited to this ideology. If it were, it would follow that to eliminate Sunni Islam would be to eliminate terrorism itself. Terrorism's causes are not Islamic. They are much larger than that. They have to do with human nature. I think it much important that we identify the UNIVERSAL causes of terrorism than only to focus on one outlet of it. This would be to address the tumor, but fail to treat the cancer.
3
The truth is like medicine. It's unpleasant and expensive, but you can't get better without it.
13
Fine, let's discuss radical Islam and its possible military threat to the former United States. Let's also discuss the principal proponent and financier of radical Islam, namely Wahabi Saudi Arabia and the reactionary Sunni Gulf States, which fundamentalist despotisms financed ISIL. There are very practical steps the US government could take to choke off the likes of ISIL, by sanctioning those states which finance ISIL and assorted terrorists; will they do it, or will they take the Saudi money and run?
Debates about other people's religious beliefs are absolutely fruitless; handwringing about semantics is needless posturing. Perhaps, in the end, none of these pundits or pols really want to do anything about it - it would take away their raison d'être - and the war games must be kept going….
As long as Mr. Friedman is urging "tell it like it is", why doesn't he advocate similar candor, describing the unequal relationship between Netanyahu's Israel, and its soi disant "American" partisans, and what passes for the US government?
Debates about other people's religious beliefs are absolutely fruitless; handwringing about semantics is needless posturing. Perhaps, in the end, none of these pundits or pols really want to do anything about it - it would take away their raison d'être - and the war games must be kept going….
As long as Mr. Friedman is urging "tell it like it is", why doesn't he advocate similar candor, describing the unequal relationship between Netanyahu's Israel, and its soi disant "American" partisans, and what passes for the US government?
10
Thomas Friedman is a man I consider intelligent, and usual pay attention to his words. It's for this reason I can't believe we actually have to explain to him why Obama should not call this the "Summit on Countering Radical Islam." You really want our government to explicitly take sides against a religion (even a sect of a religion)? you don't understand that our Constitution explicitly prohibits our government from officially opposing a religion just as much as it prevents it endorsing one? You don't understand that the religious beliefs themselves are not something our government wants to (or legally can) take issue with? Finally, even without all those reasons, you don't understand that the job of diplomats is to express things diplomatically?
I can recall no previous column by Friedman as flawed as this.
I can recall no previous column by Friedman as flawed as this.
8
It is a surprise, indeed! Fortunately, the President was a professor of constitutional law.
3
While I agree that we need to be clear that Muslim Extremism is a global scourge and we also need to identify in clear terms where it is coming from, I think you have to appreciate the media circus the President lives in. One small mistatement and it is front page news - globally. Let's take the best recent example. In a summer press conference (yes, the one with the khaki suit that got journalists, bloggers and pundits all excited) President Obama said, "We don't have a plan" with respect to ISIS. Now, this is an exceedingly complex sitaution. Obviously we were monintoring the situation and exploring responses as opposed to a ready, fire aim approach so popular in the GOP (see 2003 invasion of Iraq).
But this off hand comment was taken clear evidence that terrorists were going take over the world.
Mr. Friedman is asking the president to just speak his mind. That may have worked 30 years ago but it does not today. Mr. Friedman as a journalist should know actions speak louder than words. I can assure you that ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram are pretty clear on the adminstration's policy regarding Islamic Terrorism.
Does Mr. Friedman really think that inflamed language coming from the President is going to encourage the global Muslim community to start finally policing its own?
But this off hand comment was taken clear evidence that terrorists were going take over the world.
Mr. Friedman is asking the president to just speak his mind. That may have worked 30 years ago but it does not today. Mr. Friedman as a journalist should know actions speak louder than words. I can assure you that ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram are pretty clear on the adminstration's policy regarding Islamic Terrorism.
Does Mr. Friedman really think that inflamed language coming from the President is going to encourage the global Muslim community to start finally policing its own?
7
• We’ve entered the theater of the absurd.
There is one way out: OUT!
There is one way out: OUT!
6
Muslims must be the primary ones to deal with their extremists and terrorists, and US Muslims should play a leading role. If these groups are fought by primarily Christian forces from primarily Christian countries, they will frame it as a new crusade and recruitment will soar.
There needs to be a sort of Muslim foreign legion to oppose these fanatics, and the support their faith gets from oil money must be cut off. The Saudi government and Saudi individuals have been supporting a conservative Islam that, when taken seriously, easily morphs into something like Al Qaeda. These organizations use Saudi resources but ultimately want to take the corrupt Saudi regime down and replace it with a government that acts on its official beliefs.
There needs to be a sort of Muslim foreign legion to oppose these fanatics, and the support their faith gets from oil money must be cut off. The Saudi government and Saudi individuals have been supporting a conservative Islam that, when taken seriously, easily morphs into something like Al Qaeda. These organizations use Saudi resources but ultimately want to take the corrupt Saudi regime down and replace it with a government that acts on its official beliefs.
3
This has to be one of Thomas Friedman's best columns ever.
15
The primary fight is within Islam, but it sure seems that the moderate and liberal wings are losing the fight. The faith desperately needs a charismatic moderate leader, similar to Martin Luther (or Martin Luther King, for that matter), to unify a more tolerant and modern Islam against the fundamentalist right. They have the numbers on their side, but they are too fragmented and desperately need a leader to fill the vacuum.
6
The terrorism of today is a result of flawed US foreign policy driven largely by the special interest lobbies in Washington. The US has simply made the wrong alliances .....alliances which have resulted in the oppression of the peoples, offence to their cultures, and plunder of their resources. Exposure of such injustices is the single most effective tool for recruitment into the militant extremist groups we are fending off today.
6
As no multiple third-party investigations have been undertaken, and no facts present (other than radical state response and a broadly curious IL opportunism), the writer's thesis and assertions can only rest on a quizzical mixture of ideology and agency.
"What is truth on one side of the Pyrenees is error on the other." Blaise Pascal
"What is truth on one side of the Pyrenees is error on the other." Blaise Pascal
4
If Bush was wrong in declaring a "war on terror," terror is a tactic not an enemy, Obama is wrong to suggest we are fighting a nameless group. One the things that could be clarified is whether the war is really between Sunnis and Shiites with the West collateral damage or does ISIS and Al Qaeda really have designs on the West.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since 1928. Long before the U.S. invasion of Iraq and involvement in Afghanistan. It would be useful if our leaders and the public had a much clearer idea of the history and connections in these acts of war.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since 1928. Long before the U.S. invasion of Iraq and involvement in Afghanistan. It would be useful if our leaders and the public had a much clearer idea of the history and connections in these acts of war.
2
I am afraid you missed the point, Mr. Friedman. President Obama presides over a country that separates religion from government. In his power, he can only seek a POLITICAL solution to the problem, not a religious one. Global conferences are a good way to start. They may not produce money or goods or war, but do appeal to the human need for connection and understanding and solidarity. Just a thought.
6
The US founders built their philosophical justification for government on principles that do not invoke or require any role for a divinity.
4
Estimated 10% of 1.5 billion individuals. Fringe element? Really?
How about instead of mealy mouthed evasions and excuses, we help the vast majority of Muslims who are good people but need help in ridding this cancer from their faith?
A couple of places to start, as Friedman notes, is with our (supposed) friends, the Saudi's and Pakistani's!
How about instead of mealy mouthed evasions and excuses, we help the vast majority of Muslims who are good people but need help in ridding this cancer from their faith?
A couple of places to start, as Friedman notes, is with our (supposed) friends, the Saudi's and Pakistani's!
4
Totally agree with Tom Friedman, he said it the best.
5
So then we shouldn't either beat around the bush when describing acts of criminality and violence that emerge from radical Zionism, radical Christianity, radical Hinduism, radical Xenophobia, radical communism, and radical free-market colonialism. Just to make sure I understand Mr. Friedman.
5
Your analogies are far-fetched since adherents of the creeds you mentioned do not claim religious or doctrinal justification for the unprovoked murder of civilians. And the reference to free-market colonialism is derisory: free markets have nothing to do with "colonialism" which is the political and military control of a state by another one, much less with criminality and violence. The U.S. enjoys "free markets" within its borders and this has not caused violence or criminality. Ditto within the EU, etc.
The only example I can think of
The only example I can think of
5
I was going to add that anarchism, as practiced by some around the time of WW I, may be an exception where its adherents claim justification from the doctrine of the movement.
1
I am a Quaker--a member of a Christian sect with a long history of social activism including public protest--against slavery, for the right to vote, against war, etc. Often, these protests have been controversial.
The Westboro Baptists also call themselves Christians and engage in public protests. I find their religious and political views repugnant and believe they cause pain.
Must I acknowledge that the Westboro Baptists are coming out of my faith community? How about the radical IRA terrorists of recent history? Were they also part of my faith community because they were staunch Catholics?
Is the 'radical Islam' label really useful? I think not. I think that lumping a vast faith community under an identity created by a small minority of violent individuals is precisely what the terrorists want us to do. They want to polarize society because that will force more disgruntled young people into their sick orbit.
The Westboro Baptists also call themselves Christians and engage in public protests. I find their religious and political views repugnant and believe they cause pain.
Must I acknowledge that the Westboro Baptists are coming out of my faith community? How about the radical IRA terrorists of recent history? Were they also part of my faith community because they were staunch Catholics?
Is the 'radical Islam' label really useful? I think not. I think that lumping a vast faith community under an identity created by a small minority of violent individuals is precisely what the terrorists want us to do. They want to polarize society because that will force more disgruntled young people into their sick orbit.
8
Generally speaking, isn't fundamentalism an implementation of delusions about the political views of imaginary divinities?
2
"Must I acknowledge that the Westboro Baptists are coming out of my faith community? How about the radical IRA terrorists of recent history? Were they also part of my faith community because they were staunch Catholics? "
Yes. And it is our responsibility to stifle and neutralize those monsters in any way that is feasible, effective, and morally acceptable. Further, that responsibility falls in the first place on those of us who adhere to and benefit from the faith traditions in question.
Religious wars are a bummer.
Yes. And it is our responsibility to stifle and neutralize those monsters in any way that is feasible, effective, and morally acceptable. Further, that responsibility falls in the first place on those of us who adhere to and benefit from the faith traditions in question.
Religious wars are a bummer.
3
But doesn't labeling such violence that has occurred in Paris and on 9/11 the product of sone or another form of Islam show agreement with the terrorist view that the are in fact representatives of Islam in the violence? Do we no then legitimitise them in their own Muslim communities when they can say -- "See, even the President of the United States agrees with us that what we do is indeed the product of our Islamic faith" -- when even you, Tom Friedman, know better -- it is the product of evil, murderous cleric-teachers and their evil, murderous students, but not of the faith itself.
3
There is no meaningful difference between the Palestinian terrorists like the one that stabbed up a bus in Tel Aviv this morning, ISIS or any of the rest. Just as ISIS wants to restore the caliphate the Palestinians cannot accept that they were out-strategized and out-hustled by the Israelis who then won the war of independence in 1948. Much like ISIS that has no interest in co-existing with societies that do not want to accept its form of Islam, the Palestinians simply cannot abide the Israelis, as evidenced by electing Hamas to run Gaza. Hamas then destroyed the infrastructure the Israelis left behind and used all of the aid money that poured into Gaza to create terror tunnels and fire rockets at Israel. When Israel defended itself Hamas used its own citizens and human shields for its missiles. This is why there is no peace. It's really not that complicated.
6
Excellent op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman. It is critically important that we define who the enemy is lest America falls into a dangerous complacency, like France did, in dealing with it. Overall, I think Obama's "lead from behind" non-interventionist military strategy has been the right one for America--post Iraq War. That said, I don't understand his reluctance to call "Islamic Extremism" on the carpet for the eveil that it is. Who is he afraid of offending? I think the Jihadists would actually respect him more for addressing them and naming them directly. I'm sure that holds true for the scores of people these Jihadist Extremists butcher every day. Indeed, out of respect to the victims of Jihadic violence, these people and their fanatic brand of Islam should be named to avoid any confusion.
7
Friedman makes the same mistake as Obama. And also the same mistake as Bush with his "war on terror".
Government is not about ideas and shouldn't make generalizations about ideas and ideologies. It is about acts and actors. The fact that both Bush and Obama talk about ideologies instead is because they don't want to name the actors, because they are US allies like the House of Saud and Turkey and because the US isn't without fault either and prefers not to admit that.
Abstract denouncements of ideologies are good to satisfy popular sentiment that was shaken by the Paris attacks. But they won't have any effect on the future.
Government is not about ideas and shouldn't make generalizations about ideas and ideologies. It is about acts and actors. The fact that both Bush and Obama talk about ideologies instead is because they don't want to name the actors, because they are US allies like the House of Saud and Turkey and because the US isn't without fault either and prefers not to admit that.
Abstract denouncements of ideologies are good to satisfy popular sentiment that was shaken by the Paris attacks. But they won't have any effect on the future.
1
I dunno. Not sure what your strategy does, exactly. Ok -- He calls it a war on radical islam. Then what? What happens different than what is happening. Mr. Obama has very tricky relationships and therefore negotiations with the various factions of Islam -- Sunni and Shia -- and the nation states in which they reside. He has to get these people and try to keep them on board with the current assault on ISIS. Staying low key in what he calls things is a good approach. I know it would be great if he could just "throw it down" to the Saudi's and Iran and call out radical Islam... Haven't we been doing that over the years? Wasn't Abu Ghraib and all that circled that about showing our disrespect and anger at their culture and their religion? Billions of dollars and thousands of killed and wounded Americans later -- what did we get? This has to be pushed onto the nation states in the ME. This is their civil war and not one that we want to insert ourselves into recklessly. Lets be cautious and measured in our tone. We'll leave the name calling, accusations and shoe banging to the media
5
Friedman's article is code for Islam = Violence, a theme that seems to OK to a number of Middle East pundits. Seems a little morally smelly to me. Funny, that he has to put the moniker "radical" in front of his argument to make his point - he knows his generalizations are genuinely dishonest. He just can't control his emotional impulse to lump French terrorists from the Charlie Hebdo tradgedy with the same root cause of Boko Haram in Nigeria and Isis in Syria. Really - are all these problems simply "radical Islam" or is the world perhaps a little more complicated than Friedman understands.....
5
" you don’t see this in the two giant Muslim communities in Indonesia or India."
True.
And by a sheer coincidence, neither of these two countries is a US ally.
What ARE the US allies? Saudi Arabia which furnished the majority of hijackers on 9-11, and Pakistan where a number of school children were recently murdered.
If a nation is known by "the company it keeps" what can we say about the US?
True.
And by a sheer coincidence, neither of these two countries is a US ally.
What ARE the US allies? Saudi Arabia which furnished the majority of hijackers on 9-11, and Pakistan where a number of school children were recently murdered.
If a nation is known by "the company it keeps" what can we say about the US?
11
I'm all for "telling it like it is", and unfortunately, there is a distinct vein in today's extremism that is Muslim. Let's not forget Yigal Amir and his ilk, though, or Cliven Bundy and his, or Swami Aseemanand (though he denied it after he admitted it).
Fundamentalism has plenty of stripes and we need to address it globally. Whatever its foundation, the idea that any one religion has a lock on the truth is incompatible with a modern and necessarily pluralistic world. This is not a battle between Islam and the West, but between modernity and reaction.
What's needed is a whole-hearted embrace of "modern" liberal thought, à la John Locke, rather than an attack on one religion or another. It's sad that more than 300 years after Letters Concerning Toleration, so many still resist the evident truth of Locke's logic, but it's in part because so few still study the Enlightenment. When we remember Burke's comment about "those who don't know history..." and the context of Locke's Letters..., perhaps a wide spread refresher in Enlightenment philosophy could helps us quell or avert more "wars of religion".
Fundamentalism has plenty of stripes and we need to address it globally. Whatever its foundation, the idea that any one religion has a lock on the truth is incompatible with a modern and necessarily pluralistic world. This is not a battle between Islam and the West, but between modernity and reaction.
What's needed is a whole-hearted embrace of "modern" liberal thought, à la John Locke, rather than an attack on one religion or another. It's sad that more than 300 years after Letters Concerning Toleration, so many still resist the evident truth of Locke's logic, but it's in part because so few still study the Enlightenment. When we remember Burke's comment about "those who don't know history..." and the context of Locke's Letters..., perhaps a wide spread refresher in Enlightenment philosophy could helps us quell or avert more "wars of religion".
3
Like St. Paul, Tom finally saw the light on the road to Damascus. Islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance and it is to blame for much violence and we ignore this fact at our own peril.
4
Ok, let's call it what it is, religious extremism. It exposes a foundational problem with all religion. Religion teaches people that the world we live in is only a temporary place for us and if we practice our religion well, we get to go to a better place, if we don't we suffer for all eternity. Now imagine if everyone realized there is no better place than right here and right now, this is it, and you don't get a second chance. Wouldn't you take life a little more seriously and treat it with a little more respect? Of course you would. The root of the problem is religion.
2
A special anti -terrorism miltary force of division strength combining elite units from countries around the world could eradicate ISIS and Boko Karum and Al Quaeda infrastructure and decimate them!
Let's join together and use our collective cutting edge killing power to seek and destroy these Bronze Age mutants on the ground in their holes!
Americans -Russians and Chinese and British and French and Australians etc. fighting side by side in force and giving NO Quarter!
Let's join together and use our collective cutting edge killing power to seek and destroy these Bronze Age mutants on the ground in their holes!
Americans -Russians and Chinese and British and French and Australians etc. fighting side by side in force and giving NO Quarter!
3
Say it like it is? Okay, Mr. Friedman. I'll try to say it like I think it is. I think that killing a human being unnecessarily is murder. And I think starting an unnecessary war, like in Iraq, is mass murder, the culpability for which lies least, if at all, with the soldiers under orders, but rather the politicians who ordered it, and complicity is shared by the multitudes who supported it. Some of us, liberal & conservative, said this like it was in 2003 and like it has been continually each step in the long process of pre-invasion work-up, invasion, "mission accomplish", catastrophe, the surge/awakening, and the rise of ISIS. And we still say it like it is now.
6
What always seems to get glossed over in this debate is the responsibility Arab governments have for supporting both financially and in spirit the wishes of radical Islamic muslims living in their countries. For the last several decades, Arab governments, have done nothing do nothing to support moderates and the views of moderates in their own countries. For the last several decades, with the defeat of Germany the rise of communism, the establishment of a Jewish state in the middle east, and above all, social and political changes in favor of rluralism, equal rights for all religious and ethnicities, and the liberation of women and other oppressed minorities, especially those in the Arab world (see South Sudan, the Sunni0Shia divide, the Hasara minority in Afghanistant etc), Arab governments have become less liberalizing and more reactionary in their relationship to the world, to women, to other ethnicities and to other religions. Their government policies tolerating and even encouraging those those who practice jihad using radical ideology, radical interpretations, and violence send a message to other radical like ISIS who see who take things further and seek to overthrow them. By helping to impose a radical islamist hegemony in most all of their countries Arab governments are now reaping what they did sow for so long
6
The administration is not afraid of offending Muslims, or even Islamists. It is afraid of offending the US Left, a rabidly strict enforcer of political correctness, a left which the administration views as an essential part of its base.
9
“Terrorism has no religion. Really! Please read on
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks Bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The First World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay, Mumbai, India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The Nairobi, Kenya Shopping Mall Killers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
The Sydney, Australia Lindt Cafe Kidnapper was a Muslim
The Peshawar, Pakistani School Children Killers were Muslims'
Think of it:
Muslims march to spew venom against cartoonists in France for 'defiling' their prophet in the streets of Muslim countries none of which even allow non-Muslims to practice their faith
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks Bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The First World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay, Mumbai, India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The Nairobi, Kenya Shopping Mall Killers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
The Sydney, Australia Lindt Cafe Kidnapper was a Muslim
The Peshawar, Pakistani School Children Killers were Muslims'
Think of it:
Muslims march to spew venom against cartoonists in France for 'defiling' their prophet in the streets of Muslim countries none of which even allow non-Muslims to practice their faith
30
It began with Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 1968.
2
They evidently believe it brings them after-life rewards in a paradise. Why does that idea have any credibility to them?
3
Acknowledgement of a violent sectarian segment in Islam, based on fundamentalist belief in verses of the Koran and its supporting interpretations have been a long time coming in the pages of the NYT columnists.
Now if the editorial writers would only begin to admit that all of modern civilization is the target of a very large minority of fundamentalist Muslims who want the world to go back to the 7th Century. While the numbers vary from nation to nation, and in the degree of support from active radical to passive support, the results are undeniable.
There have been reputable polls of Muslims that show the numbers who are seriously active fundamentalist and those who sort of passively support them.
I'm not going to quote them here because so many of the progressives will simply argue against them without reading the polls and therefore have no basis in fact for their arguments. But if they do some research, they will find that even in the US the fundamentalists have substantial support in the American Muslim community.
Now if the editorial writers would only begin to admit that all of modern civilization is the target of a very large minority of fundamentalist Muslims who want the world to go back to the 7th Century. While the numbers vary from nation to nation, and in the degree of support from active radical to passive support, the results are undeniable.
There have been reputable polls of Muslims that show the numbers who are seriously active fundamentalist and those who sort of passively support them.
I'm not going to quote them here because so many of the progressives will simply argue against them without reading the polls and therefore have no basis in fact for their arguments. But if they do some research, they will find that even in the US the fundamentalists have substantial support in the American Muslim community.
10
Why do we (in the west) claim to know more about them (in the east) than they do about us? We seem to say, "We know why you commit these acts," and yet fail to see things from their point of view.
What I mean is that they (Muslims) see the West as Christian, just like Westerners think of all Middle Easterners as Muslim.
So, when we invade and occupy Middle Eastern nations, why shouldn't they think of it as Christian extremism? Do they not die by our hands?
This isn't to say that they (Muslim extremists) are justified in attacking the West, of course, but what are they supposed to think when they see U.S., French, English, and other Western military in THEIR countries? Seriously, what are they supposed to think? Do we really expect them to accept that we are there to somehow help them? Come to think of it, are we there to help them? Really?
Why are we in their nations? Why do we expect them to accept our military presence?
Put it this way: how would Americans deal with an occupying military force from the Middle East? And even if that military force weren't in our nation, but in a neighboring nation like Mexico or Canada, what would we do?
You already know the answer.
Finally, in America we only recently (within the last four decades) forgave the American Indians for their "random acts" of violence against settling Europeans and expanding European settlement. Yes, WE chose to forgive THEM.
Can't we see how ironic and insincere we must appear to the world?
What I mean is that they (Muslims) see the West as Christian, just like Westerners think of all Middle Easterners as Muslim.
So, when we invade and occupy Middle Eastern nations, why shouldn't they think of it as Christian extremism? Do they not die by our hands?
This isn't to say that they (Muslim extremists) are justified in attacking the West, of course, but what are they supposed to think when they see U.S., French, English, and other Western military in THEIR countries? Seriously, what are they supposed to think? Do we really expect them to accept that we are there to somehow help them? Come to think of it, are we there to help them? Really?
Why are we in their nations? Why do we expect them to accept our military presence?
Put it this way: how would Americans deal with an occupying military force from the Middle East? And even if that military force weren't in our nation, but in a neighboring nation like Mexico or Canada, what would we do?
You already know the answer.
Finally, in America we only recently (within the last four decades) forgave the American Indians for their "random acts" of violence against settling Europeans and expanding European settlement. Yes, WE chose to forgive THEM.
Can't we see how ironic and insincere we must appear to the world?
3
One reason not to blame Islam is that most people are (justifiably) sensitive to their religion being blamed or insulted by outsiders. To illustrate, there are many Israeli settlers on the West Bank who claim that their (often illegal) actions are justified by the Bible. If editorialists wrote about this as a problem with the Jewish religion, they would be rightly condemned as Anti-Semetic. And murderers of abortion doctors claim justification through the Christian religion. But it would be wrong to say that this reflects an inherent problem with the Christian religion.
Another reason to soften the rhetoric is that most U.S. media are speaking primarily to Americans, and we should treat Muslim Americans with great respect. They have earned it.
Perhaps Friedman thinks that he is helping by accusing President Obama of being too sensitive in his choice of words. If Friedman thinks that he is helping those who hate Obama, he is right. If he thinks that he is helping those who are severely prejudiced against Islam, he is right. If it means, that he is helping America to deal with terrorism, he is totally wrong.
Another reason to soften the rhetoric is that most U.S. media are speaking primarily to Americans, and we should treat Muslim Americans with great respect. They have earned it.
Perhaps Friedman thinks that he is helping by accusing President Obama of being too sensitive in his choice of words. If Friedman thinks that he is helping those who hate Obama, he is right. If he thinks that he is helping those who are severely prejudiced against Islam, he is right. If it means, that he is helping America to deal with terrorism, he is totally wrong.
3
One part of the problem is that in most Arab (Muslim) countries there is ONLY Muslim opinion allowed. And, much of that supports the more radical ideas, like how women are treated. They are definitely not Democracies with a free press.
8
Throwing out meaningless ad hominem labels on anyone who disagrees with the rhetoric of extremism is standard operating practice among ideologues. "Self-hating jew" and "anti-semite" come to mind much like "America hater," "socialist" and "dictator."
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
I guess I'm just smart enough to understand the argument that an "Islamic" label is no necessary. How exactly does it contribute to efforts to address terrorism? What am I missing?
3
Why President "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?"
Ask Egyptian President Al-Sisi at Al-Azhar. “It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our entire nation a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world ... we need to revolutionize our religion.”
“All meaningful and lasting change starts on the inside and works its way out” perhaps.
Ask Egyptian President Al-Sisi at Al-Azhar. “It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our entire nation a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world ... we need to revolutionize our religion.”
“All meaningful and lasting change starts on the inside and works its way out” perhaps.
4
Nope. Better to call out all extremism using that term, then to single out Islamic extremism. Here in the USA, extremists prevent sensible gun laws, leading to massacres, impose draconian anti abortion laws resulting in the maiming and deaths of countless women and ruining lives, block all attempts to rationally rebuild the economy and prevent future collapses, which needlessly destroys hundreds of thousands of lives. Extremism is vile in all its forms, not just the Islamic jihadist.
7
Are there *any* columnists for the NYT that don't blindly support Israel in everything?
This explains Friedman's Iraq War stance.
This explains Friedman's Iraq War stance.
5
The NYT has been part of the group that has sought to silence those who believe that there is something going on within Islam that is anti woman, anti gay, and anti western values to name a few. Add to this that the next terrorist attack will statistically most likely to be committed by Muslims. The Times has been promoting the religion of peace concept for some time. Yes, Tom is correct, there is a problem. Obama is wrong to dance around the issue. Tiptoeing around the issue does not help.
21
All three Abrahamic religions have been and continue to be abused by people who claim to have special knowledge of divine preferences in human affairs.
4
Mr. Friedman - it is easy to ask for clarity in denouncing Islamic radicalism when such clarity has no consequence. You can criticize Islam and its leaders when you bear no responsibility for the actions of both the radicals on one side and the less tolerant folks on the other side. The President of the US CANNOT be responsible for stirring up the pot to the point where it boils over. I am confident that he is doing and saying the right things behind closed doors to get the leaders of the Sunni Middle East to begin to face up to their roles in the radicalism. The proof of that can be seen in the recent actions of the major Sunni nations in opposing ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Give the guy some credit...he is on the right side of this issue.
9
This is a complicated issue. If Jewish settlers in Israel attack a Palestinian or a group of Evangelical Christians attack a LGBT rally, would we use the terms Radical Judaism or Radical Christianity ? I would say we might say radical or right wing Jews or Christians but not Judaism or Christianity. Should we then use the term radical Muslim ?
4
It's not really all that complicated. If radical Jews or Christians carried out a terrorist attack, the incident would be duly noted. After a dozen or so such attacks, we would detect a pattern. A hundred or more would definitely signal a trend. Thousands of terrorist attacks would be a movement. Ergo radical Muslims.
6
The outcry of "why aren't moderate Muslims denouncing extremism" is absurd. Moderate Muslims everywhere are denouncing it loudly and persistently and they are being ignored.
Of course, no level of denouncement coming from, say, Minneapolis, is going to change the actions of sleeper cells and deranged mass murderers on other continents. But still people demand a response from moderates and then ignore the many peaceful and compassionate responses they receive.
The people asking the question either want to bring moderates out for some kind of grotesque public shaming, or they want the moderate mood to coalesce around support for the attacks, so that the questioners can then denigrate the whole religion. The moderate mood will do no such thing, of course, so Fox News brings on Anjem Choudray as a Muslim representative despite the fact that there are several moderates denouncing the attacks who have demonstrably larger followings than Choudray.
We've seen all kinds of terrorism throughout world history, and the common variables are always: poverty, ignorance, oppression, and hopelessness. Many of those factors are now present in the Middle East, and we see terrorism sprout there in the same way it came about in Ireland, the Balkans, and even in America during the Great Depression. The fact that the current crop of terrorists is Islamic (in name alone) is thoroughly tangential to the real forces at work from a historical perspective.
Of course, no level of denouncement coming from, say, Minneapolis, is going to change the actions of sleeper cells and deranged mass murderers on other continents. But still people demand a response from moderates and then ignore the many peaceful and compassionate responses they receive.
The people asking the question either want to bring moderates out for some kind of grotesque public shaming, or they want the moderate mood to coalesce around support for the attacks, so that the questioners can then denigrate the whole religion. The moderate mood will do no such thing, of course, so Fox News brings on Anjem Choudray as a Muslim representative despite the fact that there are several moderates denouncing the attacks who have demonstrably larger followings than Choudray.
We've seen all kinds of terrorism throughout world history, and the common variables are always: poverty, ignorance, oppression, and hopelessness. Many of those factors are now present in the Middle East, and we see terrorism sprout there in the same way it came about in Ireland, the Balkans, and even in America during the Great Depression. The fact that the current crop of terrorists is Islamic (in name alone) is thoroughly tangential to the real forces at work from a historical perspective.
23
Awaken to the thought that perverting the language to hide and ugly truth is hard on the supporters of President Obama. How long have we labored under this barrage of double speak. How many Islamic terrorist acts will still be labeled work place violence or man caused disaster?
Everyone knows that when an extremist uses his own religious saying/literature to justify killing, it isn't every single person who believes in that religion doing the act. The people aren't the children our elected leader seems to think we are.
Everyone knows that when an extremist uses his own religious saying/literature to justify killing, it isn't every single person who believes in that religion doing the act. The people aren't the children our elected leader seems to think we are.
4
This column is incredible for several reasons:
1. Friedman says he is no fan of global conferences to solve the worlds problems ("airy fairy" he says), but he is a regular at Davos and has organized several of his own conferences (advertised in the NYT) with, of course corporate leaders who want to save the world with, of course capitalism.
2. He derides the "honor corps" who will not criticize violence done in the name ofIslam in order "to protect the image of Islam." And what of the honor corps who silences all criticism of Israeli government violence on Palestinians to protect the image of Israel (i.e., AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, etc.).
3. Let's by all means call things by their true names. In this case, the name is Friedman, as it was he and others of his ilk that beat the war drums that got us into a needless and illegal war in Iraq, which has convinced untold numbers of Muslims to react violently
And to think he gets paid to write this nonsense.
1. Friedman says he is no fan of global conferences to solve the worlds problems ("airy fairy" he says), but he is a regular at Davos and has organized several of his own conferences (advertised in the NYT) with, of course corporate leaders who want to save the world with, of course capitalism.
2. He derides the "honor corps" who will not criticize violence done in the name ofIslam in order "to protect the image of Islam." And what of the honor corps who silences all criticism of Israeli government violence on Palestinians to protect the image of Israel (i.e., AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, etc.).
3. Let's by all means call things by their true names. In this case, the name is Friedman, as it was he and others of his ilk that beat the war drums that got us into a needless and illegal war in Iraq, which has convinced untold numbers of Muslims to react violently
And to think he gets paid to write this nonsense.
4
There is a long history of "terrorism" carried out by self-proclaimed Christians (and other religions -Judaism, Buddism, etc.) and yet we don't find it an effective response to refer to them as "Christian terrorists". The KKK is referred to as a "white supremacy organization", not a "Christian organization". Ther reasons for the disgruntaled youth of the Islamic world do not seem to be religion-based but economic-social. How do we benefit, tactically or strategically, by calling them "Islamic terrorists"? I think wse may lose more than we gain.
2
Why not call it what it really is, over centuries and across cultures -- radical fundamentalism. The reductive reasoning used to bend the many to a single will: destroy the other. Others have made the point -- western culture has used that at times in our history (Germany in the 30s or medieval Crusades, Timothy McVey in the US). Islam, radical or otherwise, is only the vector, one way to distinguish "us" from "them." I would also suggest, most Islamic cultures, left to themselves, will turn to the enemies within - Sunni vs Shia vs Sufi, Arab vs South Asian vs Aryan, etc.
4
There's another way to look at it. Muslim nations are polygynous - it is permitted for one man to marry several women. Evolutionary scientists have shown that polygynous societies are always violent, as some men monopolize all the women and the single men have to engage in risky behavior like violence to have their chance at reproduction.
3
Ok fine, let's name violent Islam. But when we work the details with ISIS, we see Sunnis enraged by the oppression from a corrupt Shi-ite government. Similarly in Afghanistan, we have now done 2 rounds of paying warlords to fight the Taliban. But if you are a villager, and are not a good friend of the war lord, the Taliban is a better bet.
Even the 2 brothers in Paris were of Algerian parentage, raised in foster homes.
So sure, stop the PC language.... but if you thing war or arms are the answer... no you are wrong. And it may take time. Enmities even within a known culture are hard to make go away (think the enmities in Northern Ireland). So... after decades of helping make messes in the middle east, the answer is not in better language.
Even the 2 brothers in Paris were of Algerian parentage, raised in foster homes.
So sure, stop the PC language.... but if you thing war or arms are the answer... no you are wrong. And it may take time. Enmities even within a known culture are hard to make go away (think the enmities in Northern Ireland). So... after decades of helping make messes in the middle east, the answer is not in better language.
Friedman frames the reluctance to "say it like it is" on the basis of political correctness, but that's only a small part of it. Specifically calling out Islam would hurt our image abroad in Muslim majority countries sympathetic to our cause. It would also add fuel to far-right nativist movements like Le Pen's FN, possibly leading to violence against innocent Muslims in Western nations. In the face of these risks, isn't this kind of blustering straight-talk a bit myopic?
2
Radical violence comes as a reaction to the privileged treatment of some groups at the expense of the same privileges being given to others. There is usually at least as much violence being perpetrated against those who are labeled as being radically violent as are perpetrated by them. The violence is not always directed at those who have committed acts violence against them, and is often directed towards members of the underprivileged group they themselves are associated with. The desire is to become a privileged group, and in order to do that, they need to have an underprivileged group that they can dominate, usually through violence. It creates a cycle, and Mr. Friedman is part of that cycle, as are we all.
