Category Archives: Terrorism Issue

And the winner is … Islamophobia

Film and Video, Iran, Islamophobia 101, Journalism and Media, Osama Bin Laden


The moral ambiguity of Homeland or Argo is a fitting tribute to the reality of US Middle East policy

by Rachel Shabi, The Guardian, Monday 14 January 2013

America’s Middle East policy has been enthusiastically endorsed. Not at the UN or Arab League, however, but by the powerbrokers of Hollywood. At the Golden Globes, there were gongs for a heroically bearded CIA spook saving hostages and American face in Iran (the film Argo); a heroically struggling agent tracking down Bin Laden (Zero Dark Thirty) and heroically flawed CIA operatives protecting America from mindless, perpetual terror (TV series Homeland).

The three winners have all been sold as complex, nuanced productions that don’t shy away from hard truths about US foreign policy. And liberal audiences can’t get enough of them. Perhaps it’s because, alongside the odd bit of self-criticism, they are all so reassuringly insistent that, in an increasingly complicated world, America just keeps on doing the right thing. And even when it does the wrong thing – such as, I don’t know, torture and drone strikes and deadly invasions – it is to combat far greater evil, and therefore OK.

When I saw Argo in London with a Turkish friend, we were the only ones not clapping at the end. Instead, we were wondering why every Iranian in this horribly superior film was so angry and shouty. It was a tense, meticulously styled depiction of America’s giant, perpetual, wailing question mark over the Middle East: “Why do they hate us?” Iranians are so irked by the historically flimsy retelling of the hostage crisis that their government has commissioned its own version in response.

Zero Dark Thirty, another blanked-out, glossed-up portrayal of US policy, seems to imply that America’s use of torture – sorry, “enhanced interrogation” – is legitimate because it led to the capture of Osama bin Laden (something that John McCain and others have pointed out is not even true). Adding insult to moral bankruptcy, the movie has been cast as a feminist film, because it has a smart female lead. This is cinematic fraud: a device used to extort our approval. Continue reading And the winner is … Islamophobia →

On War: A Sociologist’s Take

Anthropology/Sociology, Bible and Holy Land, Scholars, Terrorism Issue


Sociologist William Graham Sumner was an outspoken critical of American imperialism in the Spanish American War

by William Graham Sumner (1903)

Can peace be universal? There is no reason to believe it. It is a fallacy to suppose that by widening the peace-group more and more it can at last embrace all mankind. What happens is that, as it grows bigger, differences, discords, antagonisms, and war begin inside of it on account of the divergence of interests. Since evil passions are a part of human nature and are in all societies all the time, a part of the energy of the society is constantly spent in repressing them. If all nations should resolve to have no armed ships any more, pirates would reappear upon the ocean; the police of the seas must be maintained. We could not dispense with our militia; we have too frequent need of it now. But police defense is not war in the sense in which I have been discussing it. War, in the future will be the clash of policies of national vanity and selfishness when they cross each other’s path.

If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject, because doctrines get inside of a man’s own reason and betray him against himself. Civilized men have done their fiercest fighting for doctrines. The reconquest of the Holy Sepulcher, “the balance of power,” “no universal dominion,” “trade follows the flag,” “he who holds the land will hold the sea,” “the throne and the altar,” the revolution, the faith — these are the things for which men have given their lives. What are they all? Nothing but rhetoric and phantasms. Doctrines are always vague; it would ruin a doctrine to define it, because then it could be analyzed, tested, criticised, and verified; but nothing ought to be tolerated which cannot be so tested. Continue reading On War: A Sociologist’s Take →

More of the Sham of al-Sham

"Arab Spring", Journalism and Media, Shi'a, Syria, Terrorism Issue


Image source: alhadath.yemen

The demise of Bashar al-Assad continues its downward spiral with bodies strewn all over Syria in the process. What makes him hang on? Can he not see what just about every pundit outside of Syria and increasingly most Syrians see in blood red letters: mene mene tekel upharsin? Even vain Belzhazzar saw the gig was up in Babylon when those lines cracked his banquet hall. Or is he raving mad in the style of Nero, who plucked his lyre while Rome burned? Or is he just a chicken without a head, but who is still trying to bury his head in the sand?