I usually agree with Thomas Friedman, but not this time. He strenuously derides the Obama administration for not more vocally condemning the attacks by radical Muslims, specifically the most recent response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. But Obama does not lead in rational times so expecting a rational response is well, not rational.
The American far right sees no distinction between radical Muslims and any other Muslim. To them a Muslim is always a threat, always a radical. So Obama must temper his official comments to counter the effect of comments of the political far right, as recently exemplified by Fox News and the Steve Emerson incident, that he cannot control, but to which the world clearly takes note. He must tread carefully lest the Fox News message be perceived abroad to reflect the official American message, which post-Obama it may well do, to the dismay of our European allies. Fox News the mouthpiece of America; now that is something to strenuously deride.
The American far right sees no distinction between radical Muslims and any other Muslim. To them a Muslim is always a threat, always a radical. So Obama must temper his official comments to counter the effect of comments of the political far right, as recently exemplified by Fox News and the Steve Emerson incident, that he cannot control, but to which the world clearly takes note. He must tread carefully lest the Fox News message be perceived abroad to reflect the official American message, which post-Obama it may well do, to the dismay of our European allies. Fox News the mouthpiece of America; now that is something to strenuously deride.
7
Excellent op-ed. Indeed a theater of the absurd. I hope Obama is reading this, too. One of the few occasions where Fox-News and NYT come to the same conclusion.
7
It is great to see you agreeing with Rich Lowery. You have stumbled on to the truth.
4
Asra Nomani got it right. The failure of good governance,
particularly law & order, has given free hand to the
extremists to silence those wo question their interpretation
of Islam. Gov. Salman Taseer in Pakistan was murdered
by his driver and the judge who sentenced him fled the
country for his safety. So many journalists have been killed who dared question the jihadist ideology. without freedom
of expression in Muslim countries, moderates and
reformers will have problem. Saudis, our allies, have
sentenced a liberal Raif Badawi to prison and lashes.
There are many muslims living a modern life--music
concerts, fashion show, arts shows, poetry recitals,
women journalists, teachers, doctors, social workers
in Pakistan for example. Just scan their media periodically.
Most of Pakistanis follow Sufi version of Islam which
is inclusive, emphasizes love of humanity for path to
love of God. Sufi shrines are jam packed. Majority
is digusted by the violence and would like government
to eradicate the violence. Government in Pakistan,
Nigeria and Somalia are ineffective while Syria, Libya
and Iraq are in chaos thanks American military action
which is nowtrying to do some thing about stablizing
Middle East after destablizing it.
particularly law & order, has given free hand to the
extremists to silence those wo question their interpretation
of Islam. Gov. Salman Taseer in Pakistan was murdered
by his driver and the judge who sentenced him fled the
country for his safety. So many journalists have been killed who dared question the jihadist ideology. without freedom
of expression in Muslim countries, moderates and
reformers will have problem. Saudis, our allies, have
sentenced a liberal Raif Badawi to prison and lashes.
There are many muslims living a modern life--music
concerts, fashion show, arts shows, poetry recitals,
women journalists, teachers, doctors, social workers
in Pakistan for example. Just scan their media periodically.
Most of Pakistanis follow Sufi version of Islam which
is inclusive, emphasizes love of humanity for path to
love of God. Sufi shrines are jam packed. Majority
is digusted by the violence and would like government
to eradicate the violence. Government in Pakistan,
Nigeria and Somalia are ineffective while Syria, Libya
and Iraq are in chaos thanks American military action
which is nowtrying to do some thing about stablizing
Middle East after destablizing it.
4
Eggshells seem to be the path par excellence for US leaders with respect to another Middle East power and their terrorizing and subjugating a people to apartheid. And no criminal prosecution for torturers? Which, in addition to the Iraq invasion, as well as drone strikes raining down on villages, wedding parties ,etc in Yemen and elsewhere, gives way more fodder for recruitment than the Qu'ran ever could. It's eggshells all the way around as far as I can tell.
Oh, and thanks for cheerleading us into Iraq. ISIS is a nice legacy you and the NYT have helped to produce.
Oh, and thanks for cheerleading us into Iraq. ISIS is a nice legacy you and the NYT have helped to produce.
3
Funny, I could say the same about radical fundamentalist christians, or radical fundamentalist Zionists, or radical gun nuts.
The problem is extremism. The only way to root it out is the same for any sect.
The problem is extremism. The only way to root it out is the same for any sect.
4
As a conservative, I rarely agree with Friedman, but this one I do agree with. While liberals and conservatives have major ideological differences in how they view the world, the threat to both liberals and conservatives from radical Islam is equally great. Radical Moslems don't want to just kill conservatives, Israelis and interventionalists, they want to destroy all of Western civilization. This includes central principles of liberalism, free speech and press, equal rights for women, and equal justice under the law, just as it much as they threaten conservative principles. On this issue, the various ideologies of a free society should unite.
10
I'm not so sure the extremists are as far from conservative ideology as you think. Maybe Eric Rudolph didn't have a beard and head cover, but other than that...
3
If groups of people were committing global terrorism and murder in the name of Catholicism and Judaism the media and the pundits would be stamping their feet and screaming about the responsibility of those religions and their leaders to speak loudly and take action and would also be blaming those religions for the actions of the radicals. Anyone who thinks that is not the case is just not paying attention. Someone will respond to this post saying that Jews are committing the same acts in Gaza or the West Bank, trust me. This discussion is quite similar to the one we have about race in America. Of course black Americans and Muslims in many parts of the world have been mistreated and to this day suffer forms of oppression. When their response to that is violence and destruction they become criminals and lose the right to get our sympathy especially when there are so many other avenues for them to improve their own societies and cultures.
7
I like to study history, and I'm pretty good at it. So my observations are as follows:
1. Small and large-scale violence is not new to the human race. It has been going on long before we knew how to write about it. In other words, it's prehistoric. Just because we invented fast machines and ways to record the visual and auditory events around us doesn't make us evolved. That takes a lot more than a few thousand years. Our species is no different today than it was during the time of Hitler, Cortez, Khan, Alexander, and all the other conquerors. We fight each other over power and resources, and that's it.
2. Religious extremism isn't the problem. Extremism is the problem. If God Himself erased all of our memories of Him and disabled our ability to think about spiritualism, we would be no less violent than we are. It wouldn't make one bit of difference. Individuals, small groups, large groups, etc. would continue to engage in battle over power and resources.
3. A short-term solution, if we must say that Islamic extremism is the problem, would be to withdraw to our own corners and see who is the first to break the truce. In other words, Western societies have a lot of military presence in Eastern countries. Why is that? Is there something they have that we want? Are we justified in occupying (or permanently guesting) in other countries?
I suggest that the U.S. get out of all other nations and keep to our own yard (with a strong fence).
1. Small and large-scale violence is not new to the human race. It has been going on long before we knew how to write about it. In other words, it's prehistoric. Just because we invented fast machines and ways to record the visual and auditory events around us doesn't make us evolved. That takes a lot more than a few thousand years. Our species is no different today than it was during the time of Hitler, Cortez, Khan, Alexander, and all the other conquerors. We fight each other over power and resources, and that's it.
2. Religious extremism isn't the problem. Extremism is the problem. If God Himself erased all of our memories of Him and disabled our ability to think about spiritualism, we would be no less violent than we are. It wouldn't make one bit of difference. Individuals, small groups, large groups, etc. would continue to engage in battle over power and resources.
3. A short-term solution, if we must say that Islamic extremism is the problem, would be to withdraw to our own corners and see who is the first to break the truce. In other words, Western societies have a lot of military presence in Eastern countries. Why is that? Is there something they have that we want? Are we justified in occupying (or permanently guesting) in other countries?
I suggest that the U.S. get out of all other nations and keep to our own yard (with a strong fence).
5
You'll recall that the Obama conference was (hastily?) proposed when no high-ranking members of the Administration were sent to the march in Paris. For Mr. Obama, a cerebral response was more comfortable than a visceral one. Perhaps that's why, for me, the conference doesn't fit. A similar conference, however, held in Saudi Arabia rather than Washington would hold far greater promise. Unlikely to happen.
The piece by Nomani, cited by Friedman, is indeed remarkable and worth reading and reflection. I'll be curious to learn if some of her insights about Islam and Muslim culture are forthrightly discussed at the conference.
The piece by Nomani, cited by Friedman, is indeed remarkable and worth reading and reflection. I'll be curious to learn if some of her insights about Islam and Muslim culture are forthrightly discussed at the conference.
4
Bravo. Just bravo.
3
The president "will not declare that we are at war with radical Islam?" We've already declared "War on terror." Does it matter what the motive (or incentive) is?
Obama and his spokesmen have been at pains not to play into the absurd yet ever useful narrative of a "war on Islam." Hence all the mealy-mouthed talk about violent extremists. If, as Friedman has often argued, there is a war going on within Islam, between enlightened Muslims and those who wish to return to the 7th century, this approach perhaps makes some sense, for we obviously don't want to antagonize those who are potentially on our side. But our allies in the Muslim world, as well as our antagonists, all know the score. "Insulting Islam" is reminiscent of "defaming the Soviet Union" the charge that, 30-40 years ago, sent thousands of Soviet dissidents to the Gulag or to psychiatric hospitals. The truth hurts, but the truth will out.
2
Good call Mr Friedman. Appears that many of your readers miss the point, that the religion itself, as widely practiced in large areas, promotes intolerance and stifles discussion to the point of encouraging 'angry young men and preachers on the fringe of the Sunni Arab and Pakistani communities' toward ever more frequent and violent acts. It follows that the centrality of the role of Islam is therefore worth addressing head-on.
6
When Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, the Western response was primarily in the form of economic sanctions -- a strategy of isolation and degrading strength by beggaring bank accounts, ability to conduct international business, etc.
If there is a similar program toward those who provide the funds to Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc., it isn't getting much coverage -- let alone "chest thumping" in Presidential news conferences, etc. Is it because the Saudi's are behind it? Or what?
If the strategy for the conference mentioned in this op-ed is to separate terrorists from Islam, perhaps this should become a centerpiece for the agenda....Identify the funders and go after them -- both privately and publicly....
If there is a similar program toward those who provide the funds to Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc., it isn't getting much coverage -- let alone "chest thumping" in Presidential news conferences, etc. Is it because the Saudi's are behind it? Or what?
If the strategy for the conference mentioned in this op-ed is to separate terrorists from Islam, perhaps this should become a centerpiece for the agenda....Identify the funders and go after them -- both privately and publicly....
2
Is Thomas Friedman just saying that he would prefer secular Arab revolutions against Western Imperialism and local dictators? Like neo-Bolsheviks?
Saying "we are at war with radical Islam" makes it sound as if we are at war with a religion--albeit a serious distortion of a religion. We aren't. Violent extremism seems more accurate. Yet, the war or more accurately the focus should be on understanding and confronting the poisonous conditions that create droves of at-risk youth driving them into the arms of "enraged gangs" believing they will find a place to belong and get their needs met. Without hesitation we confront automobile factories that produce at-risk cars that kill, we should likewise confront the "people making" factories that produce at-risk youth who kill. As wisdom of old states: "As a twig is bent so shall it grow." And "It's easier to grow a boy, than it is to mend a man." Mahatma Gandhi (As an idealistic aside, there should be a global decree to only have children, in the first place, who are wanted and can be properly nurtured, loved, and cared for.) Rarerly if ever does a born innocent child whose love needs are met grow up to be a radical Muslim or terrorist or any other destructive label we choose to apply. That's simply not the nature of things.
19
With Osama Bin Laden as possibly a notable exception, certainly his material needs, if not his love needs, were met.
Iguana3, Osama Bin Laden, it is reported, was the 17th of 53 siblings. Material needs isn't the same thing as nurturing, love and other needs.
1
When visiting the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (the third most holy Muslim site), 25 years ago, I observed that the only free-standing objects in the mosque were numerous bookcases containing a variety of bullets and bloodstained clothing. These were obviously reminders of the wars and intifadas against Israel. To me, this demonstrates that the reigning Muslim clerics - at least those in Arab places - continue to seek to eliminate Israel by force of arms. Consequently, can it realistically be said that mainstream Muslims are nonviolent?
8
I can't believe all these commentaries that basically say we just shouldn't talk about it. Where is open constructive debate going on about Islam, radical or regular, Shia or Sunni? We debate all other religious beliefs so why is there not a dialogue going on in our living rooms, universities and on Capitol Hill about this one? To even mention, in comparison, a handful of abortion clinic attacks by radical Christians is absurd and once again gives reason to skirt the discussion less we draw Christianity into it. The Koran does not tolerate abortion either but radical Muslims are not so simple minded as to just attack a little building in a strip mall. Islam is so opposed to our free access that they fly planes into towering buildings killing thousands. Lets open the dialogue up and quite hiding under the bed. This isn't just about bored sexually frustrated teenagers.
7
They seem to have no clue that idolatry is to claim to know that God thinks something about human affairs and will display wrath if something other than what the claimant wants to happen happens.
By using the Term "Islamists" in preference to "Muslims" or "Islam," we could make it quite clear that we are referring to a perversion of Islamic teaching. Isn't this better than tarring all Muslims with the brush of the radical extremists?
The Ku Klux Klan were all, as far as I know, CHristians. When talking about them, do we use the term "Christians?" Do we refer to the violent bigots of the Westboro Baptist Church as "Christians?"
The Ku Klux Klan were all, as far as I know, CHristians. When talking about them, do we use the term "Christians?" Do we refer to the violent bigots of the Westboro Baptist Church as "Christians?"
6
I am tired of extremists telling us what we can read, write and draw and turn on your television and you will see from the violence in the streets that there are more extremists than we are being led to believe.
6
Well. the violent extremists ARE violent extremists no matter what they call themselves.
1
Not only is "radical Islam" taboo, but it seems that today any reference to Saudi Arabia is also taboo. The terrorist camps are Sunni. The Sunni home base is Saudi Arabia. The funding of radical Islam is reported to come from Saudi Arabia. The perps for both 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo were Sunni organized.
The US is cosy with the Saudis because of the oil flow. The Saudi royal family is best friends with the Bush family. Saudi nationals were mysteriously airlifted out of the US immediately after 9/11 when all flights were to be grounded.
It seems Americans must now choose between fighting "radical Islam" and fueling their SUVs cheaply.
The US is cosy with the Saudis because of the oil flow. The Saudi royal family is best friends with the Bush family. Saudi nationals were mysteriously airlifted out of the US immediately after 9/11 when all flights were to be grounded.
It seems Americans must now choose between fighting "radical Islam" and fueling their SUVs cheaply.
9
You obviously have not followed the dramatic increase in oil production in the US. We can do both - drive our SUVs and fight Radical Islam. But only if our leader finds time between rounds of golf! LOL
3
John
True, but i'd guess that several US oil companies still have huge investments/contracts in Saudi Arabia and their lobbies are doing everything possible to keep Saudi Arabia out of the media spotlight.
True, but i'd guess that several US oil companies still have huge investments/contracts in Saudi Arabia and their lobbies are doing everything possible to keep Saudi Arabia out of the media spotlight.
2
I don't believe the emphasis should be on Islam, or "radical Islam". Would any of this be happening in N. Africa and the ME if not for a history of Western colonization and US interference and aggression in the ME? This is blowback of Western interference and policy. It has little to do with Islam. I agree with Obama leaving Islam out of the conversation. These terrorists have hijacked "Islam" to justify themselves.
President Obama's euphemisms aside, he always calls out ISIL and Al Queda by name. Let's not believe the right wing hype Tom. Whereas you are all for restraint, the right wing quite the opposite. In their eternal quest for simplistic (white-centric) solutions to complex problems, they would no doubt embrace persecution of all Muslims as a means of eliminating the few extremists amongst them. To that end, they will waste no time misconstruing the phrase 'Islamic Terrorism' uttered by Obama as 'all Muslims are terrorists' to validate their line of reasoning.
3
At the core of this conversation are words and how they are used to frame the discussion.
Why is a person who walks into a magazine's offices and sprays bullets around wantonly killing a dozen people called a "terrorist?" I think he's a murderer. A criminal who met his end when the country's law enforcement officers confronted him.
So why call him a "terrorist," or an Islamic "extremist?" (I love it when the "extremist" label comes out.) Or better yet, an "Islamic fundamentalist."
All of these labels that get so casually used cloud the real truth of who these French criminals were, and why they did what they did.
At war with "radical Islam?" Oh, please.
These labels attempt to obscure the truth and hide it from the discussion.
Why do impoverished Middle Easterners cling to their God and their guns? No, wait, our own President said that about some rural Americans in a recent campaign. Was he accurate? Uh huh. Could we say the same about people in actually much worse economic conditions in other countries? Yep.
It seems to me that invading another country using knowling false reasons and then killing thousands of innocent civilians spreads terror in any country. How could it not? Does that make us the "terrorists?"
You tell me.
To have a piercing discussing of what's happening we need to shed these convenient labels that do nothing to advance our understanding.
Frankly, the Times is as much to blame for their usage as anyone.
Why is a person who walks into a magazine's offices and sprays bullets around wantonly killing a dozen people called a "terrorist?" I think he's a murderer. A criminal who met his end when the country's law enforcement officers confronted him.
So why call him a "terrorist," or an Islamic "extremist?" (I love it when the "extremist" label comes out.) Or better yet, an "Islamic fundamentalist."
All of these labels that get so casually used cloud the real truth of who these French criminals were, and why they did what they did.
At war with "radical Islam?" Oh, please.
These labels attempt to obscure the truth and hide it from the discussion.
Why do impoverished Middle Easterners cling to their God and their guns? No, wait, our own President said that about some rural Americans in a recent campaign. Was he accurate? Uh huh. Could we say the same about people in actually much worse economic conditions in other countries? Yep.
It seems to me that invading another country using knowling false reasons and then killing thousands of innocent civilians spreads terror in any country. How could it not? Does that make us the "terrorists?"
You tell me.
To have a piercing discussing of what's happening we need to shed these convenient labels that do nothing to advance our understanding.
Frankly, the Times is as much to blame for their usage as anyone.
2
We should describe Muslim terrorists in the media and elsewhere as"psychopaths." Based on their psychopathic acts and regardless of their alleged religious motivation, that is what these wackos are. Also by using a term of great derision to describe them,fewer recruits are likely to be attracted to their cause.
1
The root cause of all this nightmare is Saudi Arabia. To have such a society as theirs in the 21st century is an insult to humanity. As long as we allow Saudi Arabia to foster such hate and medieval thinking, there won't be any progress.
Unfortunately the West is addicted to their Petro $ and looking the other way.
Bring change to Saudi Arabia and this nightmare will cease.
Unfortunately the West is addicted to their Petro $ and looking the other way.
Bring change to Saudi Arabia and this nightmare will cease.
7
Sticking a name on the terrorist problem, an incorrect name at that isn't going to solve anything. Intrinsically Islam is no more brutal that Christianity and Judaism. The problem is that we are dealing with cultures and legal systems from the middle ages. We have elements of that in our own countries like fundamentalist Christians and Jews who hold the same brutal and savage beliefs. The primary difference is that the fundamentalists in Islam core governments that finance, propagandize and supply the extremists that we are unwilling or unable to do anything about these being Saudi Arabs and to a slightly lessor extent Pakistan. In the case of the Saudis this is a country that practices essentially the same medieval sharia legal system as ISIS. It should be understood that much of their use of this backward culture is to maintain their political dominance and if we actually listened to their claims rather than making up our own we would realize that much of the motivation behind the attacks are nationalist motivated. Our moral position is deeply undermined by blanket support of Israel. How do you argue that these countries should follow international law such as nuclear proliferation when providing cover for Israel who has not even signed up for it. Israel should face the same repercussions as any country when it breaks the law other wise the west has no moral argument to make. Lets declare war on specifics like ISIS and Al Qaida not generalizations like Islamic extremists.
1
"They cause governments, writers and experts to walk on eggshells." Sounds scary. Like an Islamic AIPAC or something.
2
I don't think the President's description is as far-fetched as Friedman makes out. The theory is not, as Friedman puts it, that terrorists set out to commit violent acts and only later justify them by invoking Islam. It is, rather, that the people who commit these acts are criminals and psychopaths who are excited by the teachings of radical Islam because its philosophy provides them with an excuse to shed blood to their hearts' content. It's not much different than the situation in Nazi Germany, where criminal psychopaths, bullies, and every sort of undesirable were drawn to National Socialism because it provided a "legitimate" outlet to their thirst for power over others and for cruelty. My friend Isidor thinks that this group is more closely analogous to the zombie hordes depicted so often in popular entertainment, whose basic philosophy is "eat brains," and I'm more inclined to agree with Isidor than with Friedman on this one.
1
If "dis-enfranchised" is substituted for "radical Islam" I think we may get closer to the truth. Eventually every state that countenances radical inequality will face their version France in 1789. Religion will have little to do with it, religion will simply have been an innocent bystander used as a weapon of choice to strike out. When organized religion participates in the inequality they are not so innocent, but they are still not the prime motivator.
Get used to it as it is going to happen over and over, all round the world.
Get used to it as it is going to happen over and over, all round the world.
Mr. Friedman: If you wish for clarity of language, and therefore thought, please don't endorse a statement that proclaims, "..we are at war with radical Islam..". The efficacy of the militaristic approach to all our 'wars', be they on 'poverty', 'drugs', 'radical Islam', or the totally out of focus assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan have yielded what only war can yield, more dead bodies piled on dead bodies, both figuratively and literally, and the amplified distortion of the social order world-wide. And in the end we blame our victims.
Mr. Friedman seems blissfully unaware of the fact that the vast marjority of the victims of radical Islamists are . . . wait for it . . . muslims. That should make it hard to paint the religion itself as the problem, but - as is so often the case - reality is no obstacle to right-wing ideology.
2
"by “purifying” their worlds of other Muslims who are not sufficiently pious and of Westerners whom they perceive to be putting Muslims down. But you don’t see this in the two giant Muslim communities in Indonesia or India."
Actually, one sees both in Indonesia. Quite a bit has been written about the persecution of Ahmadiyah members (a Muslim minority), but the attacks on Christians have seen little light in the media.
Actually, one sees both in Indonesia. Quite a bit has been written about the persecution of Ahmadiyah members (a Muslim minority), but the attacks on Christians have seen little light in the media.
2
Let's stop blaming Islam for the terrorists and call a spade a spade. They are Saudi terrorists, not Muslim terrorists. The Saudi's fund the schools where the unemployed young men are turned into jihadists. The Saudi wealth pays for the guns bombs and the plane tickets to get them around. Our wealthy are deep into oil and deep in the pockets of the Saudis. Were we really going to fight jihadists we would be embargoing the Saudis and blockading them. Our power elite will not offend them about the 90% female genital mutilation the Saudis commit, nor will we condemn them for drowning the daughters and stoning rape victims for "dishonoring" their families.
We need to look at our allies complicity, then other mitigating factors.
When we look at our US society we see areas of high unemployment filled with young men with no prospects we see violence and crime and vandalism. At least we have few charismatic violence prone leaders and thankfully few AK47's for them to play with. We pumped the middle east full of guns, as did the Soviets, and today's terrorist is well armed.
We need to look at our allies complicity, then other mitigating factors.
When we look at our US society we see areas of high unemployment filled with young men with no prospects we see violence and crime and vandalism. At least we have few charismatic violence prone leaders and thankfully few AK47's for them to play with. We pumped the middle east full of guns, as did the Soviets, and today's terrorist is well armed.
2
There are huge dangers to citizens the world at large from extremists of all religious faiths. They choose to self-describe as being "pure" members of whatever faith they come from, so I don't know how we can ignore those faiths when describing the violence being committed in the name of whatever god they claim sanctions their abhorrent behavior. From my perspective, the unifying themes of this violence are twisted religious beliefs and a general contempt for women. Our best defenses against these extremists are religious pluralism and support of women's rights.
1
Islam as a religion has some things to answer for. Imagine if the following had occurred:
1. The Paris attackers had shouted "the Pope is God" after carrying out their murders.
2. Imagine that they had been trained in some secret Catholic training camp funded by wealthy Catholic donors
If that had of happened, the Pope would probably excommunicate the attackers and all deemed to have been associated with them. The entire Catholic clergy would rise up and denounce these people and all that they stood for. Every priest in every parish in the world would include in their next sermons why such acts are not to be tolerated in the name of any religion.
Until the elder and respected leaders of the Muslim faith formally denounce these terrorists and take forceful action against them - they and the Muslim religion are complicit in these acts of terrorism.
It is clear that these Islamic terrorists represent a tiny fraction of the Muslim faith and that the vast majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace. But they need to be an active part of solving the problem.
1. The Paris attackers had shouted "the Pope is God" after carrying out their murders.
2. Imagine that they had been trained in some secret Catholic training camp funded by wealthy Catholic donors
If that had of happened, the Pope would probably excommunicate the attackers and all deemed to have been associated with them. The entire Catholic clergy would rise up and denounce these people and all that they stood for. Every priest in every parish in the world would include in their next sermons why such acts are not to be tolerated in the name of any religion.
Until the elder and respected leaders of the Muslim faith formally denounce these terrorists and take forceful action against them - they and the Muslim religion are complicit in these acts of terrorism.
It is clear that these Islamic terrorists represent a tiny fraction of the Muslim faith and that the vast majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace. But they need to be an active part of solving the problem.
7
bernd - read your history - that happened - it was called The Inquisition, and it lasted for 200 years.
1
Just for your information, in Northern Ireland, not one single (catholic) IRA terrorist was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. On the contrary, every single IRA terrorist who was "killed in action" (i.e.: blew himself up in the act of trying to kill others or shot while opening fire on others) was given a "Christian" funeral in a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church never condemned the violent extremism of the catholic nationalist IRA other than equivocal terms of "condemning all violence for any quarter". In other words, according to the Catholic Church in Ireland, the violence of the State in protecting its people was equated with terrorist violence.
Now, you should also take account of the fact that "secret IRA training camps" were funded largely by wealthy catholic and American donations.
Like to re-think your point?
Now, you should also take account of the fact that "secret IRA training camps" were funded largely by wealthy catholic and American donations.
Like to re-think your point?
5
American foreign policy in the Middle East, by standing by and shoring up autocratic, repressive regimes, supports the conditions and abets the conduct which creates Islamic terrorists. For example, this bi-partisan policy has ignored the Saudi regime's use of religious schools to inculcate hostility toward the West and their export of the resulting terrorists to other countries. For starters, we should redefine Saudi Arabia as a sponsor of terrorism, cease all military assistance, freeze the assets of the members of its ruling families, and close our borders to them. If a local, non-jihadist reform movement, even if not entirely to our liking emerges, we should support it and get back on the people's side.
2
The problem is the Culture of Political Correctness. This pernicious ideology, which is taught everywhere on American college campuses and practiced throughout the American government, places the highest value on never saying anything that anyone anywhere at any place or time could possibly find offensive. It is the enemy of truth, understanding, and honest discourse.
Ever since 9/11, the American government has practiced dishonesty relentlessly in confronting radical Islamic jihadism. We are given happy talk about how we are "winning" the "war on terrorism" thanks to our "brave men and women in uniform". The President last night talked about "turning the page".
The reality is that, despite all the American coalition battlefield victories, Islamic jihadism is growing in strength and numbers, and is silently supported by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. It is funded and supported by governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Middle East is littered with failed and failing states in which the ideology will grow further. People of non-Muslim faiths are being systematically exterminated throughout the Muslim world, except for India and Indonesia.
These are facts. No amount of happy talk from the American government can change these facts. Unless we recognize the nature of the problem and approach it strategically, it will only grow worse.
Ever since 9/11, the American government has practiced dishonesty relentlessly in confronting radical Islamic jihadism. We are given happy talk about how we are "winning" the "war on terrorism" thanks to our "brave men and women in uniform". The President last night talked about "turning the page".
The reality is that, despite all the American coalition battlefield victories, Islamic jihadism is growing in strength and numbers, and is silently supported by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. It is funded and supported by governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Middle East is littered with failed and failing states in which the ideology will grow further. People of non-Muslim faiths are being systematically exterminated throughout the Muslim world, except for India and Indonesia.
These are facts. No amount of happy talk from the American government can change these facts. Unless we recognize the nature of the problem and approach it strategically, it will only grow worse.
8
One other thing that most people don't know. Jews and Muslims have the same roots, a desert ideology that says an eye for an eye...
Thomas, that makes the whole world blind. Perhaps you should research the Jewish Deuteronimist and find out that there is more than one kind of Jewish thought, and sometimes scripture can be altered. Was Jesus a Jew that just came along at an inopportune time? Or was he denied Jewish support because he didn't go with the Jewish Republican flow??? He was for the poor and all.....a "progressive."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is an attempt to make sense of things by simple people.
Not the truth.....I suggest you work with the truth and leave religious interpretations out of your musings.
Thomas, that makes the whole world blind. Perhaps you should research the Jewish Deuteronimist and find out that there is more than one kind of Jewish thought, and sometimes scripture can be altered. Was Jesus a Jew that just came along at an inopportune time? Or was he denied Jewish support because he didn't go with the Jewish Republican flow??? He was for the poor and all.....a "progressive."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is an attempt to make sense of things by simple people.
Not the truth.....I suggest you work with the truth and leave religious interpretations out of your musings.
2
Mr. Friedman, I would say the "Shock and Awe" which the U.S. visited upon hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, and which you supported, was rather violent and extreme, wouldn't you? That, and other U.S. actions have contributed greatly to the problem, though there are other causes as well. The president is correct to approach this diplomatically, both in word and deed.
2
There are 53 Islamic countries who belong to the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). With the exception of Singapore, they are all way behind their non-Muslim neighbors. Economically, socially, technologically, intellectually. Meanwhile their ideology, Islam, tells them that they are superior to the rest of us who do not follow Islam. This angers the citizens of the OIC countries, but it is their leaders who are failing, not the non-Muslims.
The highest level of Muslim rage is directed at the small Jewish community and tiny Israel. Muslims rule over 99% of the middle east, but blame 100% of their problems on the less than 1% of the land they don't rule. Worldwide, there are 155 times as many Muslims as there are Jews, but in their obsession to deflect blame for their own failures, the Muslim world has declared war on the tiny Jewish community. Most of this is due to the fact that the Jews have beaten the proud Muslims in battle, several times. The fact that the vast Muslim world can't destroy tiny Israel shows the Muslims' impotence. The fact that Israel in particular and Jewish people world wide have thrived in the modern world of education and technology has driven the Muslim world over the edge. I'm glad to see that Mr. Friedman is calling the problem what it is, I understand why President Obama doesn't, but he should. Muslims in denial won't solve their problems, they will just continue to make their problems ours.
The highest level of Muslim rage is directed at the small Jewish community and tiny Israel. Muslims rule over 99% of the middle east, but blame 100% of their problems on the less than 1% of the land they don't rule. Worldwide, there are 155 times as many Muslims as there are Jews, but in their obsession to deflect blame for their own failures, the Muslim world has declared war on the tiny Jewish community. Most of this is due to the fact that the Jews have beaten the proud Muslims in battle, several times. The fact that the vast Muslim world can't destroy tiny Israel shows the Muslims' impotence. The fact that Israel in particular and Jewish people world wide have thrived in the modern world of education and technology has driven the Muslim world over the edge. I'm glad to see that Mr. Friedman is calling the problem what it is, I understand why President Obama doesn't, but he should. Muslims in denial won't solve their problems, they will just continue to make their problems ours.
10
Anyone who continues to expect truth or honesty from this administration has simply not been paying attention the past 6 years. Political calculation and expediency are the overriding consideration in every remark, comment or speech coming from the President. A truly sad commentary on the current state of politics, as I do not believe Mr. Obama to be a natural born liar. Dishonesty seems to be a job-related skill he has completely mastered.
To be fair, in order to "say it like it is" we would have to do one more little thing - just a little itsy-bitsy thing Tom and you know it. We would have to call out the royal household of Saudi Arabia and tell them to put an end to the financing and fueling of Sunni-sponsored terrorist cells. But we won't. Because every president since Ike has walked these guys through the Rose Garden, kissed their cheeks and solicited their financial support. Until Saudi Arabia collapses as an oil-rich hub of terrorism the rest is just snipping around the edges and you know it. From the connection to the attacks on 9-11 to the formation of the Mujadin in Afghanistan to challenge the Russians - we are joined together in our own special hell.
2
How about the Times opinion page writers petition high school students for column topics as most seem to be bankrupt when it comes to finding something relevant to write about.
1
Let's say the administration reads your piece and decides to change the name to the "Summit on Countering Violent Islam." Would this result in a more productive conference?
It seems to me that a number of necessary partners in this effort (e.g., majority Muslim countries) would be put on the defensive from the outset and may not participate at all. That isn't likely to lead to helpful outcomes.
As a writer, I understand Orwell wants you to call things by their proper names. This, however, is diplomacy. It's about outcomes and partnership, not truth.
It seems to me that a number of necessary partners in this effort (e.g., majority Muslim countries) would be put on the defensive from the outset and may not participate at all. That isn't likely to lead to helpful outcomes.
As a writer, I understand Orwell wants you to call things by their proper names. This, however, is diplomacy. It's about outcomes and partnership, not truth.
5
Yes, most "extremist" activity these days is from Islamic groups, but using "Islamic" in a conference title is not the best of all possible ideas. And here's why:
Labeling limits. As soon as you stick a label on it, you've limited the scope of the conversation. You've also given license for other groups to be excluded from consideration. For example, the marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar and the Christian militia in Central African Republic are terrorist groups and are clearly _not_ Muslim.
By excluding Islam from the title, the conference becomes, perhaps, a safe place to discuss all extremist groups, instead of just the one. It does not make the Charlie Hebdo massacre appear to be a random act of violence; instead it says all groups perpetrating violence are considered in the whole group. It gives tacit permission NOT to discuss other forms of terrorism.
Let them leave the label off. No one should be omitted or excluded from this conversation due to semantics.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
Labeling limits. As soon as you stick a label on it, you've limited the scope of the conversation. You've also given license for other groups to be excluded from consideration. For example, the marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar and the Christian militia in Central African Republic are terrorist groups and are clearly _not_ Muslim.
By excluding Islam from the title, the conference becomes, perhaps, a safe place to discuss all extremist groups, instead of just the one. It does not make the Charlie Hebdo massacre appear to be a random act of violence; instead it says all groups perpetrating violence are considered in the whole group. It gives tacit permission NOT to discuss other forms of terrorism.
Let them leave the label off. No one should be omitted or excluded from this conversation due to semantics.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
4
Religious leaders -- Muslim clerics-- are at the root of this horror ? Who would have ever thought, unless you remember that Catholic biahops did no better, until Pope Francis came along.
Extremism in the Arab world is not a product of Islam or merely a reaction to modernism. It is primarily a reaction to Western domination and subjugation and support of reactionary regimes. It is a reaction to Israel, to the SHah, Sisi, and is as old as Napoleon. It is a reaction to immigrant poverty and discrimination. It is Islamist in the same way the IRA was Catholic. Let's stop pretending that it has its roots in Islam or is a futile fear of the future. Or that the U.S. didn't destabilize Iraq and Iran or finance Israel's wars. Let's stop demanding that Islam must apologize for our sins. When our pundits and politicians are brave enough to talk of these things perhaps moderate Arab will brave their violent friends and countrymen.
1
What does Mr. Friedman think will happen to Islamic people in their own countries after they participate in an event known as "the Summit for War on Islamic Extremism"? Their calls for political liberalization and protection of human rights will be left in the dust as they are subjected to vitriolic criticism accusing them of being traitors to Islam. Do I wish Saudi Arabia had more freedom? Well duh. But they don't and it's a hard thing to impose form outside, and it's not made easier by people who are so easily characterized as at "war" with your ideals.
Why don't we just cut to the chase here. Religious Groups all over the World use their interpretation of those man-written stories, called Bible or whatever to justify Political Idealogy that will allow control of others. In the United States we have politicians who claim moral authority from their version of the Bible to codify into law all kinds of terrorism, fear and ways to identify good/evil, all in service of power,profit and control. Just last night, President Obama asking Congress to move into 21Century with equall pay for Women. How about the terrorism of slavery, demonization of immigrants, second class treatment of women, rape of children swept under the rug in service of profit/power? Even the Pope says members of his church "blow smoke" with dogma, money, power and profit. yes, let's call it what it is here before we preach to others.
4
I think that what this column does not take into account is that this is part of a larger fight. I would guess that to date, French secularists have killed more Islamic militants in their involvement in the fight against ISIS than Islamic militants have killed French secularists. I don't know how France or the US can expect to get involved in a war against Islamic militants and not expect any kind of retaliation. I don't know why France or the US would expect that violence would be contained to certain geographical areas while we go on living our lives as usual.
As long as western secularist countries continue to fight against ISIS or other groups, we should expect them to bring the fight to us.
As long as western secularist countries continue to fight against ISIS or other groups, we should expect them to bring the fight to us.
I would argue this distinction is not valid because the fight against ISIS and similar groups is against armed fighters, not defenseless civilians. Or if it is valid, it is time to permit "secularists" to arm themselves against the kind of aggression seen in Paris recently and permit other emergency measures to protect the civilian population.
Every war requires a public relations campaign. Mark Anthony presented himself as the defender of traditional Roman liberties. But Augustus managed to define Mark Anthony as a man who abandoned Roman values under the spell of an Egyptian temptress, Cleopatra. Augustus won that one. We are at war with Islamic radicals. But labeling them as such is not necessarily the most effective tactic for the United States to use in our public relations campaign.
I can't understand why Friedman is so vehemently opposed to a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. I am sure that Friedman along with most of the rest of us wants to do whatever it takes, except of all-out war, to counter extremism effectively. The real problem is that we've given the jihadist an excuse to target Western countries by invading and destroying a number of Middle East countries. Now lots of extremists are trying to draw media's attention, because they've understood how effective this media attention can be. The US and other Western countries should stop their misguided efforts to "stabilize" and "democratize" Middle Eastern countries, which has only lead to destabilization of their tenuous political and social structures. We should start working on better integrating Muslim minorities in Western countries so as to reduce the likelihood that they are recruited into jihadist terror cells. Now, there is almost no doubt that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out to be counter-productive. So why don't we give this Summit a try?
1
Peaceful majority of Muslims are irrelevant because they are impotent. The terrorist minority is all that matters.
7
"If Western interventions help foster violent Islamic reactions..."
Oh. Kind of like: "If being occupied by a foreign military would upset Americans"?
Sure glad the Times's foreign affairs expert sees it like it is.
Here are some other things to call by their name:
Zionism.
AIPAC.
Oh. Kind of like: "If being occupied by a foreign military would upset Americans"?
Sure glad the Times's foreign affairs expert sees it like it is.
Here are some other things to call by their name:
Zionism.
AIPAC.
3
There is a toxic mix of elements in this brew, not just Obama not wanting to paint all the 1.3 billion muslims with the same brush. There is the tribal nature of much of the middle east, and the violent, and only our tribe tradition as a serious factor. All this around long before Muhammad in the 8th century came on the scene. The economic and political problems in much of these middle eastern countries you do mention, and they are huge! With Islam, I do see the apparently deep belief that religion, Islam should go hand in hand in governing a state as significant also. So, how do we turn this mix factors into a slogan? I guess the same way the extremists have, their War against non believers, and we can have our war against Islam. Sounds like a winning strategy to me . . . or not.
"If Western interventions help foster violent Islamic reactions, we should reduce them. To the extent that Muslim immigrants in European countries feel marginalized, they and their hosts should worker (sic) harder on absorption."
Why don't we start with this, the solution that we have the most power to create, and if that fails talk about how to address other factors to the equation. You will never understand the root cause of a problem if you try to adjust too many variables at once.
Why don't we start with this, the solution that we have the most power to create, and if that fails talk about how to address other factors to the equation. You will never understand the root cause of a problem if you try to adjust too many variables at once.
2
I'm not sure of Mr. Friedman's point. Why does he think the U.S. will benefit by declaring itself at war with "Radical Islam?"
In fact, I think that's wrong. Mr. Friedman might know what he means by "Radical Islam," but - and this is a point I know Mr. Friedman doesn't get - what he thinks and what a billion other people think aren't necessarily the same thing. Some Muslims may believe "Radical Islam" means a version of Islam that emphasizes the spiritual teachings of Mohammed, just as I practice a version of "Radical Christianity" that emphasizes the peace and tolerance associated with Jesus Christ. Why offend those people, declaring yourself at war with them, over a choice of words?
Martin Luther King didn't go around declaring himself at war with whites, or with Southern whites, or anything of the kind, even though many allies were demanding he do so. Mr. Friedman and his Fox News allies on the right are wrong and President Obama is right.
In fact, I think that's wrong. Mr. Friedman might know what he means by "Radical Islam," but - and this is a point I know Mr. Friedman doesn't get - what he thinks and what a billion other people think aren't necessarily the same thing. Some Muslims may believe "Radical Islam" means a version of Islam that emphasizes the spiritual teachings of Mohammed, just as I practice a version of "Radical Christianity" that emphasizes the peace and tolerance associated with Jesus Christ. Why offend those people, declaring yourself at war with them, over a choice of words?
Martin Luther King didn't go around declaring himself at war with whites, or with Southern whites, or anything of the kind, even though many allies were demanding he do so. Mr. Friedman and his Fox News allies on the right are wrong and President Obama is right.
6
There is a consistent failure to discern Islam from violent Salafism. Not everyone is accurately informed as to the esoteric nature of much of the Qur'an. And to be perfectly frank, Islamophobia is all the rage these days (no pun intended). Many verses used by jihadists and Islamophobes alike, are never contextualized (this is the reason why there exists Islamic tafsir - exegesis. A verse often refers to a historical event that occurred during the Sahabah' (i.e. 1st generation of Muslims), and must be placed within such a context. The true essence of a verse is thus extracted without taking it literally. Individuals should first be familiar with the background of such verses. But given the current atmosphere of hysteria (e.g. "all-Muslims-are-savages-and-terrorists"), I suspect that this sort of rigorous, and knowledgable reading of the Qur'an is impossible. The jihadist's brutal ideology has a hostility towards theological complexity and pluralism. Jihadist groups thrive on ignorance. It is the most serious threat to modernity. In order to defeat it, we must begin to expose how radical Salafism is the antithesis of the very best Islamic traditions. Scores of Islamic scholars correctly interpret sacred texts, and implement fresh and modern approaches to ijtihad. We must partner with them to fight against Salafism's atavistIc message. lslam is not the problem - violent Salfist ideology is. Political leadership must have the courage and understanding to loudly speak out.
8
The excuse of invasion by foreign powers is nothing more than an excuse for the continuing exclusion and abuse of women in Muslim society. Let's definitely call this what it is: a refusal by backward-thinking men to accept modernity and progress. Who in their right mind wants to live in a world dominated by angry young and old men who regard women as chattel? As I say, no one in their right mind.
2
We make a great error when we focus only on Islam. It is the irrational belief in the supernatural that justifies killing in the name of "God." We make no progress whatsoever until we question and affirmatively reject all irrational belief systems, whether Chridtianity, Islam, Judaism, or Tooth Fairy Worship.
I'm with the hard Left on this one. There should be no criticism of islam; we should self-censor and demand the media never say anything negative about islam; we must pull all US troops and diplomats out of the middle east.
We should actively support what the jihadists are fighting for; the establishment of a 6th century caliphate with zero interference from outsiders. A caliphate will:
- strictly enforce sharia law.
- kill or disenfranchise all non-muslims under their control.
- hound homosexuals; imprison or execute them as they are caught.
- put women in appropriate garb; faces covered with their sharp-tongued mouths permanently SHUT.
I am with the hard Left on this issue and am opposed to the fascist, colonialist, racist white conservatives who reject the beauty and purity of islam.
We should actively support what the jihadists are fighting for; the establishment of a 6th century caliphate with zero interference from outsiders. A caliphate will:
- strictly enforce sharia law.
- kill or disenfranchise all non-muslims under their control.
- hound homosexuals; imprison or execute them as they are caught.
- put women in appropriate garb; faces covered with their sharp-tongued mouths permanently SHUT.
I am with the hard Left on this issue and am opposed to the fascist, colonialist, racist white conservatives who reject the beauty and purity of islam.
1
Yet another ignorant person throwing all Muslims into a single bag - as if we should presume all white conservatives are like Timothy McVeigh.
1
Just as the Klu Klux Klan burned white crosses on black lawns to foment terror and hatred, so is religion being exploited by those who seek to use its symbolism to incite and galvanize the young and disaffected youth. The poignancy of the Southern white's choice of using a religious symbol to target black or interracial couples as their supposed "enemies of the state" is telling. Would the black perspective to categorize all white Christians as suspect they would fall into the same game that the Islamic extremists are using to engage the West in a perpetual game of cat and mouse strategy. How else to recruit more alienated unemployed and hopeless youth into their war against everything the West values and to keep a perpetual sense of fear in their enemies?
4
Mr. Friedman, I agree that you should call a thing what it is - unless you can't. In my humble opinion, there is a far bigger game at play here. Our teammates in this game are Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Our adversaries are Iran and Russia and (to a lesser extent) Venezuela. The weapon, of course, is the price of oil. The objectives are an agreement with Iran over nuclear weapon development (and more), a resolution to the Ukraine war, and a humbled Venezuela (I doubt the timing of the Cuba actions was unrelated, do you?). If this is the game, and the US needs to appear to be DOING SOMETHING; then I can think of nothing better than a "Summit on Violent Extremism" titled and designed so as to not upset our teammates.
I note that as US and Saudi backed jihadi mercenaries were killing Christians in Syria - the Times and Mr. Friedman did not seem to care one bit.
That's not true - that was well reported - and the world almost attacked Syria over it
3
Even in India, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Phillipines, there is constant violence, strife and mayhem between the muslim and non-muslim populations. Maybe Islam itself is not so peaceful!
4
The President and the rest of the Left are afraid of the consequences of acknowledging the deeper truth -- that traditional Islamic theology itself, with its doctrines of Jihad, caliphate and hostility to infidels (all exemplified by Mohammed during his lifetime), is what fuels the Islamic extremist movement, which succeeds in attracting recruits as a revivalist "back to the roots" purification movement. Acknowledging this means calling for a repudiation of some of those "roots" -- certain core theological elements of Islam itself, a daunting but necessary task about which the President and others of the Left are oblivious. It's not about poverty, alienation or "grievances" (plenty of non-Muslims suffer these and don't commit similar amounts of atrocities), it's about theology.
5
American Christian political leaders who just don't care about the American poor are Christian radicals.
Even if it’s true that the vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace with us, you could have said the same thing about the residents of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union. In both cases, confrontation was still inevitable and the danger didn’t pass until the ideology that motivated those two regimes was defeated.
I’d also point out that, while millions of people have demonstrated against Charlie Hebdo in the Muslim world, sometimes violently, I haven’t heard of a single demonstration in the Muslim world against the Paris terrorists. It seems as if, yet again, politically correct liberals are living in a fantasy world of their own making.
I’d also point out that, while millions of people have demonstrated against Charlie Hebdo in the Muslim world, sometimes violently, I haven’t heard of a single demonstration in the Muslim world against the Paris terrorists. It seems as if, yet again, politically correct liberals are living in a fantasy world of their own making.
6
How a ironic! The "Honor corps" Mr Friedman writes about, which rushes like a fire brigade to tamp down any possibility of criticism or change in ISlam, or is exactly like a similar organization in the world of American- Israeli relations: The A.I.P.A.C!
As long as Mr. Friedman is in a tell-it-like-it-is mode, I wonder why Hamas or Hezbollah don't show up on his list of known Islamic terrorist groups.
2
For reasons that escape me, President Obama and his administration have a had a hard time labeling Islamist terrorist incidents just that. The fact that the Fort Hood massacre is classified as "work place violence" is a good example. Of course that is absurd. By that logic, the 9/11 WTC attack was work place violence. People were killed at work. Ridiculous.
4
"if these men could hold jobs and girl's hands"..... What about Muslim women holding jobs, and deciding whether or not they want their hands held themselves?" not to mention driving cars?
And why isn't the conference being sponsored and held by and in Saudi Arabia, which is the source of much of the ideology and funding for these terrorist groups?
And why isn't the conference being sponsored and held by and in Saudi Arabia, which is the source of much of the ideology and funding for these terrorist groups?
9
Excellent piece. You are quite right -we should call a spade a space. To deny that the violence in the Middle East and elsewhere in Europe is due to something other Radical Islam is naïve. I have been surprised at the contortions Obama goes through to even avoid the word terrorism. Look at the murders and violence committed by the Islamic Terrorist, Maj. Hassan - Obama and Holder called it "workplace violence" - what Fraud The American people know the difference so who are you trying to fool.
The massacre in Paris just last week was not carried out by just any old terrorist sect. - It was the work of Radical Islamic terrorists. Why not call it what it is.
It is not Islamaphobia to say that some members of that religion commit violent and despicable acts in the name of that faith. When you see the videos of beheadings they are carried out in the name of Islam and are proud to say so.
There is a murderous strain in that religion that has suddenly come to the forefront and is used as the excuse for all kinds of depravity. ISIL acts in the name of that religion -- so lets stop kidding ourselves and call a spade a spade.
We should never be afraid to call out murders as Radical Islamists if they insist on carrying out crimes in the name of their faith. And right now the world has a lot of Islamic sects that are conducting a reign of terror throughout the world.
The massacre in Paris just last week was not carried out by just any old terrorist sect. - It was the work of Radical Islamic terrorists. Why not call it what it is.
It is not Islamaphobia to say that some members of that religion commit violent and despicable acts in the name of that faith. When you see the videos of beheadings they are carried out in the name of Islam and are proud to say so.
There is a murderous strain in that religion that has suddenly come to the forefront and is used as the excuse for all kinds of depravity. ISIL acts in the name of that religion -- so lets stop kidding ourselves and call a spade a spade.
We should never be afraid to call out murders as Radical Islamists if they insist on carrying out crimes in the name of their faith. And right now the world has a lot of Islamic sects that are conducting a reign of terror throughout the world.
7
Why is it important to name Islam? Isn't it really the violent extremism that is the problem regardless of whether or not it is connected to Islam?
Best to leave the dragon of religion out of the equation and demonstrate in language that ALL violent extremism will be targeted equally, whether the perpetrators are Muslim, Christian or Zoroastrian. The statistical concentration of terrorists within one religious group or another is a secondary issue. To state it otherwise opens the door to sidelining the debate onto the topic of who gets offended by what.
The issue is the violence. Full stop.
Best to leave the dragon of religion out of the equation and demonstrate in language that ALL violent extremism will be targeted equally, whether the perpetrators are Muslim, Christian or Zoroastrian. The statistical concentration of terrorists within one religious group or another is a secondary issue. To state it otherwise opens the door to sidelining the debate onto the topic of who gets offended by what.
The issue is the violence. Full stop.
Speaking too delicately is frustrating, for sure. Unfortunately, we are living in a time when speaking too quickly, too insensitively can cause a whole range of other issues. Yes, we are confronting radical, extremist, violent Muslims who have corrupted and exploited Islam for their own gains. But we can't be reckless and make statements that inspire such nonsense as has come out of the mouths of Jindal and a few misinformed people at Fox News. Walking on eggshells? Perhaps. But that's the case when you discuss cultures or religions that the entire country (Wester World?) has come to vilify through misinformation. Of course, I'm disgusted (but not afraid) of violent Muslim extremists. But I'm also repulsed by the behavior of radical, fundamentalist Christians or Jews. While these two religions/cultures might not be as violent as their Islamic radicals, there's still a lot of hate and intolerance coming from them that inspires others to perpetuate crimes. It seems that bringing the Muslim world into the discussion in the most direct and inclusive way is the preferred method to curb a violent fringe group. Caution in the use of certain terms is not a bad thing. Especially in a society that can so quickly demonize anyone who is the "other" -- black, gay, Latino, etc.
I have a bigger problem, the lack of connecting the connection to hatred of Jews to almost all the attacks. The press doesn't stress it, the stories of attacks on Jews certainly don't inspire mass demonstrations. I think of the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires - almost a hundred killed, hundreds more injured - or the recent murder of kids in a Jewish school in Toulouse - and so on. I don't expect the world to say I am Jewish, but I do expect the media to report the extent to which anti-Jewish feeling is always part of these terrorists beliefs.
9
Friedman conveniently ignores other sources of religious or political fundamentalism. Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim nor are the many right wing, violent extremists in our midst. To focus exclusively on MUSLIMS would therefore reduce the vigilance needed to counter fundamentalist violence which knows no bounds. The summit is aptly named.
1
When will the "good" Muslims decry these crimes committed in the name of their "gentle" faith? Until The Saudis, in particular, distance themselves publicly from jihadists, and work with the civilized world to stop terrorism in the name of Islam, the argument that the jihadists are "fringe" actors has no credibility.
4
It's a long time since the tag of "workplace violence," was officially affixed by the US Department of Defense to the acts of Islamic terror done by Nidal Malik Hassan at Fort Hood Texas on November 5, 2009. We live in a PC world where some people lose their jobs even as others lose their lives for speaking, writing, drawing or thinking the truth. In the world of PC and the political bubble that President Obama has created to promote his program of befriending enemies and antagonizing friends it is impossible to label Hassan or the three perpetrators in Paris as Islamic terrorists because that would impede upon the President's effort to improve relations with the Arab world that he began formally in Cairo before the Fort Hood attack.
3
I--amazingly--finally agree on something with Friedman. Radical Islam is the #1 national security problem facing this nation. You can bet that these bad guys are working to try and unite their efforts--ISIL, al Queda, Boko Haram, etc. They are also trying to cleanse predominately Muslim areas of Christians, and they are doing it in very bloody, violent ways. Who from the West will be today's Charles "the Hammer" Martel at Tours? Who will stand at the gates of Vienna and turn back the modern day Muslim hordes?
3
Before 2003, Iraq was a nation ruled by a strong, secular despot. After Iraq had been kicked out of Kuwait, the West should have left it alone. It invaded Iraq under false pretexts and broke it - resulting today in the ISIL.
The Al Qaeda and Taliban were trained and funded by which nation(s) in the 1980s and 1990s?
Who is funding the rebels in Syria today?
While it is true that the lack of democracy, education and gainful employment is a major reason for the rash of violence in the Middle East, the West has also played a role in it. The US continues to support nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who support terrorism in the name of religion.
France takes a very strict view on antisemitism, and rightly so, but calls cartoons that offend Muslims as the practice of free speech. Isn't this hypocrisy?
It would not hurt Western nations to encourage more Muslim participation in the public space. How many Muslims are in the French, German or UK cabinet, at the federal, state or provincial level?
So long as governments practice us vs. them, this problem will not go away.
The Al Qaeda and Taliban were trained and funded by which nation(s) in the 1980s and 1990s?
Who is funding the rebels in Syria today?
While it is true that the lack of democracy, education and gainful employment is a major reason for the rash of violence in the Middle East, the West has also played a role in it. The US continues to support nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who support terrorism in the name of religion.
France takes a very strict view on antisemitism, and rightly so, but calls cartoons that offend Muslims as the practice of free speech. Isn't this hypocrisy?
It would not hurt Western nations to encourage more Muslim participation in the public space. How many Muslims are in the French, German or UK cabinet, at the federal, state or provincial level?
So long as governments practice us vs. them, this problem will not go away.
3
Radical Islam is radical Islam but many of the participants are Economically disenfranchised youth, no opportunities no hope. The causes of the Arab Spring are economic (spured by kleptocratic governments). 1% of the population own/control 50% of the worlds wealth in the next few years? No social conscience there!
I have to disagree 100%. Say that we are at war against violent extremism, and you are 100% correct. Say that you are at war with Islam, even "radical Islam," and Sikhs, Hindus and anyone else who doesn't "look American" get attacked on the street. We are not at war with American citizens living in the United States, but you'd never know it to read the newspaper.
1
If decent Muslims do not take back their religion and fail to understand why their religion attracts and foments radicals intent on death and destruction, and CHANGE it, it's chaos and sadness for all, including them.
4
According to the White House press secretary: "This summit will build on the strategy the White House released in August of 2011, Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, the first national strategy to prevent violent extremism domestically."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/empowering_local_partners.pdf
This seems very reasonable to me, and this document does use the words`Muslim' and `Islam'. Just because they want to emphasis the process of radicalization, you want to follow Lowry's lead?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/empowering_local_partners.pdf
This seems very reasonable to me, and this document does use the words`Muslim' and `Islam'. Just because they want to emphasis the process of radicalization, you want to follow Lowry's lead?
2
Calling the havoc wrought by these medieval murderers the product of "radical Islam" implies some sort of religious justification. The Obama administration is right to take religion out of the title of its conference, which should address the plague of organized mass killing of innocents, whether it's committed by people who call themselves Muslims, Christians, Jews or members of any other faith, sect or gang.
2
The only way to defeat Islamic radicalism is to destroy Islamic radicalism, a process that will take several generations.
The root causes of Islamic radicalism are the theocratic collusion of Islamic clergy and tribal leaders to justify their mandate from god and the subsequent state funding of terrorists to spread the word of god. To civilized eyes, this is both domestic and foreign policy political power manifested as religious law.
To destroy Islamic radicalism, given the intransigence of the Sunni states who have created, nurtured and grown Islamic radicalism, probably means a ruthless containment of Sunnis within Sunni lands, coupled with a ruthless deportment of Muslims who support radical Islam and ban against Islamic immigration from Sunni countries.
Weapons, technology, science ... none of the advances of civilized cultures should be exported to theocratic states, let alone those who fund and nurture Islamic radical foreign policies.
Oil is the only economic and hence political weapon available to theocracies. Civilized countries have only two options available to combat the use of oil as a political weapon.
Machiavellian use of military power to occupy the theocratic state and control the oil industries. This is not consistent with western idealism about sovereignty or the equality of people, but there it is.
or
Develop alternative sources of energy. The shale revolution has now set a ceiling on the cost of oil. Let's see if that works.
The root causes of Islamic radicalism are the theocratic collusion of Islamic clergy and tribal leaders to justify their mandate from god and the subsequent state funding of terrorists to spread the word of god. To civilized eyes, this is both domestic and foreign policy political power manifested as religious law.
To destroy Islamic radicalism, given the intransigence of the Sunni states who have created, nurtured and grown Islamic radicalism, probably means a ruthless containment of Sunnis within Sunni lands, coupled with a ruthless deportment of Muslims who support radical Islam and ban against Islamic immigration from Sunni countries.
Weapons, technology, science ... none of the advances of civilized cultures should be exported to theocratic states, let alone those who fund and nurture Islamic radical foreign policies.
Oil is the only economic and hence political weapon available to theocracies. Civilized countries have only two options available to combat the use of oil as a political weapon.
Machiavellian use of military power to occupy the theocratic state and control the oil industries. This is not consistent with western idealism about sovereignty or the equality of people, but there it is.
or
Develop alternative sources of energy. The shale revolution has now set a ceiling on the cost of oil. Let's see if that works.
3
Personally, I think that international conferences on climate change are undercut by their arbitrary refusal to identify themselves as conferences on American & Chinese overconsumption. I think Mr. Friedman has been watching too much Fox news.
1
The apparent sameness of Islam in different Muslim countries are illusion and West need to look deeper into this problem. Each Ilamic country has its own contradiction unique to that country. Pakisthan had the deep routed hate for Hindu India - its reason for its creation, and Pakisthan can not remove that blinder. Over the successive military administrations, this has become more deeper and corrosive. The internal conflict between the Shia and Sunnis is driving the contradictions in Iraq and Syria. The fear of loosing the power by the Shekhs created the contradiction in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, and so on and on. There is no single mechanism to remove these contradictions. Islamic terrorism like Al Queda, ISIS, Boka Horron,LTE, Taliban,.. are the manifestation of these contradictions.
Inspite of these contradictions, it is important for riligious leaders to free their faith from politics. There is general tendency of Islamic religious leaders to link their faith close to politics - they do not understand the danger of this practice. Pope defends the role of Christianity in the world, at the same time keeps sufficient distance from the political process of Christian majority countries. This is the model of Islamic religious leaders. If they can do this, their faith will regain its appropriate position in the world's faith community - not otherwise.
Inspite of these contradictions, it is important for riligious leaders to free their faith from politics. There is general tendency of Islamic religious leaders to link their faith close to politics - they do not understand the danger of this practice. Pope defends the role of Christianity in the world, at the same time keeps sufficient distance from the political process of Christian majority countries. This is the model of Islamic religious leaders. If they can do this, their faith will regain its appropriate position in the world's faith community - not otherwise.
1
Is there a way to remove ourselves from the middle east, central Asia and northern Africa without abandoning Isreal? We import less and less oil from that region. What else keeps us there? Nation building? No thanks, already got one.
2
I don't put much importance on what name Obama puts on the enemy. I am concerned with what he does to combat it.
When the Taliban blew up the centuries old Buddhas and were rewarded with trips to Houston to discuss oil exploration, I'm pretty sure Friedman was not as exercised as he is now over Obama's choice of words. Personally, I felt those people were evil and we ought to have done something about it.
All this parsing of words only tends to block and interfere with the actions that should be undertaken against an enemy that hasn't changed much in 1400 years.
When the Taliban blew up the centuries old Buddhas and were rewarded with trips to Houston to discuss oil exploration, I'm pretty sure Friedman was not as exercised as he is now over Obama's choice of words. Personally, I felt those people were evil and we ought to have done something about it.
All this parsing of words only tends to block and interfere with the actions that should be undertaken against an enemy that hasn't changed much in 1400 years.
4
Now, if you have kept saying to the White House, the Newsweek, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Charlotte Observer, the Guardian and the BBC for twelve years how to fight and subdue the radical Islam or how to contain them and all of them refused to help in implementing the best solutions, do such behavior make them the accomplices in spreading the terrorism or just plainly stupid and incompetent?
I remind you that Obama has first-hand experience of Islam in Indonesia, when he was growing up, when he attended elementary school. Thomas Friedman wants to play schoolyard bully with Barack Obama, to get him to use terms he is not comfortable using. But there is a much stronger reason why Obama would not use the term that Friedman insists he use.
Perhaps, Friedman can think of a way to organize against "radical Islam" without alienating Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia, as he organizes and trains local troops to fight ISIS. These governments are not about to commit political suicide for the sake of Friedman's verbal bullying. Unless Friedman is figuring on a Bush style decade-long failure, he is going to have to make peace with governments with more or less commitment to Islamic culture, who are nonetheless committed to modernity.
Perhaps, Friedman can think of a way to organize against "radical Islam" without alienating Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia, as he organizes and trains local troops to fight ISIS. These governments are not about to commit political suicide for the sake of Friedman's verbal bullying. Unless Friedman is figuring on a Bush style decade-long failure, he is going to have to make peace with governments with more or less commitment to Islamic culture, who are nonetheless committed to modernity.
2
Okay, Mr. Friedman, so you don't like the name. But is your objection worth a column? When a world leader speaks of "violent extremism", who do you think he's talking about? Do you think ANYONE would have any doubts about the target of such a characterization?
Please.
Please.
3
We are dealing with a religion without a reformation---and as pointed out in this article, that reformation must come from within, not from without.
2
Several apprpriate references to Pakistan; not one mention of Saudi Arabia.Are they the bully...has FrIedman layed off in response ?
1
The Friedman article points out a very relevant point. Islamic extremism isn't coming from the largest Muslim communities located in India and Indonesia. On the contrary, it seems to be found in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and, more recently, Sub-Sahara Africa. And, as a result of that situation, one has to ask what is the local answer for responding to this phenomenon. Frankly, one could argue there isn't one. The only answer from Europe, and other regions aforementioned, is to look to assistance (read assumption of the problem here) from the United States. America would be well-advised to respond in the same way as other countries of the Western Hemisphere and Western Pacific Rim have responded. Contain the problem from arriving to your shores, and arrive at the conclusion that "limited assistance" is the only avenue available. The issue is endemic to the regions, and can only be solved within the regions.
1
The Southern Poverty Law Center offers a regular report on the activities of terrorists in this country. It is deplorable how, after the Oklahoma City bombing and ongoing smaller incidents by Christian Identity and other militia groups in this country, the story about home-grown (and largely inept) right-wing fanatics continues to be ignored.
4
Tom, I like you and there is a really nuanced debate here to be had. Karen Armstrong's topical book, Fields of Blood, may not be fast enough to keep up with the debate as it rages on, but my friend you are not winning a Nobel Peace prize for this one. As for who's already won it, I know one person who did.
PS: And just because you get one Muslim reporter to be willing to indict Islam
does not mean the majority of Muslims believe that. Logic 101, sorry.
PS: And just because you get one Muslim reporter to be willing to indict Islam
does not mean the majority of Muslims believe that. Logic 101, sorry.
4
Bravo! It is way past time for the majority of Muslims who are decent people to join together on this issue and comdemn these radical members of their religion. We can't fix the problem, but they can.
3
The various terrorist groups are cold blooded killers first and foremost. They do not represent a nation or a religion. The only glaringly overt part of any agenda they profess is the dead innocents they leave behind when they move out of the protective cover of their hidey holes. They need to be hunted down and prosecuted for crimes against humanity. They have no dickering power outside of covert circles of wealthy donors who hire and arm them to kill. Without the donors the terrorists cannot exist.
1
Unbelievable the lengths of political correctness. This is driving us all in the bus straight to hell - or a beheading - whichever comes first.
Let me tell you what I know about radical Islam from what I saw over the pond - we are ALL INFIDELS - even certain muslim sects are INFIDELS to the extremists. They are COMING, they are BREEDING, and they are GOING TO LET US LAY OURSELVES ON THE SACRIFICIAL ALTAR OF PC if we continue. We will win their war for them.
Let me tell you what I know about radical Islam from what I saw over the pond - we are ALL INFIDELS - even certain muslim sects are INFIDELS to the extremists. They are COMING, they are BREEDING, and they are GOING TO LET US LAY OURSELVES ON THE SACRIFICIAL ALTAR OF PC if we continue. We will win their war for them.
2
You can not ignore ethnic sectarian extremists from any faith. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), Muslim (Sunni Shia), Shinto, Mormon and animists.
From the invasion and occupation of the Holy Land by the Abram of Ur. Sumer (modern Iraq) proclaiming divine guidance to kill, wound and displace the native men, women and children, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim heirs of Abraham have used ethnic sectarian supremacy to justify Zionism, crusades and jihad. Armed with their Old Testament Moses, New Testament Jesus and Quran Muhammad they often ignore the divine natural human being unity of other persons who are created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and only 20% of them are Arab. The most populous Arab nation, Egypt, has only the 6th most Muslims. After Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
The roots of Islamic terror and extremism primarily lie in the Sunni Muslim Arab secular military royal theocratic autocrats, dictators allied with Europe and America. Along with the European American alliance with the nuclear weapon armed Zionist Jewish Israeli supremacist occupation,blockade/siege, exile state sponsored terrorism colonial apartheid 2nd class citizens for Christian Muslim Arab Palestinian Israelis.
Were Hitler/ Stalin, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, Tim McVeigh, George Bush and Barack Obama Christian extremists?
From the invasion and occupation of the Holy Land by the Abram of Ur. Sumer (modern Iraq) proclaiming divine guidance to kill, wound and displace the native men, women and children, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim heirs of Abraham have used ethnic sectarian supremacy to justify Zionism, crusades and jihad. Armed with their Old Testament Moses, New Testament Jesus and Quran Muhammad they often ignore the divine natural human being unity of other persons who are created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and only 20% of them are Arab. The most populous Arab nation, Egypt, has only the 6th most Muslims. After Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
The roots of Islamic terror and extremism primarily lie in the Sunni Muslim Arab secular military royal theocratic autocrats, dictators allied with Europe and America. Along with the European American alliance with the nuclear weapon armed Zionist Jewish Israeli supremacist occupation,blockade/siege, exile state sponsored terrorism colonial apartheid 2nd class citizens for Christian Muslim Arab Palestinian Israelis.
Were Hitler/ Stalin, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, Tim McVeigh, George Bush and Barack Obama Christian extremists?
Would it not be more accurate to refer to these extremists as reactionary Islamists?
1
I would hope hope we're against violent extremism in Southeast Asia, which is perpetuated by extremist Buddhists AGAINST Muslims.
I would hope hope we're against violent extremism in Central Africa, which is perpetuated by extremist Christian terrorists.
Friedman has fallen for the rhetorical trap set by those hawks who want to use defense spending at home to perpetuate conflicts "between civilizations", rather than using "dollar diplomacy" to help build friends and allies abroad.
Who cares what the "color of the flag" used to spread extremism -- it's extremism we are battling, not the flag.
I would hope hope we're against violent extremism in Central Africa, which is perpetuated by extremist Christian terrorists.
Friedman has fallen for the rhetorical trap set by those hawks who want to use defense spending at home to perpetuate conflicts "between civilizations", rather than using "dollar diplomacy" to help build friends and allies abroad.
Who cares what the "color of the flag" used to spread extremism -- it's extremism we are battling, not the flag.
1
Important and vital for all of us for the sake of humankind and to prevent the desecration of Islam. But he fails to mention the horrific State sponsored Shiite terrorism of Iran. Just as fanatical, potentially nuclear armed and a huge threat to humankind and to the people of the United States.
Is violent extremism worse when committed by a criminal claiming to be Muslim than it is if the criminal is Christian? Is it worse to shoot up cartoonists or blow up a day care center? Violent Extremism needs to be countered no matter what banner it wraps itself in.
Acts of violence like Charlie Hebdo are really recruiting efforts for fringe sects. Playing up the fact that these sects are Islamic only gives them more credibility and ability to attract recruits.