He hangs on for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, because for the time being he can. Russia has not yet told him he has to go and the United States has basically given him leave to do whatever he wants to his own people except gas them. The military has not yet deserted him in sufficient numbers and they are, thanks to Russia, very well armed. Even the hint from the U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi that Assad has been in power long enough is not likely to move the last of the pre-Arab-Spring dictators (not counting kings, sultans and emirs for life) into retirement.

The Syria of 2013 is not that conquered by Umar ibn al-Khattab, not that of Ayyubid Saladin, nor that run over by the Mongols, nor that ruled briefly at the end of World War I by Faisal of Arabia (patron of Lawrence of Arabia and vice versa), nor that which joined the ill-fated United Arab Republic initiated by Gamal Abd al-Nasser in the 1960s. But there are indeed historically-stretched fault lines. Continue reading More of the Sham of al-Sham →

Not Qualified: Exposing the Deception Behind America’s Top 25 Pseudo Experts on Islam

Islamophobia, Islamophobia 101, Teaching Resources, Terrorism Issue


[Click here to download the recent publication of the Muslim Public Affairs Council exposing the lack of credentials of the [mis]leading Islam[ophobic] experts.]

For the benefit of national security and the American public at large, we must ensure that those people speaking about terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam are qualified. At a minimum, individuals who speak about Islam and its co-opting by violent extremists need to be properly informed and qualified.

To date, groundbreaking research into the anti-Muslim hate industry has been conducted by the Center for American Progress and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Their research focuses primarily on anti-Muslim hate activists’ sources of funding and their possible connections to other forms of hate. No study that we know of has focused on the qualifications of the so-called experts on Islam and Muslim violent extremists.

This study seeks to fill in this research gap by focusing the academic qualifications of 25 individuals who comprise some of the most vocal voices and activists in the anti-Muslim circuit. We specifically focus on highly visible personalities who engage in anti-Islam rhetoric and who frequently and inaccurately speak not only about extremist Muslims, or even Muslims at large, but who also claim to be knowledgeable about the fundamental beliefs and tenets of the Islamic faith.

The study asks the question: Do these individuals have the formal academic credentials to back their explicit and implicit claims of expertise on Islam?

Tribes and Terrorism: Myth and Reality

"Arab Spring", Anthropology/Sociology, Osama Bin Laden, Terrorism Issue, Tribalism, Yemen


Tribesmen from Yemen´s Bakil tribal confederation waiting for a decision at a tribal law-based conflict resolution session (Mikael Strandberg)

by Khaled Fattah, opencanada.org, October 18, 2012

With the recent stepping up of controversial U.S. drone attacks in tribal areas of Yemen, and post-Arab Spring confrontations with militant jihadist groups in tribal areas of Egypt, Libya, and North Africa, a number of misconceptions surrounding the links between tribes and terrorism in the Arab Middle East continue to plague press coverage and policy reports. The first of these misconceptions is that tribal areas are lawless, ungoverned spaces – a modern-day Wild West. Another misconception is that the ultra-conservative culture of Arab tribes is fertile ground in which to root the violent ideology of transnational terror cells. The truth is that much of the current commentary about tribes and tribalism in the Arab Middle East reflects the Pentagon’s experiences so far in the American-led “War on Terror.” This war has now shifted from boot-heavy invasions to ghost wars in which drones hover over countries with significant tribal populations: Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Mali. The War on Terror is now primarily carried out via “open secret” predator drone missions that increasingly target exclusively tribal areas.

Tribal Areas Today Are Not the Wild West

Over the last 10 years, many comparisons have been drawn between the fabled “Wild West” of America toward the end of the 19th century, and present-day tribal areas of the Middle East. The “Wild West” conjures up images of adventurous cowboys facing off in a dusty street in front of a gambling den or brothel, pistols drawn. The image suggests a lawless era in U.S. history, where violence prevailed in American frontier towns, might made right, and the weak were punished for crimes they did not commit. The Wild West was an anarchic social world shaped by outlawed individuals and their henchmen. This period in American history bares little resemblance to life in the tribal areas of the Arab world today, which are highly socialized, with clear normative controls. The association of tribal areas in the Middle East with the Wild West is simply an attractive analogy to intermittent foreign observers and army generals. Continue reading Tribes and Terrorism: Myth and Reality →

Suffer the little children

Anthropology/Sociology, Arab-Israeli Conflict, Bible and Holy Land, Ethics, Pakistan, Terrorism Issue