Acts of violence like Charlie Hebdo are really recruiting efforts for fringe sects. Playing up the fact that these sects are Islamic only gives them more credibility and ability to attract recruits.
3
Well said.
One can only wonder why Obama won't say what is obviously true to any sentient being. And let's not forget a few hard facts. When you add the works of al qaeda, ISIS, Boko Harum, Hezbollah, Hamas and countless other groups as well as lone wolves and sleepers, the number of Islamic radicals is not small -- nor is the roll of the dead and maimed.
And the funding for the actions of these individuals comes from a broader net of Muslims -- and the call to actions comes from a wide net of radicalized clerics.
Moreover, the muslim faith is in conflict with much of western civilization.
So, let's not minimize what is obvious.
While Obama and many progressives call for massive reworking of the economy in the name of questionable science and economics in many instances, they cannot bring themselves to use the term radical Islam when almost all terrorist acts are committed by Islamists. The data doesn't lie. And to take it a step further, the Obama admin should identify that the terrorist acts do not results from the actions of a few crazies.
We should also be clear that we are in opposition to much of Sharia law. We don't support repressing women, public lashings, beheadings and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment. We support free speech. Unfortunately, much of the Muslim world support these beliefs and actions.
One can only wonder why Obama won't say what is obviously true to any sentient being. And let's not forget a few hard facts. When you add the works of al qaeda, ISIS, Boko Harum, Hezbollah, Hamas and countless other groups as well as lone wolves and sleepers, the number of Islamic radicals is not small -- nor is the roll of the dead and maimed.
And the funding for the actions of these individuals comes from a broader net of Muslims -- and the call to actions comes from a wide net of radicalized clerics.
Moreover, the muslim faith is in conflict with much of western civilization.
So, let's not minimize what is obvious.
While Obama and many progressives call for massive reworking of the economy in the name of questionable science and economics in many instances, they cannot bring themselves to use the term radical Islam when almost all terrorist acts are committed by Islamists. The data doesn't lie. And to take it a step further, the Obama admin should identify that the terrorist acts do not results from the actions of a few crazies.
We should also be clear that we are in opposition to much of Sharia law. We don't support repressing women, public lashings, beheadings and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment. We support free speech. Unfortunately, much of the Muslim world support these beliefs and actions.
3
I too almost fell off my chair when I hear the Obama Press Secretary's ridiculous remarks. He looked like a pretzel trying to explain why the Paris bombings were not committed by "radical Islamic extremists".
3
"... And this administration, so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia, is refusing to make any link to radical Islam from the recent explosions of violence against civilians (most of them Muslims) by Boko Haram in Nigeria, by the Taliban in Pakistan, by Al Qaeda in Paris and by jihadists in Yemen and Iraq."
Mr. Friedman, until you and all our country's foreign policy experts within and without the administration decide to name the country at the forefront of promulgating radical Islam, your criticisms ring hollow. And who is the Lord Voldemort of the Islamic world? Take a guess. It's not Iran nor Pakistan; it's not Israel or the U.S. Then who is it that remains nameless, Mr. Friedman; I'm sure you know? See hint below:
This country carries the personal name of the founder of the present dynasty, Saʿūd.
Mr. Friedman, until you and all our country's foreign policy experts within and without the administration decide to name the country at the forefront of promulgating radical Islam, your criticisms ring hollow. And who is the Lord Voldemort of the Islamic world? Take a guess. It's not Iran nor Pakistan; it's not Israel or the U.S. Then who is it that remains nameless, Mr. Friedman; I'm sure you know? See hint below:
This country carries the personal name of the founder of the present dynasty, Saʿūd.
1
My God, Tom Friedman is quoting Rich Lowry in The Times. Armageddon must be upon us.
1
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW WELL INTENTIONED PC . . .
... can by the use of language obscure the reality of dangerous events in the present and future can be dealt with via the use of Newspeak to lead to significant dangers.
Thank you Mr. Freidman for saying it like it is.
... can by the use of language obscure the reality of dangerous events in the present and future can be dealt with via the use of Newspeak to lead to significant dangers.
Thank you Mr. Freidman for saying it like it is.
3
Are we really going to spend a lot of energy on what label to put on this threat? Yes, I get that the terrorism emanates from a certain part of the Islamic faith -- that is fairly obvious regardless of Josh Earnest's wordplay. On the other hand, I also get that there is pressure in some quarters to spin recent events into a narrative about Islam itself, about the fundamental violence of the faith as a whole. And I suppose it's that narrative that the White House is seeking to prevent.
Let's just find a new label -- Wahhabism maybe? -- that takes off the table any suggestion that the actions of even a few hundred thousand extremists should inform our view of over a billion others.
Let's just find a new label -- Wahhabism maybe? -- that takes off the table any suggestion that the actions of even a few hundred thousand extremists should inform our view of over a billion others.
2
Well said, Tim C. It is pointless to dwell on the inept evasiveness of a White House staffer and to read dark motives into that silliness. Like you, many of us are more concerned that our fight against ISIS and the fundamentalist extremists will be used by some to indict an entire religion. Such a slander of Islam is precisely what the radical jihadists would like to provoke by their heavily marketed violence and is what President Obama wisely wishes to avoid.
Mr. Freidman’s insistence on a different approach is disappointing.
Mr. Freidman’s insistence on a different approach is disappointing.
If we call them by Mr Friedman's choice, they will probably lay down their weapons and surrender.
The growth of radical Islam has a common root. That root is the Wahabbi sect of that religion. It can be found at the base of Al Quaeda, the Taliban and ISIS. The source of that root can be found in Saudi Arabia where the Wahabbis and their wealthy sheik adherents rule. Saudi Arabia has Sharia law. They behead people for certain crimes and have done that for decades if not longer. The 9/11 perpetrators were Wahabbis and 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi involvement in 9/11 has been withheld from the public view in the 9/11 investigative report. I realize that the U.S./Saudi relationship is very sensitive but it's time we started learning the truth about Saudi Arabia's role in supporting radical Islam or we can continue to stick our heads in the sand and suffer the consequences.
113
I support Diana Moukalled's leadership in protecting the image of Islam. Most spiritual leaders of the Islamic faith respect the rights of women and speak out against using women as sexual objects. In many Islamic communities women hold positions of great power unlike the Catholic church.
It is important not to demonize the Islamic faith because it only provides fuel for the fire of hatred. If people were more familiar with the atrocities that have been wielded against the Muslim people including the unnecessary bombings in Chechnya, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as the diaspora of the peoples of Palestine, they would begin to understand the deep seated feelings of resentment against the West.
It is not our place to expect other people to modernize just as it is not their place to impose their religious values on a secular society. The first step to peace is to understand the origins of the problem and to offer a willingness to listen to other's truths even if they are diametrically opposed to our own. "Islamophobe" is not just a label but the beginning of describing a certain groups feeling of being marginalized in society and grouped together as if all people who share the same faith believe or advocate violence as a means to an end.
It is important not to demonize the Islamic faith because it only provides fuel for the fire of hatred. If people were more familiar with the atrocities that have been wielded against the Muslim people including the unnecessary bombings in Chechnya, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as the diaspora of the peoples of Palestine, they would begin to understand the deep seated feelings of resentment against the West.
It is not our place to expect other people to modernize just as it is not their place to impose their religious values on a secular society. The first step to peace is to understand the origins of the problem and to offer a willingness to listen to other's truths even if they are diametrically opposed to our own. "Islamophobe" is not just a label but the beginning of describing a certain groups feeling of being marginalized in society and grouped together as if all people who share the same faith believe or advocate violence as a means to an end.
18
what do "deep seated feelings of resentment against the West" have to do with stoning women to death and throwing gay men off of buildings?
1
I just want to make sure Friedman is consistent- will he use the term "Radical Christianism" when referring to extremists who kill abortion doctors or attack immigrants? By his logic, the Westboro Baptist church are indeed "angry young (well not so much so) men and preachers on the fringe of" Christianity- and therefore we should ACCURATELY say that we need to attack "Radical Christianism." The point of the administration's discussion is that the potential for misunderstanding is the same as it would be if you used "radical Christianism"
Thomas, you are not a communications expert so in parsing the semantics of the Obama administration, you end up embarrassing yourself, as many smart readers have noted.
It is impossible to know how much of the thinking of radicals is due to honest beliefs, a lust for power, typical of sociopathic Hitler wanna-be's, angry, unemployed youth, etc. But if most young Arabs had decent jobs, and fair, secular governments, how strong would the extremists be? These historical factors, are valid as causes of conflict, not just now, but throughout history. Take your own advice, Don’t say stupid stuff
It is impossible to know how much of the thinking of radicals is due to honest beliefs, a lust for power, typical of sociopathic Hitler wanna-be's, angry, unemployed youth, etc. But if most young Arabs had decent jobs, and fair, secular governments, how strong would the extremists be? These historical factors, are valid as causes of conflict, not just now, but throughout history. Take your own advice, Don’t say stupid stuff
2
Muslim extremism, violent, radical, terroristic and jihadist is what the world is facing from the New Caliphate and ISIS/ISIL. Good Muslims, Islamists, hang their heads in shame at the beheadings and outrages perpetrated by the demented zealots in Islam today. Inshallah, that those who are upsetting our world and frightening our people witless -as millions of innocents were frightened and executed in the National Socialism Germany of the 12 Year Dritte Reich - will receive their reward that only time passing will bring them
2
I have to disagree. The administration is correct in labeling the problem Violent Extremism, and it is a POLITICAL and SOCIAL problem. The perpetuators are being very successful in using Islam as a convenient excuse, and Charlie Hebdo was a prefect target to get maximum publicity. If Charlie Hebdo didn't exist, they would have attacked another convenient target, a jewish high school, synagogue, or public venue, as they have done regularly in the past. The 3 perpetrators travelled to Syria for training, not because of any religious beliefs, but because they wanted to train on how to commit violent terror.
The problem is not a Muslim or Islamic one, and should not be labelled as such. Doing so simply adds to the credibility of these fanatic, deeply disturbed criminals.
The problem is not a Muslim or Islamic one, and should not be labelled as such. Doing so simply adds to the credibility of these fanatic, deeply disturbed criminals.
38
When these terrorists identify THEMSELVES as Muslim, it does become a Muslim or Islamic problem.
2
Are you saying that we are seeing an Islamic "Crusade"? or that the troubles in Northern Ireland were "Catholic" extremists or that Palestinians worry Israel because they want to bury Judaism? Did Bin Laden work his woe because he wanted an "Islamic State' or did he use Islam as a tool to gain power? I still have a hard time blaming a religion for what is an economic/political issue.
2
It is not Islamic extremism.
The terrorist activity appears to be related to political, economic and social attacks by people in muslim countries who are terrorizing over territory : example Kashmir, Palestine, Syria, Iraq etc
Terrorizing over economic control in Nigeria.
Terrorizing over social issues in Chechnya, Pakistan etc.
The only common link on the first glance appears to be that they are all Muslims, but that is premature closure in the analysis of the diagnosis of the problem of terrorism in the muslim communities.
That is why, the summit is called Violent extremism.
The terrorist activity appears to be related to political, economic and social attacks by people in muslim countries who are terrorizing over territory : example Kashmir, Palestine, Syria, Iraq etc
Terrorizing over economic control in Nigeria.
Terrorizing over social issues in Chechnya, Pakistan etc.
The only common link on the first glance appears to be that they are all Muslims, but that is premature closure in the analysis of the diagnosis of the problem of terrorism in the muslim communities.
That is why, the summit is called Violent extremism.
16
Wrong. People are poor and oppressed all over but only Muslims behead, enslave, crucify, throw gays from rooftops in the name of their religion. If poverty and oppression cause terrorism, where are the Haitian suicide bombers? Why don't Christian Arabs "go Jihad" like Muslim Arabs living in the same places and under the same conditions?
3
I understand the president's desire to not alienate peaceful Muslims. We need their assistance to fight this extremism on our home turf, and we do not want to alienate more young Muslims.
However, the president's refusal to use the term "Islamic" insults one's intelligence. Josh Earnest's comment after the Paris attack was just silly. Ditto for statements containing phrases like "workplace violence."
Better he should use the term, "Islamic extremists", just like the rest of the world, and use his rhetorical gifts to explain that Americans understand that most Muslims are not violent.
If ever there was a time for a Muslim/American partnership this is it. That requires honesty and openness. Bending over backwards in such an awkward way doesn't promote responsible dialogue. It's just silly.
However, the president's refusal to use the term "Islamic" insults one's intelligence. Josh Earnest's comment after the Paris attack was just silly. Ditto for statements containing phrases like "workplace violence."
Better he should use the term, "Islamic extremists", just like the rest of the world, and use his rhetorical gifts to explain that Americans understand that most Muslims are not violent.
If ever there was a time for a Muslim/American partnership this is it. That requires honesty and openness. Bending over backwards in such an awkward way doesn't promote responsible dialogue. It's just silly.
3
Oftentimes language can be a powerful conduit for cultural understanding. As an extreme example, the word "nigger" carries the heavy weight of years of oppression. Just as much as the word "whore" can trigger a range of emotional responses from people. To be careful not to use trigger words is a step towards diplomacy since no one in their right mind would throw around the words "Jewish extremist" when describing the bombing of innocent civilians in the West Bank.
The issue that President Obama is addressing is violent extremism which can be applied universally towards those of all faiths whether it be Buddhists in Myanmar, anti-Hindu violence in India, mass killings of Tutsis and moderate Hutu peoples in Rwanda or intra sectarian violence in Lebanon, Yemen and Syria. Religious violence and extremism are not limited to Muslim populations if one explores conflict around the globe. What needs addressing in order to build cooperation and understanding is the roots of extremism and violence and the application of language which will further support a peaceful outcome.
The issue that President Obama is addressing is violent extremism which can be applied universally towards those of all faiths whether it be Buddhists in Myanmar, anti-Hindu violence in India, mass killings of Tutsis and moderate Hutu peoples in Rwanda or intra sectarian violence in Lebanon, Yemen and Syria. Religious violence and extremism are not limited to Muslim populations if one explores conflict around the globe. What needs addressing in order to build cooperation and understanding is the roots of extremism and violence and the application of language which will further support a peaceful outcome.
2
Doctor Zhivago Bonn:
We don't need a summit on international extremism or multiple forms of it. Right now, we need to address one specific type of extremism.
Language should not be the focus, nor should it obfuscate. Clearly identifying the problem should be the primary concern.
We don't need a summit on international extremism or multiple forms of it. Right now, we need to address one specific type of extremism.
Language should not be the focus, nor should it obfuscate. Clearly identifying the problem should be the primary concern.
It does seem that alienation etc would breed violence, However the violence is perpetrated by practically all Muslims. It's not only Muslim young men who are alienated and unemployed in Europe, Africa and elsewhere.
3
Mr.Brooks you are very knowledgable journalist and expert on foreign affairs and well known pundit in USA. You cay it like it is but the solution is not easy. I am a Muslim from bangladesh living in America for about 40 years . I denounce all sorts of extremism in all religion and Islam is a religion of peace. The so called Jihadists are ignorant stupid unemployed poor people manipulated by the thugs like Bi Laden or Abu baker of Isis. USA has been on perpetual war specially in Middle East for decades and terrorism is increasing. May be we should find some other to minimize it or stop it. Along with arms we have to use some other way. America should support the moderate government in muslim countries who are against Islamic extremists. We have to stop killing innocent muslim people by drones or by war. We have to close Gitmo . We have to stop supporting wahabi/salami government of Saudi Arabia. We have to stop supporting the mocking and insulting our prophet which hurts us too much. Freedom of speech does not mean insulting Islam and the prophet.
3
Bravo to Tom Friedman for cutting through so much tip-toeing around a real problem and obscuring it with meaningless political mumbling. History proved Chamberlain was wrong to appease Hitler - seems that this cancer of jihadism has much in common with Nazism.
We can spend a lot of time dissecting any religion to find examples of that religion promoting wars and violence against non-believers. We can blame the mistaken policies of the past BUT leadership will demand honesty and a resolve to take action against a growing malignancy.
This is not about Islam and it is about jihadism, today's version of fascism. I do not understand why it is so difficult for the Obama administration to verbalize that but it will be impossible to have a real dialogue about terrorism in the fog of double-speak.
We can spend a lot of time dissecting any religion to find examples of that religion promoting wars and violence against non-believers. We can blame the mistaken policies of the past BUT leadership will demand honesty and a resolve to take action against a growing malignancy.
This is not about Islam and it is about jihadism, today's version of fascism. I do not understand why it is so difficult for the Obama administration to verbalize that but it will be impossible to have a real dialogue about terrorism in the fog of double-speak.
4
There's nothing double-speak about separating violent actions from a religious fig-leaf - and your previous sentence:
"This is not about Islam and it is about jihadism, today's version of fascism."
does exactly that.
I agree.
"This is not about Islam and it is about jihadism, today's version of fascism."
does exactly that.
I agree.
Dear Mr. Friedman,
I'm surprised you're expecting the administration to use the term "Radical Muslims". It won't happen. It's against the administration's own agenda and politicians never admit mistakes.
Obama started his presidency by going to Cairo and trying to reset the relationship with the Muslim world. It didn't work out so well.
When Obama pulled out of Iraq he didn't anticipate ISIS to take over. Instead of admitting the problem, he's now trying to strike a deal with Iran against ISIS. Iran will get nuclear but who cares. Lets save our agenda in Iraq.
It reminds me of the period after the Oslo agreement when about 1000 Israeli civilians were murdered by radical Muslim terrorists. Yitzhak Rabin called them "peace victims" instead of admitting the agreement didn't work as he hoped.
In short, don't expect politicians to admit mistakes, and in our case the term "Muslim Jihadists" who put the world in danger will not be heard.
I'm surprised you're expecting the administration to use the term "Radical Muslims". It won't happen. It's against the administration's own agenda and politicians never admit mistakes.
Obama started his presidency by going to Cairo and trying to reset the relationship with the Muslim world. It didn't work out so well.
When Obama pulled out of Iraq he didn't anticipate ISIS to take over. Instead of admitting the problem, he's now trying to strike a deal with Iran against ISIS. Iran will get nuclear but who cares. Lets save our agenda in Iraq.
It reminds me of the period after the Oslo agreement when about 1000 Israeli civilians were murdered by radical Muslim terrorists. Yitzhak Rabin called them "peace victims" instead of admitting the agreement didn't work as he hoped.
In short, don't expect politicians to admit mistakes, and in our case the term "Muslim Jihadists" who put the world in danger will not be heard.
5
When you look to defeat a terrorist act it is foolhardy to say let us stop Islamic terrorism (and pass through all other terrorists). The objective is set up society to be able to stop all terrorist acts, Christian, Islamic, home grown, etc. Right now Islamic radicals are the perpetrators but they use methods common to anyone wanting to cause havoc and terror. If we had denied any weapons on airplanes (including box cutters) and kept air marshals on flights we would have defeated the 9/11 terrorists (and anyone else who would have taken over an airplane. Focusing on the terrorist of the day will cause us to miss the terrorist of the future when we structure our defense processes.
All the conferences about dealing with the Islam problem will do nothing. This is a Muslim problem and only the Muslims can solve it. Unfortunately, they seem reluctant to do so and we seem to think we have some obligation to deal with it for them.
3
It's said we're born scared of snakes, that it's an innate phobia that causes us to be startled when we see one. This isn't based on most snakes being deadly, yet some certainly are, to an extent worthy of our evolving this built-in caution.
Let's embrace "Islamophobia." We should show caution, based not on the majority of Muslims being deadly, but on the special deadliness of the few that carry the venom of fundamentalist jihadism. We can learn to appreciate, even love, the most poisonous snakes. There is beauty in every creature. Yet we must approach them with care. Even a horse knows to shy at a rattler.
Let's embrace "Islamophobia." We should show caution, based not on the majority of Muslims being deadly, but on the special deadliness of the few that carry the venom of fundamentalist jihadism. We can learn to appreciate, even love, the most poisonous snakes. There is beauty in every creature. Yet we must approach them with care. Even a horse knows to shy at a rattler.
1
Are people who bomb abortion clinics, bomb black churches, carry "god hates fags" signs, etc. "Christian extremists? Are people who insist on establishing settlements in occupied territories "Jewish extremists?"
More importantly, does it matter?
Confucius said that first thing he would do if given a province to rule would be to "rectify the names." I agree, but quibbling over the what to call a variety of insanity does not rectify anything, nor does it lead to addressing root causes.
One of the nicer names thrown at Martin Luther King was "negro extremist." Was that, or other more vicious versions, helpful? The obsession over the President's terminology smacks of name-calling to avoid assuming responsibility for constructive actions instead of warmongering.
I really respect Tom Friedman, but he's as wrong about this as he was about the Iraq War. Some things are wrong, even if Tom Friedman says them.
More importantly, does it matter?
Confucius said that first thing he would do if given a province to rule would be to "rectify the names." I agree, but quibbling over the what to call a variety of insanity does not rectify anything, nor does it lead to addressing root causes.
One of the nicer names thrown at Martin Luther King was "negro extremist." Was that, or other more vicious versions, helpful? The obsession over the President's terminology smacks of name-calling to avoid assuming responsibility for constructive actions instead of warmongering.
I really respect Tom Friedman, but he's as wrong about this as he was about the Iraq War. Some things are wrong, even if Tom Friedman says them.
4
Dear Mr. Friedman,
The use of the words "War on ______ (fill in the blank)" is nothing more than a linguistic convenience. We have "The War on Drugs" (Someday Cyrstal Meth is going to raise a white flag of surrender?), "The War on Crime" (I think our longest "war" to date.), "The War on Poverty" (It seems "Poverty is winning this one), "the War on Obesity" (Frito lay LOOK OUT!), etc., etc.
The term itself is merely "shorthand" for "we're going to attack someone/something with all of our might, sort of" and is used only to garner attention. When it comes to the, apparently, highly sensitive Muslim World, as John Stewart put it, "what's the photo/drawing/statement of the week to arouse someone in the Mid-East". Israeli Orthodox newspapers "deleted" pictures of women in the Paris rally. Miss Israel "photobombs" Miss Lebanon and an international situation develops. Charlie Hebdo does what it does so well and, in addition to slaughtering several writers and editors, the entire Muslim world rise in "protest" over ANY criticism of their religion with the new, improved "Pope" condemning not the terrorists but the "journalists" much like the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation.
Of course Mr. Obama is going to tread lightly on these "thin skinned" believers; not all of them throw bombs but a lot of them get to the streets in "protest".
Radical Islam seems, to much of the world, a redundant phrase.
Where are the "protestors" when the beheadings/bombings occur?
Never in the Mid East
The use of the words "War on ______ (fill in the blank)" is nothing more than a linguistic convenience. We have "The War on Drugs" (Someday Cyrstal Meth is going to raise a white flag of surrender?), "The War on Crime" (I think our longest "war" to date.), "The War on Poverty" (It seems "Poverty is winning this one), "the War on Obesity" (Frito lay LOOK OUT!), etc., etc.
The term itself is merely "shorthand" for "we're going to attack someone/something with all of our might, sort of" and is used only to garner attention. When it comes to the, apparently, highly sensitive Muslim World, as John Stewart put it, "what's the photo/drawing/statement of the week to arouse someone in the Mid-East". Israeli Orthodox newspapers "deleted" pictures of women in the Paris rally. Miss Israel "photobombs" Miss Lebanon and an international situation develops. Charlie Hebdo does what it does so well and, in addition to slaughtering several writers and editors, the entire Muslim world rise in "protest" over ANY criticism of their religion with the new, improved "Pope" condemning not the terrorists but the "journalists" much like the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation.
Of course Mr. Obama is going to tread lightly on these "thin skinned" believers; not all of them throw bombs but a lot of them get to the streets in "protest".
Radical Islam seems, to much of the world, a redundant phrase.
Where are the "protestors" when the beheadings/bombings occur?
Never in the Mid East
2
The problem is religion. As soon as logic is abandoned to promote a set of values based on mythology, we're lost. The most abominable nonsense goes something like this.
"This life doesn't really matter. It's the next life in Paradise that's your real destination. So get right with the divine and live by certain rules or achieve certain states of consciousness and you'll get your reward."
The reason so many have less than necessary concern for this world in real time, is that it doesn't matter to them, they think they're going to fantasy land and can't wait to get out of there.
What if they weren't and had to make it better here. Maybe things would improve, maybe there would be concern for the Seventh Generation and beyond.
"This life doesn't really matter. It's the next life in Paradise that's your real destination. So get right with the divine and live by certain rules or achieve certain states of consciousness and you'll get your reward."
The reason so many have less than necessary concern for this world in real time, is that it doesn't matter to them, they think they're going to fantasy land and can't wait to get out of there.
What if they weren't and had to make it better here. Maybe things would improve, maybe there would be concern for the Seventh Generation and beyond.
6
You obviously haven't attended a church, or at least have not participated in the pursuit common to members of all stripes of religion of a better earthly life for all of humanity. Pick a church, any church, and try participating in its activities for a few months. You will be much enlightened about the church's "concern for this world" and adherents' efforts to "make it better here."
Friedman's argument is semantic--in the worst possible sense of that term. "Western" views of human life and the nature of the world separated from those of Islam, Judaism, etc. beginning in ancient Greece and continuing through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the eighteenth century political crises that produced liberal secular governments.
Islam's historical trajectory is much different. Cultural clashes will continue until the Western and Muslim worlds share a similar trajectory. Secularism must, and will, become more and more the rule, not the exception, as is now occurring among Jewish populations.
In practical terms, I think Iran offers the West a great opportunity. If the West embraced Iran and respected its religion, in 50 years or less Iran would be Western in its most important cultural aspects.
I'm not sure that would be a "good" thing, but other options seem worse.
What is particularly not important at present is to quibble, ass Friedman does, about semantic inexactitude.
Islam's historical trajectory is much different. Cultural clashes will continue until the Western and Muslim worlds share a similar trajectory. Secularism must, and will, become more and more the rule, not the exception, as is now occurring among Jewish populations.
In practical terms, I think Iran offers the West a great opportunity. If the West embraced Iran and respected its religion, in 50 years or less Iran would be Western in its most important cultural aspects.
I'm not sure that would be a "good" thing, but other options seem worse.
What is particularly not important at present is to quibble, ass Friedman does, about semantic inexactitude.
4
If there are sound and justifiable reasons for calling a shovel a shovel, why is there any hesitation to invoke, and give currency, to the expression radical, extremist Republicans who have betrayed and distorted for nefarious ends the principles of the party of Lincoln and TR?
2
Perhaps it is time to abolish the League of Nations, summit global conferences, The Council of Foreign Relations, the UN, peace treaties, humanitarian organizations, international children's agencies and animal rescue funds, and apply ourselves to be self-serving instead. A friend thought this was a capital idea the other day, and we are now ready to place on lives on the line for the Stock Market Exchange, scotch the twaddle of religious faith and belief, and join the ranks of the very wealthy, which sounds rich.
"Islam"? This is not Islam as my Muslim, Catholic, Jewish and Episcopalian friends know it. It is Fascism and we can turn on our backs on it, while the rest of all this remains in 'The Hands of God', as cited by the Pope and my devout Muslim friend on a daily basis.
"Islam"? This is not Islam as my Muslim, Catholic, Jewish and Episcopalian friends know it. It is Fascism and we can turn on our backs on it, while the rest of all this remains in 'The Hands of God', as cited by the Pope and my devout Muslim friend on a daily basis.
2
this is the way I say it using an analogy.
The chemical processing industry in general has been a force for global good. Humans greatly benefit from drugs, fluids, and manufacturered goods. But it has its downside. Poisonous and Toxic waste. Sometimes the chemistry industry self regulates and limits emissions. Sometimes, they put in end of pipeline controls. Sometimes they rely on remediation to clean up spills. they general recognize the importance of regulations but recoil if they are too onerous.
Clearly Islam is the chemistry industry in this analogy. A force for good for 1B people but no doubt its downside is the toxic waste of extremism. Islam can choose to self regulate and rein it in, it can control it and keep it contained, it can rely on others to clean up the mess, and has to accept responsibility and global regulation to eliminate the threat.
Islam broke it, Islam owns it.
The chemical processing industry in general has been a force for global good. Humans greatly benefit from drugs, fluids, and manufacturered goods. But it has its downside. Poisonous and Toxic waste. Sometimes the chemistry industry self regulates and limits emissions. Sometimes, they put in end of pipeline controls. Sometimes they rely on remediation to clean up spills. they general recognize the importance of regulations but recoil if they are too onerous.
Clearly Islam is the chemistry industry in this analogy. A force for good for 1B people but no doubt its downside is the toxic waste of extremism. Islam can choose to self regulate and rein it in, it can control it and keep it contained, it can rely on others to clean up the mess, and has to accept responsibility and global regulation to eliminate the threat.
Islam broke it, Islam owns it.
1
So the Hebdo terrorists that killed an injured Muslim police officer are simply "Muslim" or "Islamist" terrorists? Their lack of solidarity with Muslims like that officer demonstrates it is not simply religion behind their insanity. Calling them religious terrorists is giving in to them and their delusions, not tough minded at all.
3
Are the bombers of the IRA (and they're still there) Islamists?
2
"It is coming mostly, but not exclusively, from angry young men and preachers on the fringe of the Sunni Arab and Pakistani communities in the Middle East and Europe."
"It has left these societies with too many young men who have never held a job or a girl’s hand ..."
Those who inspire the terrorists are radical Islamists. But those who carry out the attacks are often another breed. As the above descriptions suggest, those who do the bombing in the Middle East are much like those who carry out mass killings in the West. They are young men who are profoundly alienated or mentally ill. And when they shoot and bomb it is not so much Islam that they vindicate as it is their innermost, perverse thoughts.
"It has left these societies with too many young men who have never held a job or a girl’s hand ..."
Those who inspire the terrorists are radical Islamists. But those who carry out the attacks are often another breed. As the above descriptions suggest, those who do the bombing in the Middle East are much like those who carry out mass killings in the West. They are young men who are profoundly alienated or mentally ill. And when they shoot and bomb it is not so much Islam that they vindicate as it is their innermost, perverse thoughts.
TF still cheerleads for "suck on this" shock & awe against "radical Islam" somewhere. While acknowledging that jihadist violence "is coming mostly, but not exclusively, from angry young men and preachers on the fringe of the Sunni Arab and Pakistani communities in the Middle East and Europe", TF refuses to name Arab Gulf states as the evangelists for Wahhabiist fundamentalism that propagates this violence throughout the world.
TF misdirection by repeated reference to the dysfunctionality of "so many Arab states and Pakistan" exemplifies unselfconscious ridiculousness of the shock & awe neo's.
TF misdirection by repeated reference to the dysfunctionality of "so many Arab states and Pakistan" exemplifies unselfconscious ridiculousness of the shock & awe neo's.
Actually, truth be told, the main battles in Yemen (between the Houthis and the government), as well as in Iraq (between the Islamic Caliphate and the government), appear to be between Sunnis and Shiites, both a part of Islam, so describing the problem as 'radical Islam' does not really suffice. As far as the Taliban and Boko Haram are concerned, a very good case can be made that neither represents Islam at all.
2
Tom's main point—that Islam needs to confront its own radicalization—is clouded by criticizing Obama for pursuing a quieter public strategy. What is going on behind the scenes? We do not know, and we do not know if Tom knows that nothing is going on, which might justify this public pressure. If Tom doesn't know, and if what he implies is true that nothing is being done to mobilize moderate Islam, then public pressure or quieter private pressure is needed. Otherwise this looks as if Tom is simply advocating his own confrontational style over Obama's more indirect, nuanced, but generally succeeding, diplomatic style—as with Putin.
3
We could call the conference "Operation Barn Door"
3
What is the benefit of naming the problem radical Islam? It makes it clear that a lot of violence is justified by self-identified Muslims, who proclaim Islam as justification. What are the cons? Problem#1 is that we accept the violent peoples' proclamation as true, that there is a taxonomy of Muslims that has one branch of people that believe in the Koran and also like to blow people up. Should we say it like it is about white supremacists in the United States, that they are really radical Christians, which is to say, people who follow the teachings of Christ and like to kill Black people? Problem #2 is that there are non-Islamic violent extremists. It wasn't that long ago that we were more worried about the Irish. Problem #3 is that besides revealing, it conceals. However religious principles are warped to justify violence, it's usually just one ingredient in the mix. Is the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians just a religious conflict? Is ISIL killing Muslims because they are radical Muslims? It has nothing to do with being persecuted in Iraq after a long period of being the persecutors?
26
" Should we say it like it is about white supremacists in the United States, that they are really radical Christians, which is to say, people who follow the teachings of Christ and like to kill Black people?"
"It wasn't that long ago that we were more worried about the Irish."
And indeed, there have been terrorist attacks by Christians within the United States and Europe that were not labelled "terrorism" by the same people that want us to associate all terrorism with Islam. Some of the list:
- Timothy McVeigh and John Nichols were Christian terrorists.
- Anders Brievik, who killed 77 people (most of them teenagers) for being part of a political party too accepting of other religions, was a Christian terrorist.
- Wade Michael Page, who shot 10 Sikhs in Wisconsin thinking they were Muslims, was a Christian terrorist.
- Jim David Adkisson, who shot 9 Unitarian Universalists in Texas because of their tolerance of homosexuality and opposition to racism, was a Christian terrorist.
- The KKK has historically been partially a Protestant terrorist group, going after Jews and Catholics almost as vehemently as African-Americans.
"It wasn't that long ago that we were more worried about the Irish."
And indeed, there have been terrorist attacks by Christians within the United States and Europe that were not labelled "terrorism" by the same people that want us to associate all terrorism with Islam. Some of the list:
- Timothy McVeigh and John Nichols were Christian terrorists.
- Anders Brievik, who killed 77 people (most of them teenagers) for being part of a political party too accepting of other religions, was a Christian terrorist.
- Wade Michael Page, who shot 10 Sikhs in Wisconsin thinking they were Muslims, was a Christian terrorist.
- Jim David Adkisson, who shot 9 Unitarian Universalists in Texas because of their tolerance of homosexuality and opposition to racism, was a Christian terrorist.
- The KKK has historically been partially a Protestant terrorist group, going after Jews and Catholics almost as vehemently as African-Americans.
1
Did anyone ever complaint about identifying Irish terrorists as Irish and Catholic or Protestant?
41
Throughout history power seekers have used religion to stir up hatred. All organized religion is based on unprovable ideas. Your middle man to god is better than my middle man to god. The press is working hard to help foster another destructive religious war when it's all about which religious puppet masters - and their money masters - will gain the most power. President Obama wants to stop their paid warriors. It's not about religion at all. It's about common criminals who will use any excuse - or none - to destroy if they're paid enough.
7
The worst religion of all is Liberalism, I also fear that it is the most popular and its puppet masters the most destructive.
2
Thank you so much Mr. Friedman for exposing this shameful appeasement that we witness by our leaders. You have expressed the feeling of millions of people in the Muslim world.
3
Ahh, the religion of peace.
I am surprised that Obama didn't call this attack workplace violence like Ft.Hood. This did happen at a "place of work"...
I am surprised that Obama didn't call this attack workplace violence like Ft.Hood. This did happen at a "place of work"...
3
How better to prove to potential recruits and donors that you are a credible political movement than to get the United States to declare war against you? We should minimize the headlines captured by Islamic extremists and maximize their demise by whatever means is necessary. The very last thing we want to do is legitimize their existence with absolutist declarations that bind us to future actions.
6
I don't know about anyone else, but my eyes always roll when Friedman uses the word "modernity." Does he mean the world the west created through slavery, colonialism, and unspeakable violence? For much of the world "modernity" is a yoke, not some kind of apotheosis of human aspiration and potential. The evidence is all around us that "modernity" despoils the planet, creates gross inequality, and places the very survival of humanity at risk. No wonder some may seek an alternative.
7
And are you living an unmodern life in Brooklyn?
2
"Unmodernity" to you...
I never noticed Mr. Friedman, or anyone else, arguing we should call those who bomb abortion clinics or murder abortion doctors who claimed they acted out of their Christian conscience, "Christian terrorists."
Politics necessarily includes the art of lying, and the only question here is whether using a euphemism helps or hinders things. Within the Muslim world Mr. Friedman seems most concerned about, America is generally loathed. I hardly think insisting on our government using the words "Islamic terrorists" would help things.
Politics necessarily includes the art of lying, and the only question here is whether using a euphemism helps or hinders things. Within the Muslim world Mr. Friedman seems most concerned about, America is generally loathed. I hardly think insisting on our government using the words "Islamic terrorists" would help things.
11
The president is right not to make this out to be a war on any particular religion. These criminals use the claim of religion as a cover for their anti-social behavior. We must reach out in a way that will signal our acceptance of and respect for the vast majority of Muslims who do not condone or practice terrorism. Otherwise we are feeding into the claims of the extremists who use religion as a sword and a recruiting tool for their apocalyptic message.
4
Calling the slaughter of innocent people by a band of ruthless thugs 'anti social behavior' is absurd!
2
The first sentence of your comment is correct, Linda Sullivan, as is everything you write -- other than your second sentence.
We need to recognize that a perverse Islamic fundamentalism was the reason for the violence in Paris. It was a violent response to the blasphemy of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon. Islam was not just a "cover" for some gratuitous anti-social acts. Mr. Friedman's column may concentrate too much on the Islamic aspect, true though it is.
We need to recognize that a perverse Islamic fundamentalism was the reason for the violence in Paris. It was a violent response to the blasphemy of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon. Islam was not just a "cover" for some gratuitous anti-social acts. Mr. Friedman's column may concentrate too much on the Islamic aspect, true though it is.
Now Mr. Friedman says he wants no part of a conference even to discuss the problems of extremists' aggressions. Like George W. Bush after September 11, 2001, does he simply want war ? Is he siding again with neo-conservatives and the warmongers in Congress ?
We already saw what that led to. Perhaps Mr. Obama is about to be even sorrier he didn't oppose more strongly, these war agendas ...
Like what happened in Libya: 'Hillary's war' ; later in Syria: more so-called Arab Spring 'uprisings'.
America decided to support terrorists in these cases, got NATO's 'help' for Libya.
It tries to claim some terrorism is 'good', other terrorism is 'bad'.
It depends on WHOSE SIDE the terrorists are seen to be on.
But they are all of them, extremists. So the U.S. actually has shown itself to be, as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, and perhaps even Israel ... supporters of terrorism.
It becomes a means to the end of achieving hegemony, or colonialism with a different name and explanation. But it has led to nothing good yet for Iraq, or ever (?); and see how it paved the way for the terrorists now, even to have their own proclaimed nation, and they are still expanding their territories, having started in Syria and Iraq. And that was not caused by U.S. (military) weakness. It was caused by our covertly supporting terrorism. It was caused by denouncing dictatorships we oppose, even when that makes no sense.
We already saw what that led to. Perhaps Mr. Obama is about to be even sorrier he didn't oppose more strongly, these war agendas ...
Like what happened in Libya: 'Hillary's war' ; later in Syria: more so-called Arab Spring 'uprisings'.
America decided to support terrorists in these cases, got NATO's 'help' for Libya.
It tries to claim some terrorism is 'good', other terrorism is 'bad'.
It depends on WHOSE SIDE the terrorists are seen to be on.
But they are all of them, extremists. So the U.S. actually has shown itself to be, as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, and perhaps even Israel ... supporters of terrorism.
It becomes a means to the end of achieving hegemony, or colonialism with a different name and explanation. But it has led to nothing good yet for Iraq, or ever (?); and see how it paved the way for the terrorists now, even to have their own proclaimed nation, and they are still expanding their territories, having started in Syria and Iraq. And that was not caused by U.S. (military) weakness. It was caused by our covertly supporting terrorism. It was caused by denouncing dictatorships we oppose, even when that makes no sense.
2
Ah yes. The old moral relativity argument. We have been bad boys in the past, so we have no moral right to criticize others for being bad boys today.
Good thing Leftists like you weren't around when Hitler was busily exterminating 6M. I'm sure your position would have been non-intervention because.....after all.....slavery and all that stuff, you know.
Good thing Leftists like you weren't around when Hitler was busily exterminating 6M. I'm sure your position would have been non-intervention because.....after all.....slavery and all that stuff, you know.
2
Mr Friedman, this is nothing that is not expected from this Administration. It is called leading from behind. As the rest of the world fighting Islamic terror has finally began to call it what it is, Obama will be dragged along, but not willingly. That still does not explain the motivation of this Administration for refusing to admit what the rest of the world recognizes, it is not a attractive quality and diminishes this Administration.
7
I can see both sides to this, but appreciate the Obama administrations approach for the moment. Mr. Friedman is correct that all of these acts linked to "radical Islam". The administration is correct that the people who commit these acts are driven more by violence than by religion.
The reason I believe the Obama administration is acting appropriately is because it knows it speaks for the nation, not just the intelligentsia. Yes, those of us who read and watch more than one news source daily can parse the difference between "radical" and "moderate" Muslim, but many Americans can't or won't - being Muslim is itself "radical" in this country. I think most Americans, since they don't know if the Muslim people they know are "radical" or not would rather be safe than sorry, and assume that any and every Muslim person is at least sympathetic to the terrorists. I believe this is why the Obama administration is not "telling it like it is," especially right after an attack when tensions are heightened.
While it is good for the well informed to want to be accurate, we must remember that real Muslim adults, and children sitting in classrooms, have to deal with the labeling, which isn't all that accurate when applied by the general population. And if by taking this criticism, the Obama administration can stop one 10 year old Muslim child from being confronted on a playground, I think it's worth it.
The reason I believe the Obama administration is acting appropriately is because it knows it speaks for the nation, not just the intelligentsia. Yes, those of us who read and watch more than one news source daily can parse the difference between "radical" and "moderate" Muslim, but many Americans can't or won't - being Muslim is itself "radical" in this country. I think most Americans, since they don't know if the Muslim people they know are "radical" or not would rather be safe than sorry, and assume that any and every Muslim person is at least sympathetic to the terrorists. I believe this is why the Obama administration is not "telling it like it is," especially right after an attack when tensions are heightened.
While it is good for the well informed to want to be accurate, we must remember that real Muslim adults, and children sitting in classrooms, have to deal with the labeling, which isn't all that accurate when applied by the general population. And if by taking this criticism, the Obama administration can stop one 10 year old Muslim child from being confronted on a playground, I think it's worth it.
6
The best piece of writing about the rise of islamic fundamentalism was written by Fintan O Toole for the Irish Times.
"In all the official rhetoric about freedom of speech in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, it is notable that there are two words that apparently must not be spoken: Saudi Arabia. Yet it is impossible to understand what is happening now without grasping the fact that the mentality of the killers is not a weird aberration. It is shaped by an official cult propagated by a government western states are anxious to appease at almost any cost. Saudi Arabia has spent about $100 billion in recent decades spreading an extremist ideology, a hybrid of Wahhabism and Salafism, two versions of an Islam supposedly “purified” of its “foreign” influences."
"In all the official rhetoric about freedom of speech in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, it is notable that there are two words that apparently must not be spoken: Saudi Arabia. Yet it is impossible to understand what is happening now without grasping the fact that the mentality of the killers is not a weird aberration. It is shaped by an official cult propagated by a government western states are anxious to appease at almost any cost. Saudi Arabia has spent about $100 billion in recent decades spreading an extremist ideology, a hybrid of Wahhabism and Salafism, two versions of an Islam supposedly “purified” of its “foreign” influences."
26
What to do you get when you combine: crafty political leaders who want to increase their own wealth and power, some manipulative religious leaders capable of perverting the fundamental message of their own scared books, and an enormous population of unemployed or underemployed military age men willing to accept a perverted ideology under the guise of "a great adventure for god?" Why the Crusades, of course. What did you think I was talking about?
6
Oooh! The Crusades. Yes. You've hit on what's really important in 2015 and what most people really care about; the Crusades.
As we ponder the hideous and barbaric murders that happen weekly in the name of islam, and as we live through the literally endless murders which are going to occur in the near future, we must never lose sight of THE CRUSADES. That's what's really important.
As we ponder the hideous and barbaric murders that happen weekly in the name of islam, and as we live through the literally endless murders which are going to occur in the near future, we must never lose sight of THE CRUSADES. That's what's really important.
1
Filtering is a must. Lets stop all the unnecessary words. We have heard them to many times and they don't change a thing. Action to stop the root of the problem is what we need.
2
Mr. Friedman seems convinced that the religion of the extremist terrorists, or of the new Islamic State, is a defining factor. He implies it makes it even more repugnant, and how we should focus on it.
Doesn't he understand that by doing that, we offend all the Muslims, both good and 'bad' ?
However, there is a reason they invoke religion. They think it gives acceptable excuse for their actions. And they need 'acceptable excuse' more than the U.S., or the West need, for any fight they wage, because they are not 'superpowers'. The U.S. has been getting away with doing much wrong, because it is yet (a superpower), and it was doing those things long before the so-called terrorism started. Perhaps there is a cause and effect relation.
So of course, religions here or in Europe are not thereby exposed to being denigrated as a result of the wars recently waged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. But our regions are no less culpable as a result of fact we have perpetrated these wars, like now still going on in Syria. We are still to blame, and sadly, so responsible for any of these numerous bad results: hundreds of thousands dead, many more injured, millions made homeless, cities and towns destroyed, whole nations devastated.
It is a conflict of ideologies, not religions as such.
Doesn't he understand that by doing that, we offend all the Muslims, both good and 'bad' ?
However, there is a reason they invoke religion. They think it gives acceptable excuse for their actions. And they need 'acceptable excuse' more than the U.S., or the West need, for any fight they wage, because they are not 'superpowers'. The U.S. has been getting away with doing much wrong, because it is yet (a superpower), and it was doing those things long before the so-called terrorism started. Perhaps there is a cause and effect relation.
So of course, religions here or in Europe are not thereby exposed to being denigrated as a result of the wars recently waged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. But our regions are no less culpable as a result of fact we have perpetrated these wars, like now still going on in Syria. We are still to blame, and sadly, so responsible for any of these numerous bad results: hundreds of thousands dead, many more injured, millions made homeless, cities and towns destroyed, whole nations devastated.
It is a conflict of ideologies, not religions as such.
4
It may be a clash of ideologies, but one ideology is derived from religion and one from state secularism. And that religion is Islam. While it is not fair to say that most Muslims are terrorists, it is fair to say that most terrorists are Muslims. They bring shame to Islam. It's not "our" religions that have perpetrated these wars but rather our greed and hubris.
2
If millions of Muslims in India and Indonesia can get on with their faith without a holy war against the West, the problem is not the faith. The problem is the social conditions.
If, as you say, more Middle Eastern men were able to hold jobs and girls hands, the problems would resolve themselves. That's where we have to do our work.
Focusing on the religious aspect of the problem is a mistake, first because it isn't the root of the problem and second because it is not something we can legitimately speak to. Western governments have a legitimate interest in social conditions in the Middle East, but they have nothing to say about Islam.
Let's go ahead and focus on what we can change. But let's not make fools of ourselves telling other people what to think about their religion. That just makes people even more angry.
If, as you say, more Middle Eastern men were able to hold jobs and girls hands, the problems would resolve themselves. That's where we have to do our work.
Focusing on the religious aspect of the problem is a mistake, first because it isn't the root of the problem and second because it is not something we can legitimately speak to. Western governments have a legitimate interest in social conditions in the Middle East, but they have nothing to say about Islam.
Let's go ahead and focus on what we can change. But let's not make fools of ourselves telling other people what to think about their religion. That just makes people even more angry.
130
It seems your first sentence can be turned around, can't it? If millions of people in Asia and Central America can face poor social conditions without waging a holy war, the problem is not the social conditions.
1
"But let's not make fools of ourselves..." by getting involved in multi party civil wars where we are only capable of making matters worse.
"Focusing on the religious aspect of the problem is a mistake....." But it is the religious aspect that forbids the "holding of girls hands," or for that matter that a girl might have any value other than to produce children.
1
Radical Islam is like radical Zionism, radical Christianity a la Hitler and radical Buddhism a la some monks in Myanmar. So if Mr. Friedman is willing to accept all those perversion by such names, by all means go ahead.
The problem is this: like Fox News in this country, intelligent people pay little attention of it. It has been the butt of a joke on Colbert Report. That's about it. But in France, people may think it is a real deal. That's why Anne Hildago, the Paris Mayor, is thinking of legal redress to make sure people know they are not listening to the real deal.
So, I don't think one should silence debates but you also want to differentiate what is the real thing. When some hooded guy appears in the news media demanding $200 million dollars for ransom money in exchange for two Japanese, it is about thugs and not Islam
The problem is this: like Fox News in this country, intelligent people pay little attention of it. It has been the butt of a joke on Colbert Report. That's about it. But in France, people may think it is a real deal. That's why Anne Hildago, the Paris Mayor, is thinking of legal redress to make sure people know they are not listening to the real deal.
So, I don't think one should silence debates but you also want to differentiate what is the real thing. When some hooded guy appears in the news media demanding $200 million dollars for ransom money in exchange for two Japanese, it is about thugs and not Islam
13
If you think they are just thugs and aren't primarily doing this to promote radical Islamic ideals you are not listening to them. They want to cut the heads off of anyone not subscribing to their vicious concept of Islam , Muslims included.
2
Hitler and Naziism was "radical Christianity"??!? The Naziis were nihilist and non-religious. Nothing they did was motivated by any religious belief; they were anti- Christian. Plus they sent plenty of priests to the death camps...
1
@Martin, during WWII, the U.S. has commissioned some psychohistory done on Hitler. In one of the reports, it is said Hitler imagined himself to be an avenging Christ.
To be clear, I am not saying he is. And your reaction to my first post is exactly my point to Mr Friedman's column. Just because some people label something with an adjective doesn't it is accurate. So please read my post within context
To be clear, I am not saying he is. And your reaction to my first post is exactly my point to Mr Friedman's column. Just because some people label something with an adjective doesn't it is accurate. So please read my post within context
Mr Friedman hits the right notes here, but there is one unaddressed hole in his analysis. While I agree that this Islamic extremism has had its origins in the Arab world and dysfunctional Pakistan, and while it may have found its original fervor in underemployed males there, such does not explain its appearance among some Muslims in Africa or those of either gender in the West.
Why have hundreds of those born and/or raised in the West embraced jihad? Neither of the Tsarnaev brothers would seem to fit that description of someone who had never held a job or a girl's hand. Nor would Major Hassan or many other scions of the middle class who chose that path. And how does that explain the women who have left the West to join ISIS? And why does jihad seem to attract converts?
To a degree, while I agree that we have to view the problem as one within Islam, Ii think it also true that many of those presently attracted to jihad would be seeking for something similar, even if Islam did not exist. Yes, aspects within Islam encourage violence and some factions within it seek to do so, but there exists within all populations a certain percentage of those susceptible to such calls.
Why have hundreds of those born and/or raised in the West embraced jihad? Neither of the Tsarnaev brothers would seem to fit that description of someone who had never held a job or a girl's hand. Nor would Major Hassan or many other scions of the middle class who chose that path. And how does that explain the women who have left the West to join ISIS? And why does jihad seem to attract converts?
To a degree, while I agree that we have to view the problem as one within Islam, Ii think it also true that many of those presently attracted to jihad would be seeking for something similar, even if Islam did not exist. Yes, aspects within Islam encourage violence and some factions within it seek to do so, but there exists within all populations a certain percentage of those susceptible to such calls.
11
The US needs to exit the Middle East and now. That's the best policy advise ever.
65
That is an easy answer, but only a partial one. There is an old joke about being so open-minded that your brains fall out, and example #1 would be the subset of American liberals who frame Islamicist atrocities purely as a reaction to the West, and/or colonialism and/or US intervention. (This childlike solipsism has the psychological effect of empowering us - if it's all our fault, it's also all in our control, and our unilateral action could end it.) If we just stayed home, the argument goes, everything would be kumbaya. The problem with this, as Friedman (with whom I rarely agree) makes clear, is that these people are going after everyone who doesn't fit into the extremely tight procrustean box of their ideology - including their own people. And eventually they will come after us because our mere existence is hateful to them, as is the thought that somewhere, someone is teaching a girl to read. Hitler, or the Inquisition, weren't going to live and let live with the Jews. The Islamicists are not content to wait for Allah to sort the sheep from the goats.
Again I recommend Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer'. His book, written in 1951 as a response to the rise of ideologies such as Naziism, Stalinism and Maoism, also touched on religious extremism, presciently including Islam in his list.
Again I recommend Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer'. His book, written in 1951 as a response to the rise of ideologies such as Naziism, Stalinism and Maoism, also touched on religious extremism, presciently including Islam in his list.
72
Exactly. And Obama knows that, and want's the world to shoulder its responsibilities. Saudi Arabia and Turkey will stay on the sidelines as long as we take the lead. The Saud family will build a wall to protect their oil and keep their people from infection, but they will not use their large military budget to get into a fight they fomented.
I wish we would have never got involved. They hate us now!
1
We have a problem making a distinction it is vital that we make.
We say, the world has a problem today with Muslim EXTREMISM, and millions hear us saying we have a problem with MUSLIM extremism. Some (both Muslims and non) willfully refuse to hear the different because they want war and/or division between Islam and the rest of the world. Some really aren't able to understand the difference.
And so people of good will resort to all sorts of verbal gymnastics to try to make the difference clear.
I wish Friedman had also called out Rich Lowry for declaring that we are at war with radical Islam, rather than with Islamic radicalism. Same difference? How do you think most Christians would feel if someone said, after a spate of terrorist action carried out by a Christian sect, that "we are at war with radical Christianity" rather than "with a set of Christian radicals"?
We say, the world has a problem today with Muslim EXTREMISM, and millions hear us saying we have a problem with MUSLIM extremism. Some (both Muslims and non) willfully refuse to hear the different because they want war and/or division between Islam and the rest of the world. Some really aren't able to understand the difference.
And so people of good will resort to all sorts of verbal gymnastics to try to make the difference clear.
I wish Friedman had also called out Rich Lowry for declaring that we are at war with radical Islam, rather than with Islamic radicalism. Same difference? How do you think most Christians would feel if someone said, after a spate of terrorist action carried out by a Christian sect, that "we are at war with radical Christianity" rather than "with a set of Christian radicals"?
228
The problem with your distinction is that it elides the question of whether there is something in revealed religion, whether in a particular religion's teachings or in revealed religion in general - that encourages aggressive radicalism. My answer would be 'yes'. In which case your distinction is largely academic. The key facet of any philosophical system that depends on faith - an investment of belief in a system or charismatic leader that is not open to reality testing through reason - is that when challenged, it tends to resort either to stubbornness or belligerence (or both) because it can't justify itself through persuasive logic. This has been historically true of pretty much all revealed religions, and also of secular absolutist systems such as Naziism, Maoism, and Fascism that centre around a nonsupernatural messianic figure and a dogma - religions by another name.
As Mr Spock once said in the classic Star Trek: A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
As Mr Spock once said in the classic Star Trek: A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
2
I am a Christian and have no problem with "radical Christianity" or "Christian radicals", it the same thing. Neither one means all Christians. Let's no get into what the meaning of "is is".
3
I feel like the issue is that it's not just a spate, but is popping up in numerous places across the globe and is prompting people to migrate into it or learn from it and take it home. So, including something in our language that it's not just a sect (because it isn't just one), but some phenomenon I don't think we've encountered before. It needs appropriate language that is respectful of those who are not involved but also encapsulates the fact that it's global.
Well, I imagine, he chooses his words carefully after the nonsense the American people had to listen to after Benghazi. Remember? Ambassador Stevens was dead, as well as three others, and the Republicans were hopped-up on trying to the hang the President on his use of describing words. Candy Crowley finally came to the President's rescue during the debates. Where I come from, men like this, are sent to the field, where hopefully they will learn to show a little respect for one who has just lost his life. But, oh no, in this country. we vote more of the same kind in, ugh! If and when the free community college thing passes, I know of a few recruits.
6
If you recall, a big issue was Obama and Hillary blaming Benghazi on spontaneous response to an anti-muslim film.
And Candy Crowley was wrong, and she should have remained neutral and let Obama dig his way out of his web of deceit. Unfortunately, Romney did not go for the jugular.
And Candy Crowley was wrong, and she should have remained neutral and let Obama dig his way out of his web of deceit. Unfortunately, Romney did not go for the jugular.
3
The danger such eclipsing of defining Islamic fundamentalist dogma is in the fact that the sickness of this thinking can go viral. This view will then excuse any extremist group by any other name and invite more factionalsim not necessarily just by the Muslim world. Extremist militant Islamic groups are just that: there is no euphemism or cloud of uncertainty around it. Although the western world cannot hold 1.6 billion accountable for the abomination of a few, they are all shaded by the umbrella of the same faith and that in itself should imbue a ubiquitous sense of accountability.
3
1st ,There are how many muslims on this planet? A billion or more. How many of them have committed acts of terror? A handful. 2, Western policies in the middle east have treated the area as if the west had the right to dictate their status in the world. 3, The riots we see after publications such as cartoons depicting Mohamed are only minimally about religion . These are aided and abetted by rulers of these countries who are using a volatile situation to control a population of Un/under educated and un/under employed people . To declare a war on "radical Islam" , is nothing less than putting out the fire with gasoline .
15
"1st ,There are how many muslims on this planet? A billion or more. How many of them have committed acts of terror? A handful."
You think Islamic State, Boko Haram and Taliban amount to "a handful"? In case you've missed the news, they are committing acts of terror virtually every day.
"3, The riots we see after publications such as cartoons depicting Mohamed are only minimally about religion."
On what basis can you make that claim? I take them at their word that they are deeply offended by cartoons of Mohammad. I think you are projecting your disinterest in Mohammad on them.
You think Islamic State, Boko Haram and Taliban amount to "a handful"? In case you've missed the news, they are committing acts of terror virtually every day.
"3, The riots we see after publications such as cartoons depicting Mohamed are only minimally about religion."
On what basis can you make that claim? I take them at their word that they are deeply offended by cartoons of Mohammad. I think you are projecting your disinterest in Mohammad on them.
2
"When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. And this administration, so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia, is refusing to make any link to radical Islam from the recent explosions of violence against civilians (most of them Muslims) by Boko Haram in Nigeria, by the Taliban in Pakistan, by Al Qaeda in Paris and by jihadists in Yemen and Iraq. We’ve entered the theater of the absurd."
No more so than the US News media who shuns the many Muslim Clerics loud and vocal condemnation of terrorism but is ignored by the White News Media which you Thomas L. Friedman are part of.
I admire your work and thoughts on this but you are just as guilty as the rest of the United States News media.
No more so than the US News media who shuns the many Muslim Clerics loud and vocal condemnation of terrorism but is ignored by the White News Media which you Thomas L. Friedman are part of.
I admire your work and thoughts on this but you are just as guilty as the rest of the United States News media.
9
The name of the summit may have excluded the word Muslim simply to increase attendance.
1
"The name of the summit may have excluded the word Muslim simply to increase attendance."
You really expect me to believe that?
You really expect me to believe that?
2
"Don’t say stupid stuff. And don’t hold airy fairy conferences that dodge the real issues, which many mainstream Muslims know and are actually starved to discuss, especially women."
I cringe every time I hear a commission, conference, or committee is being organized about any issue. It's a waste of time to study something that's self-evident, as Mr. Friedman says.
If the Muslim world reached out to us to help them combat radicals in their midst, I could understand Mr. Obama's conference. But since they haven't, it's pretty arrogant of us to do so.
Would we like it if some international nation, say France, organized a global conference on climate change listing us as the main contributor to environmental Armageddon?
We can talk about Islamic extremists until the cows come home. But until religious leaders in key Arab nations take on their "angry white male" problem, nothing will change. The only way to help them do that is to tell the truth, as Mr. Friedman says.
Say it over and over with no shame: the Islamic world needs to police its own to make violent terrorist acts less "sexy" and less permissible.
I cringe every time I hear a commission, conference, or committee is being organized about any issue. It's a waste of time to study something that's self-evident, as Mr. Friedman says.
If the Muslim world reached out to us to help them combat radicals in their midst, I could understand Mr. Obama's conference. But since they haven't, it's pretty arrogant of us to do so.
Would we like it if some international nation, say France, organized a global conference on climate change listing us as the main contributor to environmental Armageddon?
We can talk about Islamic extremists until the cows come home. But until religious leaders in key Arab nations take on their "angry white male" problem, nothing will change. The only way to help them do that is to tell the truth, as Mr. Friedman says.
Say it over and over with no shame: the Islamic world needs to police its own to make violent terrorist acts less "sexy" and less permissible.
39
Where are the funders of Sunni terrorists? Who pays for the Wahhabi schools around the world? Who fosters the Salafist jihad?
Friedman identifies the Sunnis as the terrorists but fails to name Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE as sponsors and fails to recognize the deliberate misdirection of our war against Iraq in revenge for 9/11 when it was 15 Saudis who attacked America, not Iraqis. While the governments have distanced themselves from the terrorists they have not arrested the princes and religious leaders in their countries responsible. They have not instituted political reforms at home. They execute people for religious reasons, just like the terrorists. Why do we look around the world confused, when the source is known? MONEY!
Oil money, banks, oil companies have financed our politicians and manipulate our policies. Let's hear about that. No more mystery talk.
Friedman identifies the Sunnis as the terrorists but fails to name Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE as sponsors and fails to recognize the deliberate misdirection of our war against Iraq in revenge for 9/11 when it was 15 Saudis who attacked America, not Iraqis. While the governments have distanced themselves from the terrorists they have not arrested the princes and religious leaders in their countries responsible. They have not instituted political reforms at home. They execute people for religious reasons, just like the terrorists. Why do we look around the world confused, when the source is known? MONEY!
Oil money, banks, oil companies have financed our politicians and manipulate our policies. Let's hear about that. No more mystery talk.
72
You are totally correct in everything that you say. Cutting off the legs of an octopus is not the answer. Cut of the head and the legs will die!
Yes, it is really crowded with all the white elephants in the room...
I agree with this particular column (not columnist) and with Bill Maher. The Obama administration should call Islamic extremism Islamic extremism and when (not if) the next rightwing, white man kills minorities, Obama should correctly label the killings as the work of a Christian extremist terrorist. Fox and talk radio heads will explode and that will be the end of calls for Obama to mouth the words 'Islamic extremism' that are coming from Friedman's neo-con allies.
11
No, no. You miss the point completely. The Islamic terrorist is motivated and driven by his interpretation of his religious ideology, and we therefore refer to him as such, not because he is merely affiliated with a particular faith. Unless a Christian terrorist is similarly motivated by his religion, it makes no sense to call him a "Christian terrorist" just because he happens to belong to one faith rather than another. Good grief...
4
"when (not if) the next rightwing, white man kills minorities, Obama should correctly label the killings as the work of a Christian extremist terrorist."
How often do you hear of terror being committed by someone who claims to be following the precepts of Jesus? Mohammad led armies, raided villages, took slaves and used and traded women as sex slaves. If you can find anything similar to that in the New Testament, please let me know.
How often do you hear of terror being committed by someone who claims to be following the precepts of Jesus? Mohammad led armies, raided villages, took slaves and used and traded women as sex slaves. If you can find anything similar to that in the New Testament, please let me know.
2
The world will be exposed to religious chauvinism so long as the enlightenment fails to dawn on its darkest corners.
A root and branch critique of Islamic violence does not stop with the Koran, the madrassas, and salafism, for these are mere surface phenomenon of a world in which such large swaths of the human population have not absorbed the main pillars of modern thought.
As secular liberals, in the name of tolerance, we have too often failed to observe candidly the acute epistemological weaknesses of the primitive belief systems still in our midst. We generally pass over without comment modern examples such as adult male orthodox Jews whiling away their days in the study of pre-modern, superstitious religious arcana. We ourselves assiduously follow pontiffs pronouncing on the modern world on the basis of counterfactual and obsolete dogma. And we often fail to hold Arab potentates squarely responsible for their immense sponsorship of the global study of exclusivist folklore.
With no false modesty, we need to reach back to the intellectual foundations of our own enlightenment, to the 17th century arguments of Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes in recalling why human enquiry should proceed from cautious, data-driven, scientific methods in seeking practical ways to better the human condition and reduce suffering. If we fail to share with others the epistemological humility that lies at the foundation of our civilization, then we ourselves are guilty of abject neglect.
A root and branch critique of Islamic violence does not stop with the Koran, the madrassas, and salafism, for these are mere surface phenomenon of a world in which such large swaths of the human population have not absorbed the main pillars of modern thought.
As secular liberals, in the name of tolerance, we have too often failed to observe candidly the acute epistemological weaknesses of the primitive belief systems still in our midst. We generally pass over without comment modern examples such as adult male orthodox Jews whiling away their days in the study of pre-modern, superstitious religious arcana. We ourselves assiduously follow pontiffs pronouncing on the modern world on the basis of counterfactual and obsolete dogma. And we often fail to hold Arab potentates squarely responsible for their immense sponsorship of the global study of exclusivist folklore.
With no false modesty, we need to reach back to the intellectual foundations of our own enlightenment, to the 17th century arguments of Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes in recalling why human enquiry should proceed from cautious, data-driven, scientific methods in seeking practical ways to better the human condition and reduce suffering. If we fail to share with others the epistemological humility that lies at the foundation of our civilization, then we ourselves are guilty of abject neglect.
30
I only wish I could express myself as well. Thank you for your contribution!
This brings to mind a statement by Buckminister Fuller:
When humanity is primarily illiterate, it needs leaders to understand and get the information and deal with it. When we are at the point where the majority of humans them-selves are literate, able to get the information, we're in an entirely new relationship to the Universe. We are at the point where the integrity of the individual counts and not what the political or the religious leadership says to do.
When humanity is primarily illiterate, it needs leaders to understand and get the information and deal with it. When we are at the point where the majority of humans them-selves are literate, able to get the information, we're in an entirely new relationship to the Universe. We are at the point where the integrity of the individual counts and not what the political or the religious leadership says to do.
1
I could not agree more about the importance of the Enlightenment, or rather its failure to enlighten not only non-Western cultures but large, possibly even majority portions of our own. I firmly believe that teaching young people not what to think but HOW to think -the opposite of what it seems all religion-based communities seek to do - would deprive radicalism of every stripe of their persuasive
2
I don't understand why you are against a global conference to coordinate the actual world wide terrorism treat, might be it is not a treat for yourself, but it is for me.
Personally I even see the Feb. 18th too late, due to the urgency to address this matter.
What I find odd is that this conference is held in USA, while the major treats are in Europe, because its geographic vicinity to Middle Eat, and because most of the IS militants come from central Europe and North Africa.
Mr Hollande, joust after the Paris facts, told his intention to hold a global conference against terrorism, but afterwords I think that diplomatically something happened and the location changed.
I believe that this change is due to the eternal American desire to be the focus of the scene and to be the wold policeman.
But at the end, wherever the conference is held is not a problem, the objective is to operate globally, to avoid that every Nation takes its own random measures.
Personally I even see the Feb. 18th too late, due to the urgency to address this matter.
What I find odd is that this conference is held in USA, while the major treats are in Europe, because its geographic vicinity to Middle Eat, and because most of the IS militants come from central Europe and North Africa.
Mr Hollande, joust after the Paris facts, told his intention to hold a global conference against terrorism, but afterwords I think that diplomatically something happened and the location changed.
I believe that this change is due to the eternal American desire to be the focus of the scene and to be the wold policeman.
But at the end, wherever the conference is held is not a problem, the objective is to operate globally, to avoid that every Nation takes its own random measures.
13
We can be good friends with a Muslim, we can't be with an intolerant radical. Therefore, it is not with Islam, but with intolerant radicalism that we have a problem.
That the intolerant radicals de jour are Muslims, rather than Communists, or Anarchist, or White Supremacists, is a fact, however. Disaffected and frustrated people often fall prey to radical ideologies, conspiracy theories, etc.
And notice that I said nothing about "violent." Radical ideologies, that believe that society must be purged of anything incompatible with that ideology, which preach that all who oppose it are enemies and evildoers, are dangerous even in their nonviolent phases. Where such ideologies flourish, many otherwise decent people (who would themselves never commit acts of terrorism) will end up shielding and protecting and justifying the violent ones.
Josh Earnest's comment were dumb, and show muddled thinking and speaking, but aren't we talking about a problem more grammatical than anything else? Take out the word "later" and what's the big problem. A spokesman should be able to speak English better.
Earnest should have said something like "We are not at war with Islam. Let us stick to the facts. These people carried out an act of terrorism, which they justified in their own minds by their deviant view of Islam. We oppose such acts, however justified; we do not oppose, nor are at war with Islam."
That the intolerant radicals de jour are Muslims, rather than Communists, or Anarchist, or White Supremacists, is a fact, however. Disaffected and frustrated people often fall prey to radical ideologies, conspiracy theories, etc.
And notice that I said nothing about "violent." Radical ideologies, that believe that society must be purged of anything incompatible with that ideology, which preach that all who oppose it are enemies and evildoers, are dangerous even in their nonviolent phases. Where such ideologies flourish, many otherwise decent people (who would themselves never commit acts of terrorism) will end up shielding and protecting and justifying the violent ones.
Josh Earnest's comment were dumb, and show muddled thinking and speaking, but aren't we talking about a problem more grammatical than anything else? Take out the word "later" and what's the big problem. A spokesman should be able to speak English better.
Earnest should have said something like "We are not at war with Islam. Let us stick to the facts. These people carried out an act of terrorism, which they justified in their own minds by their deviant view of Islam. We oppose such acts, however justified; we do not oppose, nor are at war with Islam."