Suffer the Little Children to Come Unto Me, by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1538

Growing up on the King James Version of the Gospels, I well remember the force of a verse from Mark 10:14 in which Jesus, in anger, said: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” The occasion was when several parents brought children to Jesus to be blessed, but were discouraged by his disciples. This past week has seen the suffering of little children around the world. Last Friday America was gripped by the tragedy of twenty elementary children and six adults gunned down by a disturbed young man, who first killed his mother in bed and then at the school took his own life. In a nation that wears its constitutional “right to bear arms” on its political sleeves, this was a shot to the gut. For all of us whose children have gone through the public school system, the shock lingers. It could have been any local school in any state. It could have been any of our children. A killer with a gun has denied them life. This suffering is not what Jesus meant when he said “suffer the little children to come unto me.” One need not be an expert in 17th century English to understand the meaning of the verse.

But children continue to suffer at the hands of adults all over the world. In Pakistan on Monday six health workers engaged in a project to immunize children were shot to death by extremists who have been told that such a program to save children’s lives is actually a Western plot to undermine Islam. Along with five brave women and one man, the Pakistani children who will not have immunity from polio will also suffer. The irony that six adults were killed both in Pakistan and in New Town, Connecticut is worth reflecting on. In both cases those trying to save children became victims; in both cases children suffer. Continue reading Suffer the little children →

Poison Gas: Does it cut mustard?

"Arab Spring", Obama Administration, Syria, Terrorism Issue


British planes bombed Iraqi Kurds after World War I; Churchill once said “I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.”

[Editor’s Note: The issue of Syria’s chemical weapons overshadows the continual loss of life in the current uncivil civil war. Below is a journalistic take by Robert Fisk, who debunks the notion that Syria has stockpiles of gas ready to unleash. A more sophisticated view of the problem is presented by Syrian writer Rime Allaf in a New York Times commentary on December 6; she notes that drawing a “red line” over the blood already spilled only encourages Assad to do everything but use gas. The thought of chemical weapons added to the already toxic mix is, of course, deplorable, but meanwhile the more conventual slaughter goes on and on…]

Bashar al-Assad, Syria, and the truth about chemical weapons

by Robert Fisk, The Independent, December 8, 2012

Bashar’s father Hafez al-Assad was brutal but never used chemical arms. And do you know which was the first army to use gas in the Middle East?

The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. We all know who said that – but it still works. Bashar al-Assad has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own Syrian people. If he does, the West will respond. We heard all this stuff last year – and Assad’s regime repeatedly said that if – if – it had chemical weapons, it would never use them against Syrians.

But now Washington is playing the same gas-chanty all over again. Bashar has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own people. And if he does…

Well if he does, Obama and Madame Clinton and Nato will be very, very angry. But over the past week, all the usual pseudo-experts who couldn’t find Syria on a map have been warning us again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria might possess – and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy specialists who didn’t warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003: “unnamed military intelligence sources”. Henceforth to be acronymed as UMIS. Continue reading Poison Gas: Does it cut mustard? →

The Full Palestinian Experience

"Arab Spring", Arab-Israeli Conflict, Journalism and Media, Terrorism Issue


In today’s New York Times, drive-my-Lexus-over-olive-branch journalist Thomas Friedman posts a column entitled The Full Israeli Experience. Having read the headlines in The Jerusalem Post, he begins his commentary on the violence in Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia alongside a missile defense drill in Israel. Through it all, muses the journalist, the Ministry of Tourism invites all comers to visit Israel for the “full Israeli experience.” Here is the gist:

The full Israeli experience today is a living political science experiment. How does a country deal with failed or failing state authority on four of its borders — Gaza, South Lebanon, Syria and the Sinai Desert of Egypt — each of which is now crawling with nonstate actors nested among civilians and armed with rockets. How should Israel and its friends think about this “Israeli experience” and connect it with the ever-present question of Israeli-Palestinian peace?

Ah, yes, poor Israel, mired in a political science experiment in which ideological hawks are pitbullied against “bastards for peace.” The idea that internal Israeli politics could as easily be characterized as doves vs “bastards for war” does not occur to Friedman, nor does he ever seem to fill out his own experience by reading Haaretz or conferring with Palestinian leaders, at least not to describe the “full” Israeli experience. Continue reading The Full Palestinian Experience →