77
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. The root of the problem is not Islam but rather by essentially your own admission (and Mr. Lowry's), POLITICAL.
The rise of extremism is largely due to governments in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Middle Eastern Governments becoming so intermingled with religion for the sake of perpetuating their power that it is now religion that essentially runs their country rather then government.
This is the real lesson of what happens when you ignore the principle of separating "church and state" and you can see examples throughout history and among all religions when the line is crossed extremism takes hold.
Whether it is the inquisition in Spain, divine destiny in Japan, fanaticism in Germany; the rape of South America and Africa by missionaries; or slavery and genocide in America these all had religion as their moral underpinnings of insanity.
Despite the clear lessons of history and current events, we still have a large segment of the American Political system that has tied its power to religion and religion that is happy to exploit that influence for its own often twisted views on how people ought to live and what they are willing to do to make it happen.
The rise of extremism is largely due to governments in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Middle Eastern Governments becoming so intermingled with religion for the sake of perpetuating their power that it is now religion that essentially runs their country rather then government.
This is the real lesson of what happens when you ignore the principle of separating "church and state" and you can see examples throughout history and among all religions when the line is crossed extremism takes hold.
Whether it is the inquisition in Spain, divine destiny in Japan, fanaticism in Germany; the rape of South America and Africa by missionaries; or slavery and genocide in America these all had religion as their moral underpinnings of insanity.
Despite the clear lessons of history and current events, we still have a large segment of the American Political system that has tied its power to religion and religion that is happy to exploit that influence for its own often twisted views on how people ought to live and what they are willing to do to make it happen.
20
"I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. The root of the problem is not Islam but rather by essentially your own admission (and Mr. Lowry's), POLITICAL."
You really think the Paris killers, Boko Haram and the Taliban who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls are doing this because of politics? You really think the pamphlet Islamic State published recently explaining the Islamic justification for sex slaves is political?
You really think the Paris killers, Boko Haram and the Taliban who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls are doing this because of politics? You really think the pamphlet Islamic State published recently explaining the Islamic justification for sex slaves is political?
There seems to be a growing opinion in the U. S. that our foreign policy's first and last responsibility is to lead us to the eradication of all of Islam. It sort of reminds me of the "Final Solution." Then all our problems will be solved and we will be able to do with the Middle East what our God intends for us to do. Make no mistake--we are led by leaders who believe we are the Chosen Ones.
2
I fail to understand why Friedman should have reservations about the summit on counter terrorism. It would be a great idea to invite Muslim scholars to the summit to get their views on starting a movement where secular and moderate Muslims should be encouraged to speak against the lunatic fringe elements who have virtually managed to tarnish their religion. If people are afraid to speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of religion, possibly fearing retaliation, this will embolden these elements. Also, there is no assurance that these terror outfits will not come after the educated class for, their only goal, is to create anarchy in the name of religion.
4
Unlike some others, the Administration has responsibility, one being not to make new Islamic radicals. Do the words and phrases really matter, or is the hunting down and eliminating of radicals the important thing ? I'm going with the latter and when the Administration does that then the Right blather on about the horrors of drone strikes. There's just no pleasing those who refuse to be pleased.
As far as I'm concerned, the Right Wing crazies in Congress and the Senate are just as dangerous to we Americans, perhaps more dangerous than Islamic radicals. Islamic radicals can only kill us by the few. These radicals in politics can and will us all by denying science, facts, and reality. All in support of more profits for the oligarchy and the corporations at the expense of the rest of us.
As far as I'm concerned, the Right Wing crazies in Congress and the Senate are just as dangerous to we Americans, perhaps more dangerous than Islamic radicals. Islamic radicals can only kill us by the few. These radicals in politics can and will us all by denying science, facts, and reality. All in support of more profits for the oligarchy and the corporations at the expense of the rest of us.
6
Mujaheddin terrorists from Pakistan as early as 1947 entered Kashmir, India, drove out the native Hindu population and started the asymmetric campaign that appears to have worked for them.So 65 years on, Pakistan continues to dupe the West by differentiating between good and bad terrorists, promises last month that oh, no, they will be ALL equal opportunity terrorists to assure their $ pipeline from the U.S. congress is not disrupted.
5
It is a rare occasion, indeed, when I agree wholeheartedly with Tom Friedman. Well done, sir. Thank you for telling it correctly and accurately.
10
Contrary to popular myth and misunderstanding, the Koran repeatedly demands that Muslims kill Infidels wherever and whenever (e.g. "When you encounter nonbelievers on the battlefield strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely, then bind the prisoners tightly." Sutra 4:7). The Koran also forbids Muslims to tolerate of even live near Infidels. Thus, it is forbidden that they integrate into any society. These commandments are not addressed to a few jihadists, but rather to all Muslims. Of course, similar commandments appear in both the New and Old Testaments regarding how Christians/Jews are to behave toward Unbelievers. The Medieval Crusades are a good example of how Christians behave toward Islam...slaughtering everyone in Jerusalem for example. The difference between the two groups is merely historical timing and a general secularization of the Western World which has not yet and probably never will occur in the Middle East.
13
Mr. Friedman,
There is ONE in particular you know!!
Why don't you name him?!
There is ONE in particular you know!!
Why don't you name him?!
7
The folly US committed through interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq post-9/11, or earlier through supporting Islamic extremism against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the eighties in collaboration with the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, could be rectified to some extent by Obama if he had spared a day to attend the Paris rally against the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks, instead of showing a vague concern on the growing Islamic terror violence through the proposed conference deliberations on the extremism by a few misguided Islamists.
7
'A showing of vague concern' on the part of the President? Perhaps he should start roaring and making a scene, instead of remaining determined, contained and ready to hound into the ground, a global terrorist group by the name of ISIL.
We cannot clone this extraordinary man, and this American is glad that he stayed to safeguard our Homeland along with The Statue of Liberty.
There was heavy duty copter activity in the air over New York City, while the demonstration against the attack on Charlie Hebdo took place in Paris on a Sunday, and there is a growing number of misguided extremists everywhere.
We cannot clone this extraordinary man, and this American is glad that he stayed to safeguard our Homeland along with The Statue of Liberty.
There was heavy duty copter activity in the air over New York City, while the demonstration against the attack on Charlie Hebdo took place in Paris on a Sunday, and there is a growing number of misguided extremists everywhere.
Yes Mr Friedman, do please Say It Like It Is. Say that the Saudis have been exporting (and paying for) Islamic Fundamentalism since 1973; in all it forms; say that it was the insatiable U. S. appetite for oil -- and that of a few Western European countries -- that made it happen. And SAY who let the genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and who killed democracy in Iran -- which started the ball rolling. Yes, do please Say It ALL.
98
Are you saying, in the cold war period, in Afghanistan, we should have stayed out and let the soviets take over completely? Because of our actions, the Soviet drive for world domination was halted. We saw what happened after WWll, Soviets promised to let eastern European countries to freely choose the type of government they wanted, and just took over. How many lives were lost in East Germany, Hungary, Poland because of our indifference? And assigning so little blame to the European countries that divided up the Middle East (sans US input) speaks loudly. Your "blame the US for all the world's problems" is so naive, reckless
The radical Islamists themselves want to be known as violent extremists. They derive their power precisely from the terror that they inflict on vulnerable populations, including enlightened Muslims who are silenced, even when they live in countries where their rights are protected. This 'silent majority' - yes, 'majority', since it includes virtually most women and most educated Muslims - knows that anyone who criticizes Islamists is risking his/her life or the lives of relatives still living in the Middle East. The horrible truth is that most Muslims are denied freedom of speech, and are hoping that the West will deploy its vast means to crush the beast who is denying all of them their basic dignity.
I think in this case Obama is right. The majority of Muslims silently supports the war - it is a WAR - against Islamist terrorists and the choice of words is strategically important. We are deluded if we think that this war will be won without the Muslims help. The current Arab participation against ISIS and Sisi's recent speech are encouraging.
My take on Islamist terrorism is that it is essentially a business and that energy and resources will be more efficiently used in the meticulous destruction of its business model(s) than in potentially endless academic discussions about Islam, tolerance, blasphemy laws and cultural differences. Muslims and non-Muslims, we all want to get rid of the scourge. So let's do it and stop posturing.
I think in this case Obama is right. The majority of Muslims silently supports the war - it is a WAR - against Islamist terrorists and the choice of words is strategically important. We are deluded if we think that this war will be won without the Muslims help. The current Arab participation against ISIS and Sisi's recent speech are encouraging.
My take on Islamist terrorism is that it is essentially a business and that energy and resources will be more efficiently used in the meticulous destruction of its business model(s) than in potentially endless academic discussions about Islam, tolerance, blasphemy laws and cultural differences. Muslims and non-Muslims, we all want to get rid of the scourge. So let's do it and stop posturing.
5
I agree. We are fighting terrorists, it isnt a war against Islam. Words and perception matter, and we should be very careful to not alienate those Muslims with whom we have common cause. As with the Anbar Awakening, this will end when OTHER Muslims deal with the issue. Does it help or matter that we have been at war with something like 13 different Muslim countries over the last three decades? Hmmm Yes, lets not alienate those that will solve the problem that we havent or cant.
http://i2.wp.com/www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/why-do-the...
http://i2.wp.com/www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/why-do-the...
All right, we should be at war with radical Islam, Mr Friedman, but did you notice a little silent moment in the Obama speech last night? After pledging further fealty to Israel, Obama said something about having respect for Muslims and their beliefs. It was the perfect couplet. Should have brought a balanced response from the 535 worthies. Except it wasn't and it didn't. After robust applause after the Israel line, there was not clap one after the Muslim line. Utter silence at the other end of the couplet. Play the tape. It's scary.
22
Totally true. And the same thing on the faces of the military brass when he said Gitmo must be closed. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and critique the President's boldness; he's the one who has to guesstimate each and every human life that will be taken based on the words that come out of his mouth on any given subject. Kind of a heavy burden, makes one move carefully, maybe not as boldly and "honestly" as you'd like, Mr. Friedman.
3
Nit picking from Friedman, concentrating on form over substance.
11
I agree with the article that a conference is unlikely to resolve anything and may even force even moderate Muslims into harder line positions. But the struggle referred to about the embrace of modernity, pluralism, and women's rights is at least as much a struggle over economics. In many of these countries, a kleptocracy controls much of the economy and more of the political space. Islam becomes a refuge for those rebelling against the unfair distribution of wealth and, as a result, Islam necessarily changes from being purely a matter of the soul's salvation and is instead mined for references to injustices and overcoming them.
1
Reminds me of the kleptocracy in our own country, and our 'american taliban', those on the religious right who are being elected with increasing frequency. I call them taliban because their values are remarkably aligned - less autonomy for women, defunding and denying public education unless it reinforces their warped view of the world, and trying to force their views of piety on the rest of us through the passage of restrictive laws. The moderates in our country need to speak up against these extremists as loudly as we call for moderate muslims to speak against theirs before their verbal violence encourages their followers to adopt real violence.
“Telling it like it is” would require that we in the West describe how our actions are affecting the real lives and livelihoods of people in other countries as a result of careless globalisation.
A huge fishing boat based in Ireland – part financed by EU structural Funds - is too large to manage within EU Quotas. It spends its time off the West Coast of Africa. One fishing mission by that Boat can take away the annual livelihood of 3000 African fishermen. Do these people turn to Piracy as a more viable source of living? You bet some do.
Careless use of drones by the USA causes civilian deaths which are afterwards labelled Islamic Terrorists. Do these people look for revenge for family members killed? You bet some do.
Intervention in Libya by France, England and USA creates a failed state. Do Libyans look for revenge for family members killed? You bet some do.
And so on ... and on.
Are there real consequences for Western Imperialism and arrogance? You bet there are. Add all the ‘somes’ and you have a big total
When Mr. Friedman starts “telling it like it is”, rather than through the lens of a careless liberalist ideology, should we listen to him? You bet some should.
A huge fishing boat based in Ireland – part financed by EU structural Funds - is too large to manage within EU Quotas. It spends its time off the West Coast of Africa. One fishing mission by that Boat can take away the annual livelihood of 3000 African fishermen. Do these people turn to Piracy as a more viable source of living? You bet some do.
Careless use of drones by the USA causes civilian deaths which are afterwards labelled Islamic Terrorists. Do these people look for revenge for family members killed? You bet some do.
Intervention in Libya by France, England and USA creates a failed state. Do Libyans look for revenge for family members killed? You bet some do.
And so on ... and on.
Are there real consequences for Western Imperialism and arrogance? You bet there are. Add all the ‘somes’ and you have a big total
When Mr. Friedman starts “telling it like it is”, rather than through the lens of a careless liberalist ideology, should we listen to him? You bet some should.
5
I can see your point, but the heart and core of the thing is criminality. First the Paris youth were criminals, then they converted to a creed. Societal problem, yes. Religious problem, perhaps. The latter is certainly the vehicle that drove them to the scene.
And the problem of pugilistic, arms-infested societies? Solve the problem with a gun or other weapon of choice. Revenge, greed, jealousey. I'd say these are the crux of the matter.
We have our own extremists. Fortunately they are still enveloped in the agar of a moderate (to generalize some) society. What could a right-wing Christian become in a different environment? An extremist as brutal and driven as any other jihadist.
No, I don't think it is as simple as saying "Islamist extremism" is the problem. Perhaps there is no SINGLE thread to follow.
And the problem of pugilistic, arms-infested societies? Solve the problem with a gun or other weapon of choice. Revenge, greed, jealousey. I'd say these are the crux of the matter.
We have our own extremists. Fortunately they are still enveloped in the agar of a moderate (to generalize some) society. What could a right-wing Christian become in a different environment? An extremist as brutal and driven as any other jihadist.
No, I don't think it is as simple as saying "Islamist extremism" is the problem. Perhaps there is no SINGLE thread to follow.
10
The "why can't Obama say the words......" meme has been hammered on by Fox and rightwing talkers sufficiently that now it's showing up regularly in mainstream media. Roger Ailes is smiling.
Is it really that important what we call the entities we're bombing and trying to destroy or is it the usual "gotcha" politics and manufactured controversy.
Gosh, I used the word entity.....I must be a sniveling, liberal terror apologist.
Is it really that important what we call the entities we're bombing and trying to destroy or is it the usual "gotcha" politics and manufactured controversy.
Gosh, I used the word entity.....I must be a sniveling, liberal terror apologist.
6
The problem is that radical liberalism cannot fight radical Islam. Liberalism, in my view, is the most advanced social and political philosophy. But it has limits. Taken to extreme, it simply means tolerating anything, including brutal violence; this is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind.
Yes, one has to be open-minded, attempt to overcome stigmas on gender, nationality, religion. No, one doesn’t have to accept everything. If radical Islam is terrorizing innocent people, it should to be dealt with.
onourselvesandothers.com
Yes, one has to be open-minded, attempt to overcome stigmas on gender, nationality, religion. No, one doesn’t have to accept everything. If radical Islam is terrorizing innocent people, it should to be dealt with.
onourselvesandothers.com
11
Wow. Shades of Marine Le Pen.
I disagree wholeheartedly with your premise, Mr. Friedman. The violent extremists, who at this moment in time happen to be mostly Muslim, are nothing more than killers in search of a reason to kill. If there were no such thing as Islam, they would surely find another ideology to radicalize in order to rationalize their hatred and will to kill.
The real issue is disadvantage and disaffection. In the Arab world, in particular, where dictators and repressive governments are the norm, entire populations are held in ignorance and poverty. It's no wonder their young become enraged.
America has its own army of religious extremists, perpetrating terror of another kind - against women in particular - and using money and electoral perversity as weapons. Given the number of lives they place at risk, they pose a serious threat, yet no one is willing to utter the words "radical Christianity".
It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is understanding its roots, which is a lack of education, a lack of opportunity, and a sense of being misunderstood. I don't care if they call the summit "Sunday in the Park with George", as long as they examine the root issues and creative solutions for them.
I disagree wholeheartedly with your premise, Mr. Friedman. The violent extremists, who at this moment in time happen to be mostly Muslim, are nothing more than killers in search of a reason to kill. If there were no such thing as Islam, they would surely find another ideology to radicalize in order to rationalize their hatred and will to kill.
The real issue is disadvantage and disaffection. In the Arab world, in particular, where dictators and repressive governments are the norm, entire populations are held in ignorance and poverty. It's no wonder their young become enraged.
America has its own army of religious extremists, perpetrating terror of another kind - against women in particular - and using money and electoral perversity as weapons. Given the number of lives they place at risk, they pose a serious threat, yet no one is willing to utter the words "radical Christianity".
It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is understanding its roots, which is a lack of education, a lack of opportunity, and a sense of being misunderstood. I don't care if they call the summit "Sunday in the Park with George", as long as they examine the root issues and creative solutions for them.
17
Shame on you, radical Christianity? Are you serious? I've read nothing about Christian beheadings, bombings, slaughtering non-Christians or mutilation of women. Yours is a pseudo-intellectual attempt to rationalize and create a moral equivalency between radical Islam and other religions. The problem lies not there, but within the culture itself.
13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_accusations_against_children_in_... Christians in Africa often accuse others, including children, of "witchcraft," and horrors ensue. Still, the problems aren't equivalent. As far as I know, there are no groups of Christians hoping to enforce Christian law on all societies, everywhere using violent means.
1
re "radical Christians" in the USA: yes they exist and they boldly kill those in the USA that they disagree with….I prefer to call them "bogus Christians" as their actions are not consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ in any way at all, and I think sincere Christians walking the path should also speak up,(like sincere Muslims should), and make that a vividly clear distinction.
Tom, of all people you should know that on February 18th we will have nothing more then a 'dog and pony' show. O is in denial, hoping he can get by for two years and go off to Hawaii for rest and recreation. Only fools could think otherwise. Truly an absurd person seeking an absurd agenda, foreign and domestic.
7
The picture painted of the angry young Muslim man's problems
Him being so trivialized into a pathetic lost adolescent juvenile
Sadly a valid portrait
And
So silly all appears
We being so over-inflated with Man's imagined grandeur
Are belittled and befuddled and broken by immaturity
And the ultimate immaturity
Religion.
Him being so trivialized into a pathetic lost adolescent juvenile
Sadly a valid portrait
And
So silly all appears
We being so over-inflated with Man's imagined grandeur
Are belittled and befuddled and broken by immaturity
And the ultimate immaturity
Religion.
3
To understand Radical Islam we have to go back to the first half of the 18th century and the formation of Saudi Arabia that occurred through the powerful alliance of the puritanical reformer Mohammed Ibn Abd Al Wahhab and Mohammed ibn Saud in about 1744. Their political/spiritual partnership brought the bedouin tribes together into an alliance that insured total obeisance to the House of Saud and the extreme fundamentalism of Wahhabism. “The only way” wrote Abd Al Wahhab, “is by love to those who practice 'Tawhid' (absolute belief) of Allah...as well as by hate and hostility to infidels and polytheists.” (excerpted from “God's Terrorists" by Charles Allen).
This aggressive belief system has been inculcated by thousands of religious schools throughout the Islamic world, funded by the Saudi government. The “hate and hostility” part of this belief system finds natural targets in the West, particularly in light of the continuing history of imperial behavior by Western powers across the Muslim World. It is ironic that the Saudi royal family is still bound to the Wahhabi mullahs who have assured its power, and yet are determined to hold back the integration of the Kingdom and the Muslim world with the rest world.
The House of Saud has given birth to a bitter legacy, the burden of which we, and the Western World, will bear until Islam can develop a countervailing tendency that finds peace with the “ infidels and polytheists” with whom it must share the planet
This aggressive belief system has been inculcated by thousands of religious schools throughout the Islamic world, funded by the Saudi government. The “hate and hostility” part of this belief system finds natural targets in the West, particularly in light of the continuing history of imperial behavior by Western powers across the Muslim World. It is ironic that the Saudi royal family is still bound to the Wahhabi mullahs who have assured its power, and yet are determined to hold back the integration of the Kingdom and the Muslim world with the rest world.
The House of Saud has given birth to a bitter legacy, the burden of which we, and the Western World, will bear until Islam can develop a countervailing tendency that finds peace with the “ infidels and polytheists” with whom it must share the planet
11
You ridicule with, "This makes it sound as if the Charlie Hebdo terrorists set out to commit a random act of violent extremism and only subsequently, when they realized that they needed some justification, did they reach for Islam."
I would submit that, in many cases, that is exactly what is happening. Thugs, malcontents and disaffected youth, the same mindset as the Crips and Bloods. They are thugs looking for a justification. Religion gives them cover. This is ISIS.
They are not Islamic scholars with any legitimacy. Most of the foreign jihadis can't read the Koran in Arabic and get their religious knowledge from "Koran for Dummies" and fellow sociopaths.
We elevate these thugs to Warriors with our War on Terror. We give them legitimacy when we cede them a branch of Islam.
Say it like it is - "They are murderous sociopaths searching for any justification."
I would submit that, in many cases, that is exactly what is happening. Thugs, malcontents and disaffected youth, the same mindset as the Crips and Bloods. They are thugs looking for a justification. Religion gives them cover. This is ISIS.
They are not Islamic scholars with any legitimacy. Most of the foreign jihadis can't read the Koran in Arabic and get their religious knowledge from "Koran for Dummies" and fellow sociopaths.
We elevate these thugs to Warriors with our War on Terror. We give them legitimacy when we cede them a branch of Islam.
Say it like it is - "They are murderous sociopaths searching for any justification."
13
I agree with everything Mr. Friedman wrote from the 7th paragraph after "President Obama knows better." Unfortunately, it seems that very smart people as well as many politicians want to phrase this as a call to arms against Islam. I don't think we should characterize it that way even if some groups calling themselves Muslims and forming communities of terrorists have declared war on the west and other Muslims. These are huge issues, even more-so in Europe that really are calling for careful thought, courage and the necessity of being able to differentiate the actual and real needs of societies in solving cultural clashes while attempting to maintain core values of freedom of expression and secular society and separate those clarifications from the forces of intolerance that happen to flow through our western societies. The growth of Neo-Nazisim, anti-semitisim and general xenophobia in western and eastern Europe is alarming, These are certainly ideologies that will attempt to absorb the anger and fear for their own advantage and we know the terror they can instill. We do not want to empower that even if it feels good to strike back at the enemy, because then the violence will simply amplify and grow.
4
Western liberals have to get over the fact that they actually -do- have deeply held beliefs about individual rights, about gays, about women, and that these beliefs -do- put them in conflict with much of the world and in fact with much of the non-Western world.
This is a big conflict among liberals and academics, but their failure to resolve it is not just a crisis of beliefs, but one of great and primal consequence to gays, woman and religious minorities and atheists living in the Muslim majority world.
In fact, having good faith would ironically allow a normative Islam to flourish. No less a scholar than Hamza Yusuf has said America is the best place to be a Muslim.
This is a big conflict among liberals and academics, but their failure to resolve it is not just a crisis of beliefs, but one of great and primal consequence to gays, woman and religious minorities and atheists living in the Muslim majority world.
In fact, having good faith would ironically allow a normative Islam to flourish. No less a scholar than Hamza Yusuf has said America is the best place to be a Muslim.
2
The Muslim world has more than enough people like Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and Robert Mugabe but where are their people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, and Nelson Mandela?
3
You can almost see the mental gears turning among White House staff members, as they try to walk a thin line between talking frankly about the violent Islamic terrorists and underscoring that the vast majority of Muslims abhor such violence.
There is nothing wrong with identifying the terrorists as Islamic – it’s true and relevant. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that most Muslims reject violent jihad. That, too, is true and relevant.
What’s wrong is engaging in the silly business of scrubbing the identity of the killers in Paris and elsewhere to avoid the connection to Islamic extremism.
If it is important to enlist the aid of Muslims to isolate and neutralize or eliminate the violent jihadists, the reasonable Muslims who are essential to the effort must not believe that the religion is the real target, rather than the terrorists. President Obama or any other president of the United States has a responsibility to make sure that combatting Islamic terrorism is not construed as declaring war on Islam.
Journalists and pundits do not have that obligation.
There is nothing wrong with identifying the terrorists as Islamic – it’s true and relevant. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that most Muslims reject violent jihad. That, too, is true and relevant.
What’s wrong is engaging in the silly business of scrubbing the identity of the killers in Paris and elsewhere to avoid the connection to Islamic extremism.
If it is important to enlist the aid of Muslims to isolate and neutralize or eliminate the violent jihadists, the reasonable Muslims who are essential to the effort must not believe that the religion is the real target, rather than the terrorists. President Obama or any other president of the United States has a responsibility to make sure that combatting Islamic terrorism is not construed as declaring war on Islam.
Journalists and pundits do not have that obligation.
7
Groups bent on spreading or protecting their social and political dominance often use religion as justification...."extremist" Buddhists persecute Muslims in South Asia..."extremist" Christian colonial powers decimated native peoples all over the planet...does Friedman really want to stress the "Islamist" nature of many extremist groups today....or simply call them what they are....aggressive totalitarian cult movements feeding on the failures of corrupt poor developing societies using selective versions of Islam as their "values." It is not a religion but how people use it that matters.
3
What it appears to be is largely failed societies, led to their failures by inappropriately intense focus on their religion. There's a cautionary lesson there, if not to the west generally then to America specifically -- but, then, we've never been THAT anchored to our religions, and certainly not as governance frameworks. The few communities we've tried, such as seventeenth century New England, didn't last long.
It's also about the viability of the religion, that insists on a basis of intolerance in an age of pluralism and the enslavement of women in an age of their empowerment. The societies that are most insistent on defending these tenets are precisely those societies losing the historical thread -- becoming less and less relevant to the march of man and the directions he chooses to take history.
Finally, it's the explosive violence of the cornered beast. But THIS beast, unlike a wounded lion, seems to understand that it no longer fits in its world: so long as it insists on its ways it can't be made to fit and eventually must die off, become extinct. While that's happening, though, wounded lions at bay can cause a lot of damage.
Now, THAT'S "saying it like it is": the problem is Islam even more clearly than Tom is ready to say. Those who practice the religions that exist under this umbrella should examine their faiths before they've dedicated too much of their lives to them and no longer can see a different way that gives them a foothold in the future.
It's also about the viability of the religion, that insists on a basis of intolerance in an age of pluralism and the enslavement of women in an age of their empowerment. The societies that are most insistent on defending these tenets are precisely those societies losing the historical thread -- becoming less and less relevant to the march of man and the directions he chooses to take history.
Finally, it's the explosive violence of the cornered beast. But THIS beast, unlike a wounded lion, seems to understand that it no longer fits in its world: so long as it insists on its ways it can't be made to fit and eventually must die off, become extinct. While that's happening, though, wounded lions at bay can cause a lot of damage.
Now, THAT'S "saying it like it is": the problem is Islam even more clearly than Tom is ready to say. Those who practice the religions that exist under this umbrella should examine their faiths before they've dedicated too much of their lives to them and no longer can see a different way that gives them a foothold in the future.
5
Finally, Tom calls out Obama. Wondered how long it would take for him to understand that our President just doesn't get it.
8
Ah me, no informed discussion, no attempt at intelligent discussion of the situation, simply another tired jab at Obama.
2
Thank you, Mr. Friedman, for referencing my essay on the "honor brigade" that silences debate on Islam.
As an American Muslim writer who has attempted to engage my community's leaders on issues about extremist ideology in the faith, I -- and many others -- are confronted with denial, deflection and demonization. I understand that very few communities like to "air their dirty laundry," but as the adage goes, if we don't our dirty laundry exposed, for fear of shame, we need to clean it.
Your call for honest conversation is an important one, and it is my hope that we turn the corner so that our children do not have to inherit the problem their elders couldn't figure out a way to talk about.
Best, Asra Nomani
As an American Muslim writer who has attempted to engage my community's leaders on issues about extremist ideology in the faith, I -- and many others -- are confronted with denial, deflection and demonization. I understand that very few communities like to "air their dirty laundry," but as the adage goes, if we don't our dirty laundry exposed, for fear of shame, we need to clean it.
Your call for honest conversation is an important one, and it is my hope that we turn the corner so that our children do not have to inherit the problem their elders couldn't figure out a way to talk about.
Best, Asra Nomani
25
We don't want to call this what it is, because we are indirectly behind it. The major source of radical Islam is Wahabism. And Wahabism is supported by our "ally" Saudi Arabia. The repressive Saudi regime is justified by Wahabism, and that regime is one of the targets of radical Islam. Our support for the Saudis and other repressive regimes in the Middle East is part of the reason radical Islam targets us. Many of the Jihadis come from Wahabi madrassas throughout the Middle East and South Asia, and many of these are financed by the Saudis.
Wealthy Arabs from Saudi Arabia and other repressive Arab states are using the money we have paid them for oil to finance radical Islam. This is not our fight, and there is no military solution to this problem. We need to withdraw our support for Saudi Arabia and other similar regimes, and let the people in the Middle East resolve the issue of radical Islam. Our efforts should be concentrated on enabling us to more accurately recognize and defend against radical Islam in America and Europe, and on ensuring that other Muslims in our country aren't held responsible for the actions of the radical few.
Wealthy Arabs from Saudi Arabia and other repressive Arab states are using the money we have paid them for oil to finance radical Islam. This is not our fight, and there is no military solution to this problem. We need to withdraw our support for Saudi Arabia and other similar regimes, and let the people in the Middle East resolve the issue of radical Islam. Our efforts should be concentrated on enabling us to more accurately recognize and defend against radical Islam in America and Europe, and on ensuring that other Muslims in our country aren't held responsible for the actions of the radical few.
22
Can you be at war with a philosophy which has arisen from socio economic issues as result of several invasions which have destabilised the Middle East and put pressure on the diaspora.
1
I know Thomas Friedman writes very well on issues of importance. Regarding the Obama's administrations proper identification of some radicals from countries that practice the Muslim religion, And engage in violent acts, I think he is too hard. As a Christian, I know the problems we find in these countries makes it difficult to have a proper perspective. Those who commit these ghastly acts in my opinion should not represent the face of Islam. A writer like Thomas Friedman, knows the administration is doing the proper thing by its careful pronouncements. I don't see anything wrong with it.
2
. The percentage of social misfits and individuals opposed to integration is higher among the Muslim communities than among the other minorities. In addition, many of the world's Muslims, even those who live in the West, want to see Sharia law in effect, not only for themselves, but also forcibly for others. They are basically saying in the clearest of terms: We have come here to impose our values on you.
According to a 2013 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 71 percent of Jordanians, 74 percent of Egyptians and 89 percent of the residents of the Palestinian Authority support enforcing Sharia law – with the emphasis on the enforcement.
The WZB Berlin Social Science Center conducted a similar survey on the viewpoints of Muslims in Western Europe. The findings show that 65 percent support the implementation of Sharia law, with 75 percent stating that Sharia has only one interpretation. And there are numerous and various surveys that reveal far more worrying data. One such poll, which made waves recently, determined that 27 percent of the Muslims in France support Islamic State. OK, so some surveys may be a little suspect; but the serious ones clearly show that the picture is bleak even without the need for any exaggeration.
Most polls reveal another alarming finding – support for fundamentalism, it's a minority; nevertheless, the bottom line is that millions in Europe support, at some level or another, the fundamental notion of the global Jihad
According to a 2013 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 71 percent of Jordanians, 74 percent of Egyptians and 89 percent of the residents of the Palestinian Authority support enforcing Sharia law – with the emphasis on the enforcement.
The WZB Berlin Social Science Center conducted a similar survey on the viewpoints of Muslims in Western Europe. The findings show that 65 percent support the implementation of Sharia law, with 75 percent stating that Sharia has only one interpretation. And there are numerous and various surveys that reveal far more worrying data. One such poll, which made waves recently, determined that 27 percent of the Muslims in France support Islamic State. OK, so some surveys may be a little suspect; but the serious ones clearly show that the picture is bleak even without the need for any exaggeration.
Most polls reveal another alarming finding – support for fundamentalism, it's a minority; nevertheless, the bottom line is that millions in Europe support, at some level or another, the fundamental notion of the global Jihad
22
Kind of scary to consider these religiously based opinions. I do not welcome having any religious laws forced on me. As an American I have a right to live without the religious laws of others being imposed on me. We have plenty of crazy religious cults and crazy nuts galore here in the USA, and In the USA you are totally free to worship a stale potato chip if you like but don't expect others to accept your stale chip laws. We should be Americans first & foremost.
The real turmoil in Islam is probably caused by a general feeling that the Islamic world is not the dominant culture in the world. The glory that was the Islamic world has long passed.
From the criticisms of Christianity and Judaism in the Koran, it easy to infer that the Moslems have the notion that Islam replaces its sister religions by pointing out that Christians worship saints and Jews worship prophets. In the Koran both religions have forgotten God. The Islamic world has not been successful for centuries. In an article in Foreign Affairs, some years before 9/11 bin Laden's goals were explained as wishing to avenge the conquest of Baghdad by the Mongols centuries before. Bin Laden constantly repeated that Islam had conquered the Byzantine Empire and its rightful place was to be a conqueror again. (in reality I think the Crusaders and the Egyptian Christians weakened the Byzantines much more than the Ottomans)
When Sadat was murdered by a member of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1983, his murderer screamed "I just killed Pharaoh"
There is a general fury at the western educated world and these currents are deep.
From the criticisms of Christianity and Judaism in the Koran, it easy to infer that the Moslems have the notion that Islam replaces its sister religions by pointing out that Christians worship saints and Jews worship prophets. In the Koran both religions have forgotten God. The Islamic world has not been successful for centuries. In an article in Foreign Affairs, some years before 9/11 bin Laden's goals were explained as wishing to avenge the conquest of Baghdad by the Mongols centuries before. Bin Laden constantly repeated that Islam had conquered the Byzantine Empire and its rightful place was to be a conqueror again. (in reality I think the Crusaders and the Egyptian Christians weakened the Byzantines much more than the Ottomans)
When Sadat was murdered by a member of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1983, his murderer screamed "I just killed Pharaoh"
There is a general fury at the western educated world and these currents are deep.
9
I've read the Quran five times. There's nothing in there to justify the kind of 'Islamist' terror that's all too common and tragic today. In fact, if every Muslim would memorize the entire Quran, bloody acts supposedly inspired by Islam would come to a screeching halt. The Prophet Muhammad was insulted many times to his face in his lifetime, but there is no record of his ever responding violently. He fought wars first and last because the armies of his enemies came after him, until he realized that he had to roll back their aggression with the inspired soldiery of his own followers. When the Prophet freed Mecca from paganism, there was no mass slaughter of people, as there was when Christian Crusaders 'liberated' Jerusalem in AD 1099; only the idols that had been housed in the Kaaba went up in flames. That Islam proceeded to conquer an empire by violence is undoubtedly true, but Muhammad was in his grave by that time. You cannot make a credible case that Islam and violence must travel hand-in-hand. Similarly, we see constant perversions of Christian doctrine and always have; just for one tiny instance, some of the moneychangers of the NYSE enjoy attending services in the Episcopalian Trinity Church at the head of Wall Street, though these are the same kind of people that Jesus whipped out of the Temple in the concluding days of his earthly life. Expect any religion to be abused by some of its 'followers,' but that's a commentary on the abusers, not on the religion.
52
We need to consider our own extremes. Position A: Islam is an irredeemable religion of violence. Position Z: Islam is a religion of peace.
The two extremes are seen by many as the only positions available to judge, while they ignore the positions B through Y. After we acknowledged that the issue is more nuanced, we also need to be as hard as nails on the issue of radical Islamic terrorism and soft on the people of Islam. We need to recognize that we cannot impose our will on anyone in this (just as we could not impose our will in Iraq), and that the responsibility for changing the dynamics largely lies with Muslim leadership, not ours. (Just as changing the perceived dynamics between Black Americans and the police is our responsibility.) We can put pressure on Saudi Arabia, though possibly at a cost in higher gas prices, and pressure those governments we have some influence over to reform their own laws. We need to stand with those in and out of the Muslim world that have lost patience, and support those in the Muslim world that are ready to lead and make changes even when it costs us. This is easy to say, and uncommonly difficult create.
The two extremes are seen by many as the only positions available to judge, while they ignore the positions B through Y. After we acknowledged that the issue is more nuanced, we also need to be as hard as nails on the issue of radical Islamic terrorism and soft on the people of Islam. We need to recognize that we cannot impose our will on anyone in this (just as we could not impose our will in Iraq), and that the responsibility for changing the dynamics largely lies with Muslim leadership, not ours. (Just as changing the perceived dynamics between Black Americans and the police is our responsibility.) We can put pressure on Saudi Arabia, though possibly at a cost in higher gas prices, and pressure those governments we have some influence over to reform their own laws. We need to stand with those in and out of the Muslim world that have lost patience, and support those in the Muslim world that are ready to lead and make changes even when it costs us. This is easy to say, and uncommonly difficult create.
4
Calling it "Radical Islam" does, wittingly or unwittingly, impugn the religion of Islam when all authorities on Islam consider terrorism and targeting of civilians to be alien to Islam. How sensitive one should be to Muslim feelings is something that would vary from person to person. The White House may have one attitude about it, the Fox News may have another. The phrase"Violent extremism" is accurate, inclusive and not offensive to any community.
10
No. A war on "violent extremism" is a government and military industrial complex's wet dream, a forever war which, like a "war on crime" or "war on terror" is unwinnable .. a perfect excuse for oppression, as in "we are suspending liberties and raising taxes only until this war on *violent extremism* *crime* *drugs* is won. No, one must name one's enemies and one's objectives, George Orwell warned of this in 1984.
3
But it is a deviant view by radical Islam. We saw plenty of deviant views right here of radical Christianity. Pious, moral church going whites thought lynching of blacks was necessary to uphold god given white supremacy over a threatening racial group of inferior beings. No other way to say it.
AND this was not argued against too strenuousy by our congress, governors, judges, and even presidents. Some of them thought it most regrettable, but they didn’t pass federal laws or send out the army to quell mob violence targeting blacks as a policy.
Have you ever seen the gruesome picture postcards of publicly executed blacks, which families brought picnic lunch to witness, with black men hanging from trees, mailed through the post office to their friends? Postal workers had to handle them. Sort of like pictures we now see of Isis and their captives prior to execution on our TV, in our living rooms.
Well I think they finally passed a law against the postcards. But, the white Christians thought they were upholding the moral law, see.
We had terrorist states within the United States . This was all in our parents or grandparents’ lifetime, not in the middle ages.
AND this was not argued against too strenuousy by our congress, governors, judges, and even presidents. Some of them thought it most regrettable, but they didn’t pass federal laws or send out the army to quell mob violence targeting blacks as a policy.
Have you ever seen the gruesome picture postcards of publicly executed blacks, which families brought picnic lunch to witness, with black men hanging from trees, mailed through the post office to their friends? Postal workers had to handle them. Sort of like pictures we now see of Isis and their captives prior to execution on our TV, in our living rooms.
Well I think they finally passed a law against the postcards. But, the white Christians thought they were upholding the moral law, see.
We had terrorist states within the United States . This was all in our parents or grandparents’ lifetime, not in the middle ages.
27
When was that .. "terror States" .. no, unless you are referring to the Northern States that sent General Sherman to devastate the civilian populations of Atlanta and then turned West to do the same to Native America.
Hi Tom,
I never heard you saying RADICAL JUDAISM when the Israeli army killed hundreds of innocent children and women in Gaza in its last war. It is has to be Islam to be radical.
Let me ask you a question. What Muslim women got to do with the theme of your piece of work here? You always inject Muslim women in your work. Do you want them to be liberals as in your culture? Do you want to impose your culture on others whether they like it or not?
Pakistan is not part of the Middle East, it is part of Central Asia. I thought you will check your work before print.
Can you question Judaism or Christianity? You probably can. But Muslims will never question their religion except those who are living in the MARGIN between religions just like the ones you quoted in Asharq Al-Awsat and WP. But they will question those who are using Islam for their AGENDAS.
The world does not need conference to hammer this issue, the world needs THE WEST TO UP HOLD THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND QUITE THE DOUBLE GAME . By the way. WHY THE WEST DOES NOT SUPPORT KING ABDULAH OF SAUDI ARABIA when he calls for the establishment of International Center to Fight Terrorism many yrs ago and donated 100 Million $$ for this Center?
I am really surprised that you did not mention the Iranian terrorism in the world or Hezbollah's terrorism in Lebanon and Syria. It has to be the Sunni one. to give you the proof; the US president will veto any sanctions against Iran. I guess he and Iran are in total agreement.
I never heard you saying RADICAL JUDAISM when the Israeli army killed hundreds of innocent children and women in Gaza in its last war. It is has to be Islam to be radical.
Let me ask you a question. What Muslim women got to do with the theme of your piece of work here? You always inject Muslim women in your work. Do you want them to be liberals as in your culture? Do you want to impose your culture on others whether they like it or not?
Pakistan is not part of the Middle East, it is part of Central Asia. I thought you will check your work before print.
Can you question Judaism or Christianity? You probably can. But Muslims will never question their religion except those who are living in the MARGIN between religions just like the ones you quoted in Asharq Al-Awsat and WP. But they will question those who are using Islam for their AGENDAS.
The world does not need conference to hammer this issue, the world needs THE WEST TO UP HOLD THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND QUITE THE DOUBLE GAME . By the way. WHY THE WEST DOES NOT SUPPORT KING ABDULAH OF SAUDI ARABIA when he calls for the establishment of International Center to Fight Terrorism many yrs ago and donated 100 Million $$ for this Center?
I am really surprised that you did not mention the Iranian terrorism in the world or Hezbollah's terrorism in Lebanon and Syria. It has to be the Sunni one. to give you the proof; the US president will veto any sanctions against Iran. I guess he and Iran are in total agreement.
3
To compare self defense against Hamas who use civilians as shields as a justification to call Judaism Radical is nothing more than ludicrous. How many beheadings are there in Israel, how many flogging, how many women are slaves and covered head to toe in burkas? what are trying to do by your ideas and comments, is no different than the naziropaganda to denigrate another ethnic group to justify your religions intolerance and contempt of the west. Why are you Islamists so afraid of any system or truth different than yours. Could it be that your truths aren't so true but must be defended in spite of your nose? For me at least , the enemy of my enemy is not my friend and politicians who refuse to call a spade a spade is not my friend!
12
"To compare self defense against Hamas"
We are calling things by their proper names today. That wasn't "self defense against Hamas."
We are calling things by their proper names today. That wasn't "self defense against Hamas."
4
No Tom was nio calling for Muslim women to be "liberals in our culture":. He is asking that Muslim men treat them as equals.
Even the illustrious commentator on the Middle East, Tom Friedman, has a very tenuous grasp on history. The modern Islamic movement was born in the 19th Century as a reaction to colonial exploitation and repression of Middle Eastern nations, aided and abetted by Middle Eastern rulers, who became rich. The Islamic movement sought to depose the corrupt rulers and to resist and oppose the colonial exploiters.
The Wahhabi/Salafist movement in Saudi Arabia gradually became associated with the Islamic movement. It was so much easier on the conscience to carry out violent action against colonial forces when the effort was defined as sanctioned by God.
Young people, even those born and raised in France and Great Britain know that their heritage has been despoiled by Europeans for the past Century and a half. Thus radical Islam is not so much an Islamic movement as an anti-colonial and anti-neo-colonial movement.
Who can deny the actions of Britain, France and the U.S. throughout the 20th Century. Continued alliance with corrupt rulers, continued exploitation of natural resources, continued repression of local populations? Restructuring the Middle East after World Wars I and II. Invading Iraq, trying to choke Iran, the list goes on and on.
And Tom Friedman writes that we are at war with "Islam." It is so patently inaccurate as a formulation that one wants to weep Until we acknowledge the West's negative actions of the past and the present, we are doomed to this battle.
The Wahhabi/Salafist movement in Saudi Arabia gradually became associated with the Islamic movement. It was so much easier on the conscience to carry out violent action against colonial forces when the effort was defined as sanctioned by God.
Young people, even those born and raised in France and Great Britain know that their heritage has been despoiled by Europeans for the past Century and a half. Thus radical Islam is not so much an Islamic movement as an anti-colonial and anti-neo-colonial movement.
Who can deny the actions of Britain, France and the U.S. throughout the 20th Century. Continued alliance with corrupt rulers, continued exploitation of natural resources, continued repression of local populations? Restructuring the Middle East after World Wars I and II. Invading Iraq, trying to choke Iran, the list goes on and on.
And Tom Friedman writes that we are at war with "Islam." It is so patently inaccurate as a formulation that one wants to weep Until we acknowledge the West's negative actions of the past and the present, we are doomed to this battle.
11
Sir, I cannot disagree more.
If what you are saying is true, then why did General Sisi in Egypt, a devout Muslim, just say exactly the same things that Thomas Friedman has said in this column? I have to believe that General Sisi knows a bit more about the current situation regarding Islam than you.
If what you are saying is true, then why did General Sisi in Egypt, a devout Muslim, just say exactly the same things that Thomas Friedman has said in this column? I have to believe that General Sisi knows a bit more about the current situation regarding Islam than you.
7
I think most people who care about the subject at all are aware of all this .. but that offers little solace to the 145 Pakistani children who were executed in cold blood days before Christmas. And if the enemy is not named, as Friedman stated, then it is not possible to address the reasoning of that enemy, including those that are legitimate.
3
David Ricardo -- "then why did General Sisi in Egypt, a devout Muslim, just say exactly the same things that Thomas Friedman has said"
Interesting comparison. Sisi is a right wing autocratic dictator from an army that owns the economy of its country. He has shot down thousands in the streets, and in brief court hearings sentenced to death hundreds at a time. Sisi has just one virtue, which is that Israel likes him. Friedman fits right in, in his "suck on this" Iraq War mode. Don't forget what he told us before, because this is the same thinking.
Interesting comparison. Sisi is a right wing autocratic dictator from an army that owns the economy of its country. He has shot down thousands in the streets, and in brief court hearings sentenced to death hundreds at a time. Sisi has just one virtue, which is that Israel likes him. Friedman fits right in, in his "suck on this" Iraq War mode. Don't forget what he told us before, because this is the same thinking.
2
i miss bush because he called a spade a spade.
11
Never mind what he actually did....
4
He also called imaginary weapons of mass destruction a spade and we're going to be paying the price for decades.
7
Even if they were clubs.
5
Part of the problem is the way we categorize and think about terrorism. If you were to ask people to picture a terrorist, most would probably envision a radical islamist from the Middle East or North Africa. However, terrorism, in the true sense of the word, simply implies the use of violence to invoke fear in a population. Anders Behring Breivik and Adam Lanza were terrorists, but we don't necessarily define them as such.
The cause of violent extremism has been known for all of humanity: angry, demoralized, fighting-age men with access to methods of killing people.
What we need to do as a society is try our best to ensure young men have opportunities, not allow them to drift to the fringes, and most importantly, restrict access to killing machines.
The cause of violent extremism has been known for all of humanity: angry, demoralized, fighting-age men with access to methods of killing people.
What we need to do as a society is try our best to ensure young men have opportunities, not allow them to drift to the fringes, and most importantly, restrict access to killing machines.
7
"Anders Behring Breivik and Adam Lanza were terrorists, but we don't necessarily define them as such."
We do not define them as terrorists because they were not. Terrorism, by definition, is the use of violence and intimidation for political purposes. This is why Adam Lanza is not a terrorist but Nidal Hassan is.
We do not define them as terrorists because they were not. Terrorism, by definition, is the use of violence and intimidation for political purposes. This is why Adam Lanza is not a terrorist but Nidal Hassan is.
1
So again, you are advocating a forever war. George Washington and Abraham LIncoln were both violent extremists .. Violent Extremism is not a enemy.
1
None of these Islamic terrorist groups pose a threat to our American way of life. They can and will cause some isolated horrific incidents, but life will go on. Right now we have Shiite fighting Sunni fighting Assad fighting ISIS. Let's stay out of this. Let them fight it out. My recommendation is that we withdraw all our troops, operatives, contractors and funding from the entire Middle East.
8
Seems to me that 9/11 changed our way of life and our values quite a bit. Bush/Cheney leadership is the reason we've become a nation that embraces both fear and torture, but we, the people, went along with them.
President Obama said nothing about Islamic terrorist groups .. so your recommendations are irrelevant.
3
Your recommendation is the key to us prevailing. The consequences of our intervention have done untold damage to our society both economic and on morale. We incited a hornets nest. Yes let them fight it out.
2
So, let's put you in charge of things for a moment, Mr. Friedman.
Let's call the President's conference a "Summit on Countering Violent Radical Islam."
Now, who shows up for the conference? Leaders from Muslim countries? Leaders from European countries, like Francois Hollande, or Angela Merkel, who are trying to create and maintain trust with their Muslim citizens? Oh, I get it. Bibi shows up, and he's happy as a clam.
Stick to working your column, Mr. Friedman. You only have to worry about calling things "what they are," not about getting people to a table, and actually trying to reach actionable and effective consensus.
Let's call the President's conference a "Summit on Countering Violent Radical Islam."
Now, who shows up for the conference? Leaders from Muslim countries? Leaders from European countries, like Francois Hollande, or Angela Merkel, who are trying to create and maintain trust with their Muslim citizens? Oh, I get it. Bibi shows up, and he's happy as a clam.
Stick to working your column, Mr. Friedman. You only have to worry about calling things "what they are," not about getting people to a table, and actually trying to reach actionable and effective consensus.
27
Call Saudi a terrorist sponsoring nation and Turkey am Islamist state which supports ISIS. That's the reality people need to face.
7
What's in a name, Mr. Friedman? "Violent Extremism" or "Radical Islam"-it doesn't make a difference. Which targets are the drones hitting? Where are the bombs falling? We all know who the enemy is. Perhaps the administration should hire Bill Maher as its spokesperson. The press briefings would be far more entertaining and enlightening and administration could even charge a hefty entrance fee.
4
"What's in a name, Mr. Friedman? "Violent Extremism" or "Radical Islam"-it doesn't make a difference."
It does make a difference. As President Obama once said, "Words matter."
You cannot solve a problem if you cannot first define what the problem is.
It does make a difference. As President Obama once said, "Words matter."
You cannot solve a problem if you cannot first define what the problem is.
6
"Say It Like It Is?"
Here's a detailed and documented description of U.S. foreign policy, as executed, since the end of WWII: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/BLUMkillinghope.pdf
What you insist on calling "radical Islam," Mr. Friedman, I call U.S. foreign policy, as executed - just this time by someone else. And, only a bit ironically, we don't like it so much when other people do it, do we? But they're not Judeo-Christians, they're Muslim. So it's "radical Islam." While we're just good Judeo-Christians.
What box on your tax returns have you been checking the last few decades, Thom?
You know, when it comes to deciding how we should refer to violent extremism, I think I'll put my trust in the President who, however imperfectly, however much he stumbles, however much he gives into political pressures I wish he'd do more to resist, has been trying to turn us away from the way we've been so things for so long - the things we've been doing that has left too many people no choice but to emulate us.
"Violent extremism" doesn't suit you, Thom? Would you be shocked, indignant, insulted, if perhaps a few people in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, regarded what we've done to them as "radical Judeo-Christianity?"
Boy, I'll bet you'd be jumping up and down trying to get the Iraqis and Afghanis to "leave our religious beliefs out of this," wouldn't you, Thom?
Here's a detailed and documented description of U.S. foreign policy, as executed, since the end of WWII: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/BLUMkillinghope.pdf
What you insist on calling "radical Islam," Mr. Friedman, I call U.S. foreign policy, as executed - just this time by someone else. And, only a bit ironically, we don't like it so much when other people do it, do we? But they're not Judeo-Christians, they're Muslim. So it's "radical Islam." While we're just good Judeo-Christians.
What box on your tax returns have you been checking the last few decades, Thom?
You know, when it comes to deciding how we should refer to violent extremism, I think I'll put my trust in the President who, however imperfectly, however much he stumbles, however much he gives into political pressures I wish he'd do more to resist, has been trying to turn us away from the way we've been so things for so long - the things we've been doing that has left too many people no choice but to emulate us.
"Violent extremism" doesn't suit you, Thom? Would you be shocked, indignant, insulted, if perhaps a few people in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, regarded what we've done to them as "radical Judeo-Christianity?"
Boy, I'll bet you'd be jumping up and down trying to get the Iraqis and Afghanis to "leave our religious beliefs out of this," wouldn't you, Thom?
12
Haven't we declared war enough times on the wrong people? After all the drone attacks and the other attacks and the wars against the wrong people and all the wrongly targeted attacks that ended up making more terrorists and enemies of America than getting rid of terrorists, is it really necessary to pound our chest and say once more we are at war with radical Islam? Does that make radical islam go away? Obama has said time and time again that he is out to degrade and destroy the radical Islamist groups and did so again the State of the Union. What some functionary coming out of the White House SAYS is a lot less important than what we DO. Was Bush/Cheney chest thumping and illegitimate war making and mongering effective in getting rid of radical islam or did it just make it worse?? MUCH worse??? WE are already at war against ISIS! haven;t we been bombing them for months? Accusing Obama of being soft on terrorism is silly... he has hit hard and often and HE not Bush got Osama bin Laden... So mr Friedman in all due respect to your great journalistic gifts, his tim I think you've got it wrong! WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO "WALK QUIETLY AND CARRY A BIT STICK"!??? Trumpeting our bellicosity doesn't make us stronger or more effective in combating terror. Quite the opposite may be true! Subtly and cunning are often more effective than grandiose declarations in asymmetrical warfare , which is exactly what we are dealing with here.
Eliot Fisk Newton Mass.
Eliot Fisk Newton Mass.
4
Agree that naming matters, but believe you've got it backwards - taking the "Islamic" out of the description of these violent extremists more accurately describes them. Their heinous and criminal acts are fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of a faith they claim to reflect, and a hideous distortion of it. They are criminals who kill children and use children to kill, and no amount of demagoguery or false piety will ever make that resemble any religion.
Please, let's take the association with a real religion away from them, they don't deserve to claim it as their own.
Please, let's take the association with a real religion away from them, they don't deserve to claim it as their own.
212
But they DO claim Islam as their religion. And much of Wahhabi Islam supports their point of view.
10
Wahhabi is to Islam what Jim Jones was to Christianity. Our war is not with Islam. Some want to make is so, to serve quite different agenda.
2
So how are these terrorists qualified as being Muslim? They are gangs of vicious killers, so how does that align with their so called religious faith? Not in any way so I think we should simply call them terrorists and gangs. Why do Muslims tolerate their religion be denigrated in this way?
1
Does it really matter what we call it, where it originated, or who it is that convinces impressionable young men in the Middle East to trade their lives for a cause which advocates complete chaos and the elimination of the status quo? The problem now is there's no education, no economic opportunity, and no reliable social structures for young men in the poor, now war torn Arab states. All three would be necessary to convince them of the value of living a decent, normal life that included serving their communities. In many regions now, the total annihilation of IS would appear to be a requirement for those conditions to be re-established.
The Obama administration isn't the root cause of this - it was the Bush neocons, now rich and still defiant (like Cheney and Rumsfeld). It had nothing to do with national security. Just a pent up yearning for blood and money after eight years of peaceful Democratic rule. All they needed was the one event to respond in a totally disproportionate manner. So let's stop with the semantics, and remember who the culprits really were. Obama can call it "the result of overreacting and lying to the public about the need for a war" conference, for all I care.
The Obama administration isn't the root cause of this - it was the Bush neocons, now rich and still defiant (like Cheney and Rumsfeld). It had nothing to do with national security. Just a pent up yearning for blood and money after eight years of peaceful Democratic rule. All they needed was the one event to respond in a totally disproportionate manner. So let's stop with the semantics, and remember who the culprits really were. Obama can call it "the result of overreacting and lying to the public about the need for a war" conference, for all I care.
15
Either Muslims will resign themselves to pictures of Mohammed or the rest of us will have to stop drawing them. But if we stop, we must still defend the principle that religions do not get to tell other faiths how to live. And we will have trouble defending this principle as long as some of our religious people insist on imposing their views of abortion or sex on everybody. After all, their God has told them that pictures of His prophet (or of Him) are offensive to Him and they should protest or stop these offenses, just as the Christian God told some of His followers that the races should live separately and the white race should run things.
6
Friedman calls it like it is. I'm a great admirer of President Obama, but this has been a consistent blind spot for him. The worst example is the administration's inexcusable failure to reverse the appalling Pentagon decision that classified Nidal Hasan's Fort Hood massacre as "workplace violence." It would have been comical, a virtual Onion parody, if the stakes weren't so high.
Obama's mechanical obeisance to political correctness here unnecessarily hands the Republicans a powerful political weapon.
Obama's mechanical obeisance to political correctness here unnecessarily hands the Republicans a powerful political weapon.
13
If I can criticize my fellow liberals for a moment...I think sometimes there is a singular, narrow focus on scrubbing all language and depictions free of anything offensive, without separating the symbolic from the actual. The result is lovely, sensitive rhetoric that is detached from reality. Exhibit A: an administration that rhetorically bends over backwards to not offend or harm Muslims with their language, while simulatneously creating very real innocent Muslim casualties on a very regular basis with drones and bombs.
135
Nice semantics. I think that acting like we know the deepest, most personal thoughts of others is fantasy wrapped in a belief in one's own super natural abilities. The fact of the matter is that Bush2/Cheney created a Hobson's choice for any subsequent president to deal with. And super natural folks knew that going to war in the Middle East would be just the right thing to do. Mind readers are equally prevalent on both sides of the political spectrum - signifying nothing.
1
While I agree with your post I do think this 'scrubbing' of language is all pervasive and unfortunately is aped by the media. We do not call torture torture, civilian casualties are collateral damage, American troops fighting in a foreign country are boots on the ground, and the list goes on....
1
Often violence is derived from a perception of history. In the case of Islam the violence is largely derived from a history of victories in the period 600 A.D. to 1700 A.D., which incidentally is more than a millennium. In comparison, the cultural and economic dominance of Europe+USA has only existed for the past 300 years. The violent events of the medieval world peppered at times with a few instances of tolerance as well, serve as a historical vindication of the Islamist ideology in the minds of Islamists. Historical perceptions by Muslims need to be more balanced even if they lead to a questioning of the validity of past victories or even the worldwide spread of the religion. Even if this involves Muslims questioning a few of their own basic beliefs, it needs to be done.
1
First, Martine Le Pen's piece, and now Thomas Friedman. And both advocating clearly naming the problem accurately. Is Someone trying to tell us something?
8
Political correctness is the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party.
41
Sunshine is the best disinfectant
1
Mr. Friedman:
This seems like a lot of chest thumping to me. Evidently Pres. Obama is just not macho enough for you. As a veteran of combat myself I can assure you that it won't matter how polite we were when we start shooting at them. It is at that point, Mr. Friedman, that it actually matters how tough you are. Have you visited your local V.A. hospital lately?
This seems like a lot of chest thumping to me. Evidently Pres. Obama is just not macho enough for you. As a veteran of combat myself I can assure you that it won't matter how polite we were when we start shooting at them. It is at that point, Mr. Friedman, that it actually matters how tough you are. Have you visited your local V.A. hospital lately?
10
Interesting that Marine Le Pen made much the same argument in her Times Op-Ed today. And not to diminish the point, but when Thomas Friedman comments on radical Islam one cannot help but remember that the war Mr. Friedman so enthusiastically embraced in Iraq (which many others accurately predicted would breed generations of terrorists) has been such an inspiration for Islamic extremists. Every piece he ever does on the subject should begin with that acknowledgement.
261
@Lymond--thank you for repeating this and reminding readers. It seems that many readers and Mr. Friedman, himself, have conveniently forgotten this.
1
I wish I could push the "Like" button more than once. This is absolutely correct.
1
Somehow I have a feeling Obama would not hem and haw that we should be careful not to assume that the Oklahoma City bombers were anti government right wingers.
6
A columnist may (& should!) say things more baldly than a government -- in that no columnist has taken on the job of building, with the world's eyes on her or him, a coalition of the not-very-willing.
What you say, I also believe, Tom. It *does* seem to be a cancer of violence within the Sunni world, & even within a subset of that Sunni world. Thank God for that! To see that & name it, is helpful. My hope is, that the governments (especially those from the West, who need to turn quite seriously to assimilating Sunni (& Shia!) Muslims into their cultures) will agree with you in their hearts, though choose slightly more diplomatic words to begin the global dialogue. Once begun, that dialogue can go on to franker discussions in due course.
What you say, I also believe, Tom. It *does* seem to be a cancer of violence within the Sunni world, & even within a subset of that Sunni world. Thank God for that! To see that & name it, is helpful. My hope is, that the governments (especially those from the West, who need to turn quite seriously to assimilating Sunni (& Shia!) Muslims into their cultures) will agree with you in their hearts, though choose slightly more diplomatic words to begin the global dialogue. Once begun, that dialogue can go on to franker discussions in due course.
4
I can only imagine how many countries would attend a conference titled the "How to fight against Islamic extremist". The US would be sitting alone in an empty room.
7
Which is why we should totally evacuate the Middle East . We have been the catalyst for an all out Shia Sunni civil war. Let us recognize that was the goal successfully achieved. We have our own oil now. Let's just sit back and watch. Evil always self destructs.
1
Mr. Friedman dislikes euphemisms. He likes a bold and candid approach. He wants Obama to say it like it is:
-- We are at war with radical Islam--
But who are we?
The U.S.? Europe? The West? Israel? All of the above?
Who declared this war? ISIS? Al Qaeda? Assad? The Axis of Evil? All of the above?
Do we need someone to declare it for us? Congress? The European Union? NATO? Mr. Netanyahu? All of the above?
Who is paying for the war? Saudi Arabia? The United Arab Emirates? The EU? You and me?
What weapons are being used? Are drones ok? Can we torture, again? Can we just "nuke 'em?"
And whose children fight this war, British, French, German, Israelis, Jordanians, Americans, ...? Should they strategize or just go their own way?
We may need a conference to answer these questions. But should Mr. Friedman be invited?
-- We are at war with radical Islam--
But who are we?
The U.S.? Europe? The West? Israel? All of the above?
Who declared this war? ISIS? Al Qaeda? Assad? The Axis of Evil? All of the above?
Do we need someone to declare it for us? Congress? The European Union? NATO? Mr. Netanyahu? All of the above?
Who is paying for the war? Saudi Arabia? The United Arab Emirates? The EU? You and me?
What weapons are being used? Are drones ok? Can we torture, again? Can we just "nuke 'em?"
And whose children fight this war, British, French, German, Israelis, Jordanians, Americans, ...? Should they strategize or just go their own way?
We may need a conference to answer these questions. But should Mr. Friedman be invited?
18
The questions are even broader when the conference is a war on violent extremism. Who declared THAT war? Does it include a war on PETA?
1
About time to start mentioning the unmentionable. Sometimes a spade is a freaking shovel.
7
Jeez Tom, I've been a fan of your work--and sometimes a critic--but I want to stand up and applaud. Reading this in the Times of all places is rather stunning. You still going to have a job tomorrow?
Seriously though, you spent a lot of time in the Middle East as a reporter and correspondent and know better than most what's at stake here and how we have to stop the endless handwringing we see in so many of our so-called leaders. Call it what it is and develop a strategy for dealing with it. Al-Sisi's New Year's speech to Al-Aqsa might be a good place to start.
Seriously though, you spent a lot of time in the Middle East as a reporter and correspondent and know better than most what's at stake here and how we have to stop the endless handwringing we see in so many of our so-called leaders. Call it what it is and develop a strategy for dealing with it. Al-Sisi's New Year's speech to Al-Aqsa might be a good place to start.
9
We are at war with radical Islam and radical Islam is a part of all of Islam. It is not a separate free standing entity. It cannot be eliminated until all of Islam turns in on itself. The reasons can be found in the beginnings of societal behavior.
When people first started living in groups, (I'll call them tribes for simplicity) a means had to produced to enforce proper behavior. That means was expulsion. Being kicked out of the tribe could lead to death as the individual would be vulnerable to predators or attack from other tribes.
The global tribe of Islam has not kicked the Jihadists out. In fact, Jihad is often celebrated and honored which just draws in more participants.
Jihad is like a cancer in that the host does not recognize it as an invading body. It grows until it kills the host. A microbe is recognized as an invader which summons the immune system to rally and attack it. Islam has yet to recognize that radicalism is not a type of Islam, (a cancer) but an invading body which the host must attack to survive.
We must drive that point home, not cover it up. The global tribe of Islam must correct the bad behavior it has produced just as a parent must correct a child's bad behavior.
Only Islam can rid the world of radical Jihadists. We must make it absolutely clear that we understand that and it's up to them to stop it. Muslims that feel shame because of terror must act upon that shame.
When people first started living in groups, (I'll call them tribes for simplicity) a means had to produced to enforce proper behavior. That means was expulsion. Being kicked out of the tribe could lead to death as the individual would be vulnerable to predators or attack from other tribes.
The global tribe of Islam has not kicked the Jihadists out. In fact, Jihad is often celebrated and honored which just draws in more participants.
Jihad is like a cancer in that the host does not recognize it as an invading body. It grows until it kills the host. A microbe is recognized as an invader which summons the immune system to rally and attack it. Islam has yet to recognize that radicalism is not a type of Islam, (a cancer) but an invading body which the host must attack to survive.
We must drive that point home, not cover it up. The global tribe of Islam must correct the bad behavior it has produced just as a parent must correct a child's bad behavior.
Only Islam can rid the world of radical Jihadists. We must make it absolutely clear that we understand that and it's up to them to stop it. Muslims that feel shame because of terror must act upon that shame.
36
It is hilarious that Obama is so afraid of offending terrorists. These people seriously need to be offended. And they need to be called terrorists. It is also absurd that Obama thinks he needs to tell everyone that the terrorists are heretics, that they are not real Muslims at all. As far as I can tell, our president knows less about Islam than I do. He has probably not read the Koran. I doubt that he has read a single history of the Arab World or of the Islamic world. Friedman is right in saying that this is a problem that Muslims need to solve. But it is also true, as he says, that there is virtue in calling a spade a spade. I normally admire Obama for his use of language. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, his use of language is an embarasment.
11
Unfortunately although many Muslims condemn the violent Islamists, these Islamists derive support from the non violent Islamists among us. Having been raised Muslim I know how Islamist ideology has seeped into many Muslim communities. By claiming that the Quran / Muhammed is perfect and that sharia and Islam can solve all of our problems we are setting the stage for some angry young men to go kill in the name of Islam. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fathima-imra-nazeer/muslims-must-reconside...
26
So basically you're saying the Obama administration is lying, yet again, and that liberals live in a state of denial. Nice to see Friedman admit these things.
3
Yep, Mr. Friedman, you are definitely defeating the radicals. Just look.
1
On the one hand, the Obama administration has been quite aggressive in going after “violent extremists” (not coincidentally, all of them, in Muslim nations) through the use of drone warfare, but on the other hand, it has been very reticent about calling a spade a spade, when it comes to identifying who is behind all of this violence.
This ambivalence in the Obama administration’s approach might be why there is still no resolution in sight to what the Bush administration used to call its “war on terror” against “radical Islamists.” The pendulum in politically correct speech has surely swung from one end of the spectrum to the other.
Unfortunately, as the saying goes in the business world, “If you can’t identify the problem, you can’t solve it.”
This ambivalence in the Obama administration’s approach might be why there is still no resolution in sight to what the Bush administration used to call its “war on terror” against “radical Islamists.” The pendulum in politically correct speech has surely swung from one end of the spectrum to the other.
Unfortunately, as the saying goes in the business world, “If you can’t identify the problem, you can’t solve it.”
75
And how did it become Obama's job to solve the disaster that, if not created by the Bush administration, was exponentially exacerbated by the invasion of Iraq? The problem in 'Identifying the problem" is that the "problem" is so multifaceted and diffuse that there IS no identifying "it". "It" has been created over a very long time. To be honest, I don't think there really is a solution - I think we have entered a period in history where there will be ongoing violence against the West because of the injuries we have inflicted on the Middle Easter - but I am annoyed by people that dress down the Obama administration for failing to "fix" this problem. I also think that it is a very "masculine" approach to this complicated situation to think that there is a single problem that can somehow be addressed.
3
Indeed. An attacker shoots 33 people killing 13 and a factory worker beheads a coworker while shouting "Allahu Akbar" and it's just a "workplace incident".
1
Is the Zionist Israeli occupation, blockade/siege, exile, colonial apartheid Jim Crow state sponsored terrorism an example of Jewish extremist terror?
Is French Catholic socioeconomic political educational discrimination against French Arab African Christian Muslims an example of Catholic extremist terror?
How many dead Palestinian civilians including 500+ kids are needed to be worthy of mournful human identification with faces, names, histories, families and friends?
There are 2.3 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus, 500 million Buddhists and 15 million Jews in the world.
How many of them are ethnic sectarian supremacist extremists?
Is French Catholic socioeconomic political educational discrimination against French Arab African Christian Muslims an example of Catholic extremist terror?
How many dead Palestinian civilians including 500+ kids are needed to be worthy of mournful human identification with faces, names, histories, families and friends?
There are 2.3 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus, 500 million Buddhists and 15 million Jews in the world.
How many of them are ethnic sectarian supremacist extremists?
Religious dogma, combined with a feeling of neglect, abuse and misunderstanding, can lead to cruelty and death by radicalized elements within, hence, the need to keep religions private and allow secular government to provide for the needs of society. As to why faith-based violence seems to originate almost exclusively in the Middle East, and rooted in radical Islam, it may obey to deep rifts caused by, until recently, 'strongmen' oppressing their own people for too long, and allowing external forces (the West) to abuse their power and technology to maintain the flow of oil, all at the expense of the well-being and advancement of their own people. Deep resentment followed, given that Islam does not recognize a secular government, a religious one instead, rigid (dogmatic) and intolerant of others, poorly educated unfortunately, with 'madrassas' that indoctrinate their youth since early childhood (as most religions do, by the way), allowing radicalized extremist fundamentalists to take up arms and impose their will (God's will, as they say, even though their actions of cruelty and carnage belie that). Islamism elsewhere chose not to distort the 'teachings of the Koran', perhaps because their suffering or feelings of rejection weren't as deep or they feel more incorporated in their societies. I suppose that the West may have to be more humble and ask for a pardon of past abuses,; but, as important, the Muslim community must take responsibility to stop the bad apples within.
3
It is all because a war against radical Islam and all of Islam is indistinguishable for many Americans, and for that matter many Muslims. What a tightrope walk it is.
4
I don't know any Americans who find that a hard distinction to make. We could distinguish between the Irish Republican Army and the government of Ireland, between Catholic and Protestant .. the fact that most of the people that the Islamists are murdering are Muslim is not lost on us; I fear that President Obama does think the nation he leads is stupid and that he operates under that assumption, and does not see us rolling our eyes.
6
There was an episode in West Wing where the character Josh Lyman explained to some high school kids, "Islamic terrorism is to Islam what KKK is to Christianity." Did KKK quote the Bible to justify lynching the blacks? How far a step was KKK to the earlier slave owners and traders? Who were Christians, attended church on Sunday, and imposed Christianity on their slaves as token of civilization and civility?
I had lived in Malaysia, an Islamic state. I had seen what nonviolent Muslims looked like. Their women worked and drove. We were friends. But I know not all Muslims look like that. I recognize the teachings of Islam is probably not violent in themselves but it is open to misinterpretation. After all, the states with most human rights and women rights violations are Islamic states.
Historically, we have seen every religion can potentially be misappropriated for our selfish interests. Islam is no different. It is at the moment the religion that is most abused to justify not just killing, but mass killing, of even women and children. To deny this fact render our "war on terrorism" seriously handicapped.
While Islam and all Muslims are not our enemy, we cannot afford to not acknowledge the central role occupies by a version of interpretation of Islam, albeit a delusional one, its origin and spread. We need to be correct, not politically correct. Just as white Christians were the driving force to stopping slavery, the Muslims themselves need to stop the "jihadist" rampage.
I had lived in Malaysia, an Islamic state. I had seen what nonviolent Muslims looked like. Their women worked and drove. We were friends. But I know not all Muslims look like that. I recognize the teachings of Islam is probably not violent in themselves but it is open to misinterpretation. After all, the states with most human rights and women rights violations are Islamic states.
Historically, we have seen every religion can potentially be misappropriated for our selfish interests. Islam is no different. It is at the moment the religion that is most abused to justify not just killing, but mass killing, of even women and children. To deny this fact render our "war on terrorism" seriously handicapped.
While Islam and all Muslims are not our enemy, we cannot afford to not acknowledge the central role occupies by a version of interpretation of Islam, albeit a delusional one, its origin and spread. We need to be correct, not politically correct. Just as white Christians were the driving force to stopping slavery, the Muslims themselves need to stop the "jihadist" rampage.
10
The "Eggshell" Walk is too much of a reactionary response for a conclusion to tempered journalism.
I would rather conclude that journalist should be more respectful of the dignity and sensitivity of those of all religions, such as not suggesting to putting a burning a burning crucifix on someone's lawn. Yesterday, would have been an appropriate day for saying that, even though it would have taken some courage, and it would have been wise to let sleepy dogs lie.
Speaking of Wisdom: the French writers lacked it, and got NOT what they , DESERVED but what they should have EXPECTED -- if not in France, somewhere else where the victims would have been totally innocent.
TEMPERANCE is not contrary to free speech. Otherwise, we would permit someone to say "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater without legal consequence.
Even Malcolm X had temperance during the Civil Rights movement, and for that he too should have a holiday in his name. He was part of the ying and yang of Civil Rights: integration vs separatism. We chose integration.
Sure, he did call white people devils, but hey some called Blacks the "N" word. Notice my temperance:)
I would rather conclude that journalist should be more respectful of the dignity and sensitivity of those of all religions, such as not suggesting to putting a burning a burning crucifix on someone's lawn. Yesterday, would have been an appropriate day for saying that, even though it would have taken some courage, and it would have been wise to let sleepy dogs lie.
Speaking of Wisdom: the French writers lacked it, and got NOT what they , DESERVED but what they should have EXPECTED -- if not in France, somewhere else where the victims would have been totally innocent.
TEMPERANCE is not contrary to free speech. Otherwise, we would permit someone to say "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater without legal consequence.
Even Malcolm X had temperance during the Civil Rights movement, and for that he too should have a holiday in his name. He was part of the ying and yang of Civil Rights: integration vs separatism. We chose integration.
Sure, he did call white people devils, but hey some called Blacks the "N" word. Notice my temperance:)
2
Radical Islam is indeed a huge problem that has generated terrorist behavior more frequent and more disturbing that of most other religious groups, although it would be hard to say for certain if Muslims are the worst offenders if the behavior of Christians during the Crusades is considered. The point is that fundamentalist religious believers of all faiths seem to do very bad things quite regularly, but there is clearly a disproportionate number of bad things being done in the name of Islam during the modern era. I have seen examples from Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and even Buddhists in recent years (in Myanmar); i.e., followers of almost all faiths except believers in the Baha'i faith. My conclusion is that all fundamental religious belief is a danger to civil society. Perhaps the only logical conclusion is that following the Baha'i faith may be the only possible salvation for preservation of a civil society in the world.
3
The only logical conclusion is to end the ridiculousness of "faith". Faith is not a virtue. Reason is.
1
"If western interventions help foster violent Islamic reactions...."
1953 the US, under Eisenhower, to protect British interests in Iranian oil, depose the sovereign government of Iran to install a dictator. Which leads to the Iranian revolution and fundamentalists in power in Iran.
In the 80's the US under Reagan, arms Afghan fundamentalists, who change their name to Taliban and give rabid Islamic fundamentalists another entire country.
2003, the US under Bush the Least, does the Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, destabilizing Iraq, setting up another battlefield for, first Al Qaeda, now ISIS.
Yes Mr. Friedman we ought to reduce these "western interventions".
1953 the US, under Eisenhower, to protect British interests in Iranian oil, depose the sovereign government of Iran to install a dictator. Which leads to the Iranian revolution and fundamentalists in power in Iran.
In the 80's the US under Reagan, arms Afghan fundamentalists, who change their name to Taliban and give rabid Islamic fundamentalists another entire country.
2003, the US under Bush the Least, does the Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, destabilizing Iraq, setting up another battlefield for, first Al Qaeda, now ISIS.
Yes Mr. Friedman we ought to reduce these "western interventions".
62
We are our own worst enemy.
2
The administration undoubtedly knows that most of the terrorist attacks that Friedman mentions are motivated by radical fringe elements of Islam. But the administration is also trying to make the point that most Muslims are not in sympathy with the terrorists and their attacks. That's also undoubtedly true. The question is why haven't mainstream Muslims spoken out against those groups that promote terrorism? Are they too afraid, as Friedman suggests, to speak up for fear of retaliation?
We have a parallel situation in our own country. We have Christians on the religious right who think abortion is evil and in some instances have had no qualms about firebombing abortion clinics and killing providers, all in the name of God. The fact that the right to abortion is the law of the land didn't stop them from their heinous acts. Granted, the acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists greatly exceed in number and violence what the anti-abortionists have done, but in principle it's the same. But we have freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, in our country, in contrast to most Muslim countries, so people here have spoken out against acts of terrorism in ways that they can't do in Muslim nations.
It's not clear why Friedman is so vehemently opposed to a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. Surely, Friedman, along with most of the rest of us, wants to do whatever it may take, short of all-out war, to counter such extremism effectively. So why not give it a try?
We have a parallel situation in our own country. We have Christians on the religious right who think abortion is evil and in some instances have had no qualms about firebombing abortion clinics and killing providers, all in the name of God. The fact that the right to abortion is the law of the land didn't stop them from their heinous acts. Granted, the acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists greatly exceed in number and violence what the anti-abortionists have done, but in principle it's the same. But we have freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, in our country, in contrast to most Muslim countries, so people here have spoken out against acts of terrorism in ways that they can't do in Muslim nations.
It's not clear why Friedman is so vehemently opposed to a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. Surely, Friedman, along with most of the rest of us, wants to do whatever it may take, short of all-out war, to counter such extremism effectively. So why not give it a try?
327
"We have Christians on the religious right who think abortion is evil and in some instances have had no qualms about firebombing abortion clinics and killing providers, all in the name of God."
The Christians who firebomb abortion clinics are not "radical Christians." Those are just murderers who claim to be Christians. Kind of like the murderers in Paris.
The radical Chrisitians are the ones who close down abortion clinics to deny women, particularly poor and working women, the right to exercise their legal options of reproductive choice. The radical Christians are the ones who work to impose political Christianity: Christianism. Just like Islamism.
That Charlie Hebdo enough for you? Not enough? Too much? Are we calling it like it is, yet?
The Christians who firebomb abortion clinics are not "radical Christians." Those are just murderers who claim to be Christians. Kind of like the murderers in Paris.
The radical Chrisitians are the ones who close down abortion clinics to deny women, particularly poor and working women, the right to exercise their legal options of reproductive choice. The radical Christians are the ones who work to impose political Christianity: Christianism. Just like Islamism.
That Charlie Hebdo enough for you? Not enough? Too much? Are we calling it like it is, yet?
6
Christians on the religious right also believed slavery was evil and in some instances had no qualms about firebombing slave auctions and killing slave providers, all in the name of God. The fact that the right to sell slaves was the law of the land didn't stop them from their heinous acts. You don't have a point. (p.s. the murder of one abortion clinic doctor by one Christian lunatic does not equate to the systematic execution in cold blood of a 145 Muslim school children a few days before Christmas by a large Islamic organization).
2
Mainstream Muslims are speaking out about the violence continuously, Mary Ann and Ken, but the mainstream media does not report it.
5
Mr Friedman, calling things by their real names is a great idea. So when will we start calling Israeli "settlement expansion" as occupation and extra-judicial drone killing as assassinations?
How the scriptures of Islam are interpreted by elements in an Islamic society, does indeed depend upon the socio-political environment of the region. That is why, Saudi society is extremely different from Tunisian or Lebanese. When socio-political factors determine how extremely or moderately Islam is going to be practiced in a society, is "Radical Islam" a correct label for the problem?
How the scriptures of Islam are interpreted by elements in an Islamic society, does indeed depend upon the socio-political environment of the region. That is why, Saudi society is extremely different from Tunisian or Lebanese. When socio-political factors determine how extremely or moderately Islam is going to be practiced in a society, is "Radical Islam" a correct label for the problem?
8
Great work Mr. Friedman.
An American President and an American administration that refuses to acknowledge the nature of the threat all free societies face, is incapable of leading the multi-decade effort which must occur to ultimately beat back and extinguish the depravity and inhumanity of Islamic fundamentalism.
It's as simple as that.
When Obama leaves office, we will have to work with great urgency to make up for lost time. I hope that Democrats like Senators Feinstein, Menendez, and Manchin will reach across the aisle to help craft a bipartisan agenda which rejects Obama's willful blindness, bordering on appeasement.
An American President and an American administration that refuses to acknowledge the nature of the threat all free societies face, is incapable of leading the multi-decade effort which must occur to ultimately beat back and extinguish the depravity and inhumanity of Islamic fundamentalism.
It's as simple as that.
When Obama leaves office, we will have to work with great urgency to make up for lost time. I hope that Democrats like Senators Feinstein, Menendez, and Manchin will reach across the aisle to help craft a bipartisan agenda which rejects Obama's willful blindness, bordering on appeasement.
4
For an interesting contrast to this piece, read "Why Doesn't American Media Freak Out When the Terrorists Have White Skin?" http://www.alternet.org/media/why-doesnt-american-media-freak-out-when-t...
"if we understood terrorism not as a product of merely Islamic extremism, but more correctly of extremism itself -- and in recent years, right-wing extremism particularly -- we would have a better and firmer grip on how we go about defeating the phenomenon. For starters, we would be less likely to incorrectly identify terrorism with an ethnicity or a religion (brown Muslim people), and to correctly identify it with a toxic mindset (radical right-wing extremism).
Because, as anyone who has studied them understands, Islamic extremists are at their base far-right-wing fundamentalists. And they are very, very similar in their psychological orientation to white fundamentalists who join the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis who join the Aryan Nations or white "libertarians" who become "sovereign citizens." They are identical in their thinking to people like the Family Research Council's Bryan Fischer, who sounded like your basic radical imam the other day when he suggested that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was God's punishment for the magazine's "blasphemy.""
"if we understood terrorism not as a product of merely Islamic extremism, but more correctly of extremism itself -- and in recent years, right-wing extremism particularly -- we would have a better and firmer grip on how we go about defeating the phenomenon. For starters, we would be less likely to incorrectly identify terrorism with an ethnicity or a religion (brown Muslim people), and to correctly identify it with a toxic mindset (radical right-wing extremism).
Because, as anyone who has studied them understands, Islamic extremists are at their base far-right-wing fundamentalists. And they are very, very similar in their psychological orientation to white fundamentalists who join the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis who join the Aryan Nations or white "libertarians" who become "sovereign citizens." They are identical in their thinking to people like the Family Research Council's Bryan Fischer, who sounded like your basic radical imam the other day when he suggested that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was God's punishment for the magazine's "blasphemy.""
11
You can get all the Muslim women in the world in the room and no matter how sincere, focused, angry, efficient and articulate as they may be, nothing will change. Women have no power in the Muslim world. Leaving it up to them is a very pretty thing to say but it's a non-starter. Islam is the only major religion with its own police force, the "defenders of the faith", so to speak. And they believe the best defense is a good offense. They are all men except for the women and girls with bombs strapped to their bodies.
7
"President Obama knows better...........t is not good ....... to pretend that this spreading jihadist violence isn’t coming out of their faith community."
Friedman knows better too. Well, he should. When did "Jihad" and "Jihadism" really come to the surface? He needs to interview Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski to ascertain that it was his brain-child in Afghanistan in the year 1979 . That was the birthplace of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Both derived their teachings from Muslim Brotherhood publications. Now, we have ISIS. Where did it come from? Iraq, 2003, the foolish invasion based on lies.
There is no doubt that there is a serious problem with religious language when sermons are delivered by Sunni clergy. Gross interpretations are made into Sharia tenets and stuffed down the throats of the common person who is willing to forfeit his/her brain when listening to the clergy. But the answer does not come from Obama, Friedman, or any non Muslim.
You cannot "Drone" or air strike your way out of this mess, and neither can your own sermon be titled "Suck on This!."
We all need to come clean. Colonial powers are complicit in helping perverse religious thought in "Islamic" countries they invaded. And Muslims need to reform their religious thought. Something that President El-Sissi of Egypt recently called "Religious revolution." Oh, I forgot most people here don't like that man and would rather have the Muslim Brotherhood back.
Friedman knows better too. Well, he should. When did "Jihad" and "Jihadism" really come to the surface? He needs to interview Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski to ascertain that it was his brain-child in Afghanistan in the year 1979 . That was the birthplace of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Both derived their teachings from Muslim Brotherhood publications. Now, we have ISIS. Where did it come from? Iraq, 2003, the foolish invasion based on lies.
There is no doubt that there is a serious problem with religious language when sermons are delivered by Sunni clergy. Gross interpretations are made into Sharia tenets and stuffed down the throats of the common person who is willing to forfeit his/her brain when listening to the clergy. But the answer does not come from Obama, Friedman, or any non Muslim.
You cannot "Drone" or air strike your way out of this mess, and neither can your own sermon be titled "Suck on This!."
We all need to come clean. Colonial powers are complicit in helping perverse religious thought in "Islamic" countries they invaded. And Muslims need to reform their religious thought. Something that President El-Sissi of Egypt recently called "Religious revolution." Oh, I forgot most people here don't like that man and would rather have the Muslim Brotherhood back.
177
"When did "Jihad" and "Jihadism" really come to the surface?"
Ummm... 1400 years ago? Introduced by the founder of "the religion of peace" himself?!
Ummm... 1400 years ago? Introduced by the founder of "the religion of peace" himself?!
1
So if mass immigration led right wingers to murder immigrants, you would say it was the immigration policies that were to blame?
1
Violent Jihadi Islam did not begin in 1979. It began with Mohammed, who, along with his successors, spread his new religion from the Saudi desert to the far reaches of the world by the sword of Jihad starting in the 7th century. Today's Jihadis are seeking to return Islam to these original roots, and they succeed in getting new recruits because they can always point to the Jihadi example of their religion's founder. Blaming a generation or two of Western colonialism for everything is Marxist reductionism. Islam itself has been a colonialist project of vast proportions that has waxed and waned centuries. Just ask the Indians.
4
What about Saudi Arabian sponsored Madrasas throughout the Islamic world and the radical imams throughout Europe that prey on disillusioned Islamic youth? Is it because they are our allies that they get a free pass when it comes to sponsoring terrorism. We pay the Saudis with oil money to instigate and evolve extremists throughout the world. Why?
14
They are not our allies.
For years, we gave Saudi Arabia a "free pass" because of the oil. Then, it was because in 1980 we thought they opposed the Shiite Iranians, who held Americans hostage. Then, when Saddam Hussein in Iraq was declared the enemy by American neo-cons in 1992, we continued the free pass because of the perceived Saudi opposition to Saddam. Subsequently, we have had other passing reasons to maintain our relationship with the Saudi family. Currently, we think we need them to put boots on the ground and to finance the battle against ISIS.
Some people still count Saudi Arabia among our "allies", in spite of their long relationship with Safavism. If so, it is nothing more than an alliance of convenience.
Some people still count Saudi Arabia among our "allies", in spite of their long relationship with Safavism. If so, it is nothing more than an alliance of convenience.
1
Why? Because Americans don't want to give up their gas-guzzling vanity vehicles: SUVs and non-business-use small trucks.
Yes, it is general non-muslims who face discrimination for the opinions on Islam. Never ever are there muslims who's beliefs are lumped in with extremists. Not even by the writers Mr. Friedman references...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/05/why-nypd-monitoring-sho...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/05/why-nypd-monitoring-sho...
Well, Tom, when you've got it nailed, you've got it nailed. Let's also not forget the various university apparatchiks (That wonderful Soviet-era term for bureaucrats just seems perfect here) who've bent over backwards, forwards, and in more other directions than you'd expect of a pretzel, just to make sure that critics of radical Islam don't get to sully their sacred speech-coded preserves by so much as a lecture appearance or, God forbid, an honourary degree. Take Brandeis University - Brandeis, for God's sake! - chickening out from giving Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one gutsy lady who basically got the boot from the then-horrendously PC Netherlands for telling it like it is about radical Islamism at its near-worst to that time, an honourary degree. (I'm amazed there wasn't an earthquake there from the school's namesake spinning in his grave.)
It's true that the Feds haven't yet legalised marijuana, but there've been more than a few times I've been wondering just what this administration has been smoking. At least it's nice to finally have some non-right-wingnut company.
It's true that the Feds haven't yet legalised marijuana, but there've been more than a few times I've been wondering just what this administration has been smoking. At least it's nice to finally have some non-right-wingnut company.
9
It seems especially disingenuous plus absurd when he (our President) is obviously at war with radical Islam.
I can well understand Rich Lowery getting on the President's case for not specifying that the violent extremists his proposed summit will be addressing happen to be of the Muslim faith. For Mr. Friedman to do likewise would have seemed to me to be beneath him. We all know who and what we're talking about here and I can pretty well guarantee that, should the summit actually take place, the words "Muslim" and "Islamic" will be spoken about as often as the words "the" and "a." If Mr. Friedman really is so concerned about the usage of appropriate terminology, he should not himself consistently refer to "Arab and Pakistani Sunni Islam" as the lone source of the violent extremism in question here. After all, the members of Boko Haram are neither Arab nor Pakistani and neither are the members of Al-Shabab. There are about a half dozen other such terror organizations that I could name (i.e., Islamic and Sunni but neither Arab nor Pashtun) but these should suffice for now. As for the descriptive words the President is employing in this instance: who really cares?
149
Ah, but with this president, the wording chosen or rejected is the whole deal.
4
Al Shabab is Sunni Arab, Boko Arab as well as Taliban in Pakistan are sunnis also.
4
We should care, Stu. Because if you cannot describe the issue accurately, you cannot recognize it, plan for it, work to prevent it, effectively. It is more and more probable that Huntington is right and we are in for a long, long interregnum of terror until Islam has its Reformation and Reconciliation between Sunni and Shia and agrees to come into the modern world free of subjugation of women, of different thoughts, of murder because of thinking differently, etc.
And I find it great that a liberal like Thomas Friedman expresses his disgust with obfuscation, illusion, etc. so eloquently. May his tribe increase.
And I find it great that a liberal like Thomas Friedman expresses his disgust with obfuscation, illusion, etc. so eloquently. May his tribe increase.
9
Not to be insulting to Mr. Friedman, but the topic and theme is eerily similar to an Op-Ed piece by Marine Le Pen, which appeared in the NYT earlier this week.
The real problem is that we in Western countries cannot solve the schisms in Islam, which are at the root of jihadism. All we, especially the US, have managed to do by destroying a number of Middle East countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Libya) is to give the jihadist an excuse to target western countries in an effort to gain media attention.
Once that genie was out of the bottle, and showed just how effective this media attention getting was, it is impossible to put it back in the bottle. All we can do now is to try and isolate ourselves as best we can from the jihadist's ability to export their terror to us - we cannot solve the problems of Shia-Sunni and other intra Islam conflicts in Muslim countries, but we can reduce the ability to export that conflict to us by:
- stopping our misguided efforts to"stabilize" and "democratize" Middle Eastern countries, which has only served to destabilize their tenuous political and social structures.
- working on better integrating Muslim minorities in western countries so as to reduce the likelihood that they are recruited into jihadist terror cells.
We, "the West", cannot modernize Islam and bring it into the 21st century - that can only be done from the inside. Certainly our two "wars of liberation" in Iraq and Afghanistan have been counter-productive.
The real problem is that we in Western countries cannot solve the schisms in Islam, which are at the root of jihadism. All we, especially the US, have managed to do by destroying a number of Middle East countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Libya) is to give the jihadist an excuse to target western countries in an effort to gain media attention.
Once that genie was out of the bottle, and showed just how effective this media attention getting was, it is impossible to put it back in the bottle. All we can do now is to try and isolate ourselves as best we can from the jihadist's ability to export their terror to us - we cannot solve the problems of Shia-Sunni and other intra Islam conflicts in Muslim countries, but we can reduce the ability to export that conflict to us by:
- stopping our misguided efforts to"stabilize" and "democratize" Middle Eastern countries, which has only served to destabilize their tenuous political and social structures.
- working on better integrating Muslim minorities in western countries so as to reduce the likelihood that they are recruited into jihadist terror cells.
We, "the West", cannot modernize Islam and bring it into the 21st century - that can only be done from the inside. Certainly our two "wars of liberation" in Iraq and Afghanistan have been counter-productive.
294
OK, so what do western democracies do when those immigrants absolutely refuse to assimilate?
8
Folks like Claus conveniently forget the thousands who died in 9/11, and in other terrorist acts all around the world, long before any attempts to "democratize" the Middle East. Additionally, the US doesn't really have a problem with disaffected Muslim youth, so his second point also doesn't explain extremist Islam.
Why do so many people around the world feel such a strong need to blame their own governments for all these horrors? Yes, the West has made tons of mistakes, and the world's oil addiction is financially fueling much of the terrorism, but these issues do not explain terror and fundamentalism.
I suggest people start treating Muslim fundamentalists as adults - i.e. hold them responsible for their own actions, and not patronize them and the rest of us by holding the West responsible.
Why do so many people around the world feel such a strong need to blame their own governments for all these horrors? Yes, the West has made tons of mistakes, and the world's oil addiction is financially fueling much of the terrorism, but these issues do not explain terror and fundamentalism.
I suggest people start treating Muslim fundamentalists as adults - i.e. hold them responsible for their own actions, and not patronize them and the rest of us by holding the West responsible.
10
@Claus ......I too thought of Marine Le Pen’s op ed “ To Call This Threat By Its Name”. She says Islamist French people need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly.
She seems to get voter support also due to her social policies. See Times article, Le Pen, A Kinder, Gentler Right Wing. She says the govt must guarantee social safety nets and benefits and not leave it up to profit making corporations. And says that Obama is to the Right of her on social policy.
Of course the US rw is anti immigration and anti social safety net spending, and pro corporate.
I read she is less extreme than her notorious rw father re anti immigration. She does wants border checks of passports between EU countries.
What is your take on her various facets?
She seems to get voter support also due to her social policies. See Times article, Le Pen, A Kinder, Gentler Right Wing. She says the govt must guarantee social safety nets and benefits and not leave it up to profit making corporations. And says that Obama is to the Right of her on social policy.
Of course the US rw is anti immigration and anti social safety net spending, and pro corporate.
I read she is less extreme than her notorious rw father re anti immigration. She does wants border checks of passports between EU countries.
What is your take on her various facets?
2
Say it like it is. OK, here goes.
I don't think the choice of words is particularly important. This reminds me of Mitt Romney's to-do about the word "terrorism" in his debate with President Obama. There's a real risk that emphasizing "Islamic" more than "terrorism" will needlessly inflame western publics against Islam and actually invite a backlash.
The Islamic world is fully aware of its problem, and if it is ineffective in solving its problems, the west can hardly be expected to do any better. So let's not be too quick to lecture.
I don't think the choice of words is particularly important. This reminds me of Mitt Romney's to-do about the word "terrorism" in his debate with President Obama. There's a real risk that emphasizing "Islamic" more than "terrorism" will needlessly inflame western publics against Islam and actually invite a backlash.
The Islamic world is fully aware of its problem, and if it is ineffective in solving its problems, the west can hardly be expected to do any better. So let's not be too quick to lecture.
63
Invite a backlash? There are about two hundred million who believe anyone who insults Islam should be jailed or worse. A similar number believe anyone who leaves the faith should be punished or executed. Are we to undermine free expression, something central to free people and necessary to keep governments in check, to "protect" ourselves from their temper tantrums?
7
No, the choice of words and thereby accuracy in description, causation, consequences, responsibility, etc. is extremely important and essential to accurate discussion and analysis.
3
Mancuroc, unlike many Islamists, we Westerners are not about to set upon our fellow human beings in a death fury due to hearing a set of 'inflaming' syllables or impolite words, not even in reaction to a hateful Youtube video. That is not a concern that a President in the Western world needs to address, the problem he needs to address is that of Islamists lining up and executing 145 Muslim school children in cold blood a few days before Christmas because the children are not sufficiently devoted to their religion.
3
The countries we destroyed were all Muslim countries.
These problems are almost all in the countries that we destroyed. It isn't because Iraq is Muslim, it is because we destroyed it.
Boko Haram is entirely different from the Middle East problems with Muslim extremists.
For one thing, the other groups are massacring Muslim villages too, and in huge numbers. This method of massacre is the Nigerian method of "low intensity" warfare by wandering militia groups. It is not unlike the massacre of villages by paramilitary groups the US supported in Central America and Colombia. It is a method, and it is not Islamic Extremism. It is something even more completely insane we have been part of, have caused, before elsewhere.
For another, it is all driven by ancient border issues and greed to control resources, mainly oil money, mainly money from US corporations that pay off the corrupt and utterly ineffectual elite while leaving their own countries in ruins.
Boko Haram is the excuse used by those with other agenda to lump all Muslims together as the enemy of the West. Friedman is with his neocon friends on this. This has gone on in Nigeria for a long time, and he never said anything much about it until it was useful to that other agenda.
Boko Haram is more important, deserves more than being used as an excuse to do what neocons want to other Muslims elsewhere. We actually could fix Nigeria. It would start with oil money and cutting off the corrupt kleptocracy we support there.
These problems are almost all in the countries that we destroyed. It isn't because Iraq is Muslim, it is because we destroyed it.
Boko Haram is entirely different from the Middle East problems with Muslim extremists.
For one thing, the other groups are massacring Muslim villages too, and in huge numbers. This method of massacre is the Nigerian method of "low intensity" warfare by wandering militia groups. It is not unlike the massacre of villages by paramilitary groups the US supported in Central America and Colombia. It is a method, and it is not Islamic Extremism. It is something even more completely insane we have been part of, have caused, before elsewhere.
For another, it is all driven by ancient border issues and greed to control resources, mainly oil money, mainly money from US corporations that pay off the corrupt and utterly ineffectual elite while leaving their own countries in ruins.
Boko Haram is the excuse used by those with other agenda to lump all Muslims together as the enemy of the West. Friedman is with his neocon friends on this. This has gone on in Nigeria for a long time, and he never said anything much about it until it was useful to that other agenda.
Boko Haram is more important, deserves more than being used as an excuse to do what neocons want to other Muslims elsewhere. We actually could fix Nigeria. It would start with oil money and cutting off the corrupt kleptocracy we support there.
115
Desperate liberal twist -- the kind of liberal PC version that ultimately gives elections to Republicans. Thanks!
We didn't destroy Syria, and each side there is using their version of Islam to justify killing the other. We didn't destroy Turkey, which is no longer a democracy. We didn't destroy Pakistan any more than we destroyed India, yet it is Pakistan that nurtured Afghanistan's Taliban. We didn't destroy Saudi Arabia or Qatar, which use their riches to flame the violent fundamentalism all over the Middle East and the World. I can go on.
The fact is that too many Muslim governments, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Muslim clerics are using extreme and literal interpretations of the Quran to promote terrorism. Is it representative of Islam? No more so than the persecutions promoted by the Christian Churches a few centuries ago were representative of Christianity. Yet, religion was and remains a huge part of it all!
We didn't destroy Syria, and each side there is using their version of Islam to justify killing the other. We didn't destroy Turkey, which is no longer a democracy. We didn't destroy Pakistan any more than we destroyed India, yet it is Pakistan that nurtured Afghanistan's Taliban. We didn't destroy Saudi Arabia or Qatar, which use their riches to flame the violent fundamentalism all over the Middle East and the World. I can go on.
The fact is that too many Muslim governments, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Muslim clerics are using extreme and literal interpretations of the Quran to promote terrorism. Is it representative of Islam? No more so than the persecutions promoted by the Christian Churches a few centuries ago were representative of Christianity. Yet, religion was and remains a huge part of it all!
24
A reminder to Mr. Thomason: Al Qaeda spawned from Saudi Arabia, a country we did not destroy (quite the opposite), and 9/11 is obviously not explained by the Iraq war. The apologist, self-blaming by the Western left just doesn't hold water.
20
Be careful. One of the ideas behind Iraq was to establish a democracy in a sea of dictatorships in order to accelerate change. Next, the problem with refusing to do business with dictators is that they remain in power and their people still suffer, see Cuba. Heck, we can't even pressure Mexico to change so their best and brightest seek opportunity elsewhere. Sadly for the past seven years we've conducted foreign policy via drone and done virtually nothing to effect real change anywhere. The only obvious goal being withdrawal from the world stage, shrinking our military, and expanding the democrats base through wealth redistribution and domestic spending. All while the world burns.
1
This Islamic extremism has some force behind it, it is not isolated to a few small cells of hate driven individuals, it is a movement, there are some organizations behind it.
That is where it has to be attacked. The Taliban has access to weapons, money to pay it followers, the same for Boko Haram, and for Al Qaeda. Who or what is financing these terrorists? The leaders of these factions use Islam to advance their agenda. Killing children in their schools destroying whole villages, the murder of religious minorities, these are not tenets of Islam, they are the mission of world wide organized cabal, out to bring uncertainty and disorder to the civilized world.
These things are not done just for some religions belief, there is s profit motive behind them. To attack this scourge, those who are financing these events have to be attacked. They use the Palestinian problem to incite their followers, they use American support of dictators and tyrants to fuel their hatred.
This is where the attack on these terrorist has to begin. First, they have to be starved of money. If they can not feed their followers, they cannot lead them. Without ammunition and arms, they will become ineffective.
Just killing off the the leaders will not do it, others will take their place, as long as they have funding and support. Most of the support appears to be coming from the Emirates, and the Saudis. What have they to gain from this?
d
That is where it has to be attacked. The Taliban has access to weapons, money to pay it followers, the same for Boko Haram, and for Al Qaeda. Who or what is financing these terrorists? The leaders of these factions use Islam to advance their agenda. Killing children in their schools destroying whole villages, the murder of religious minorities, these are not tenets of Islam, they are the mission of world wide organized cabal, out to bring uncertainty and disorder to the civilized world.
These things are not done just for some religions belief, there is s profit motive behind them. To attack this scourge, those who are financing these events have to be attacked. They use the Palestinian problem to incite their followers, they use American support of dictators and tyrants to fuel their hatred.
This is where the attack on these terrorist has to begin. First, they have to be starved of money. If they can not feed their followers, they cannot lead them. Without ammunition and arms, they will become ineffective.
Just killing off the the leaders will not do it, others will take their place, as long as they have funding and support. Most of the support appears to be coming from the Emirates, and the Saudis. What have they to gain from this?
d
71
So it's all the fault of Islam?
Nothing else?
Got it.
Nothing else?
Got it.
4
I wonder how deep a roll in funding of these groups is coming from grassroots type of organization and how much from the large interests such as the Saudis. I've always wondered if the Saudis were somewhat like the Byzantine Empire. Not militarily strong, but very facile in supporting all sides in such a way as to protect themselves. Not sure if it is an "official" policy, however it can very easily be viewed that the Saudis are content to fund a proxy war against Shia, most particularly Iran and now the Shia govt. in Iraq. However, I really feel that the disaffection of youth in the highly over-populated countries in the middle east and Pakistan cannot be dismissed of its own accord and if there are "meta" players, they may not be able to control what is happening by unleashing these groups.
5
We not trying to assign blame, we are trying to neutralize it. This is becoming a case study of what if Jim Jones had a 100 million followers? How do you stop a cult? How do you stop children of normal people from joining this cult?
6
In so far as we can be a force for secularism and modernity in the Muslim world, how can the US military be a positive force? Our involvement in their civil wars and politics seems to be a dead end and comes at a tremendous price. We currently have troops in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen and who knows where else. We have changed sides several times and there is currently another change in the making. Another question we should ask ourselves is, who finances and promotes these jihadist military forces. We used to arm our current enemy in Afghanistan but who is the cash register today?
Europe may be reliant on their oil but we are not and our foreign policy should reflect that. Fighting for peace in the middle east is truly akin to fu***ing for chastity.
Thanks for beginning to address the issue Mr. Friedman.