Meanwhile, in Egypt
Jan. 11th, 2011 05:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
james_davis_nicollThousands Of Egyptian Muslims Show Up As ‘Human Shields’ To Defend Coptic Christians From Terrorism.
james_davis_nicolljames_davis_nicoll
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Active Entries
- 1: Five SFF Works About Contests and Competition
- 2: Numamushi by Mina Ikemoto Ghosh
- 3: Five Stories About What Happens After You’ve Defeated the Big Bad
- 4: Stupid but true
- 5: I had a tiny little tense moment last night
- 6: NDP display firm resolve
- 7: NDP celebrate electoral trounsing
- 8: Port Eternity by C J Cherryh
- 9: Young People Read Old Nebula Finalists: Mikal's Songbird by Orson Scott Card
- 10: Two Comments
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 06:02 pm (UTC)We appreciate the gesture of solidarity, but it's more or less meaningless to the violent nutcases.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 06:12 pm (UTC)What's matters here is that Egypt becomes far stronger in civic and democratic virtues. Unlike, say, some flagholder of freedom, democracy and sometimes peace.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 07:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 11:15 pm (UTC)When did you stop beating your partner?
*snicker*
Date: 2011-01-12 05:08 pm (UTC)*duck*
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 02:07 am (UTC)I disagree. Which is a vague thing to say, so let me clarify: I disagree with you, because I don't think they're nutcases.
Violent? Yes. Subscribing to misc. irrational, counterfactual (i.e., religious) beliefs? Yes. Evil? Heck, yes.
But nutcases? No, -- the Salafist upper command are very practical, calculating and bloody-minded about their pursuit of political power by means of a resort (among other tactics) to sundry murderously violent deeds. Very sane (alas).
I was reading some rubbish about so-called "suicide bombers" a while back (sorry, no footnotes, I am behind on my offerings to the Gods of Laziness), and it made the trenchant point, based on several hundred case studies, that "suicide bombers" never act independently -- they are invariably selected (preyed upon), recruited, manipulated and trained, by others who apparently don't deign to do such a self-detonation themselves. No, the latter get others to "self"-detonate for them, as in the case of that Down's Syndrome woman who "self"-detonated in Palestine, about a year or so ago.
Hence, it's more along the lines of: you blow yourself up for the sake of the future Khalifa, and I'll stick around to, um, help govern it, yeah.
In other words, it's the Calculatingly Evil, manipulating the Mentally Ill, to kill Non-combatants, to discredit Current Governments, -- not Crazy at all, this, unless you meant "Psychopathic", which is Crazy, but not the kind you seem to be implying.
At the root of the Takfirist project, there's a great deal of irreligious cynicism -- think, Christopher Hitchen's unkind but probably accurate obituary comments about Jerry Falwell, to the effect he seems to have rather prospered by the gullibility of his flock, and he didn't actually have to believe any of it, in the privacy of his own mind, to do the prospering.
Anyway, Osama Bin Laden's grand strategy was not to fly jets into misc. American landmarks, killing large numbers of innocents; rather, it was to fly jets into misc. American landmarks, killing large numbers of innocents, thereby provoking an inevitable American invasion of Afghanistan, because that would lead to another World Power caught in an Afghan quagmire, and, just as it had with the USSR in 1979-1989, that would (goes the strategy) lead to the economic and political collapse of the USA, analogously to the USSR's.
Thus, although he was probably turned into Osamaburger at Tora Bora back in 2003 (IIRC), so far Bin Laden's strategy would seem more-or-less on-track. By comparison, NATO cannot honestly be said to have a defined list of specific, enunciable and attainable war aims (and, therefore, on the authority of Sun Tzu, NATO is losing, but I digress).
Now (to return to the immediate topic): the Egyptian Muslims Act As Human Shields story, is a public, unequivocal demonstration that in this case, it is the Salafists, and not the Current (Egyptian) Government, who have in the end been discredited by the suicide bombing attack on the Coptic church congregations.
So, when you write "We appreciate the gesture of solidarity, but it's more or less meaningless to the violent nutcases," I have to reply (as justified by my froth-mouthed screed above) that, as serious, professional terrorists, they have to view it as a tactical set-back -- which, to their calculating, 'how do we win this thing' minds, must needs be very 'meaningful', indeed.
FWIIW (rant, rant, rant),
TSM_in_Toronto
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 10:30 am (UTC)I was reading some rubbish about so-called "suicide bombers" a while back (sorry, no footnotes, I am behind on my offerings to the Gods of Laziness), and it made the trenchant point, based on several hundred case studies, that "suicide bombers" never act independently
This finding doesn't explain the 7/7 attacks in London, then, which appears to have been a self-organizing cell. (They may have had access to training, but they seem to have been self-guided and chose their targets themselves.)
There's currently some research into suicidal ideation among suicide bombers. It's worth noting that Islam has a strong suicide taboo; psych studies of captured (live) suicide bombers in Israel suggest that most of them were clinically depressed. And then there's this delightful person. (TL;DR version: she selected young women as targets for rape, then took them in and convinced them that the only way to redeem their honour was a suicide bombing).
Here's my bigger point, though: the human shield thing is a tactical setback to the salafists, but it's purely temporary. All they have to do to deal with it is not attack that target. There are other targets; any nation is hideously vulnerable if you've got suicide bombers.
Alternatively, there's one model of insurgency that suggests you get organizations grooming suicide bombers in situations where there are rival insurgencies going on, and they're holding an arms race. A particularly hardcore salafist group might well deliberately attack the human shields, because they're bad muslims, calculating that (a) it'll deter other uncommitted people from volunteering as human shields, and (b) it'll prove that their hardcore credentials are stronger than J. Random Rival Jihadi's.
(I'm with you 100% on the overall success of Bin Laden's strategy and NATO's fecklessness wrt. Afghanistan.)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-13 04:20 am (UTC)Your point about the 7/7 gang is well taken. And, I hadn't heard of the story you hyperlink to, so thanks for that grim but noteworthy bit of reading.
As for your latter points, I have been trying to follow the story of the recent Algerian civil war (or whatever it's properly called), and it seems as though a deeply cynical government security apparatus there, deliberately stoked such a "purity of motives as demonstrated by deeds" arms-race amongst the several Salafist factions there -- until the insurgent groups began to splinter internally, then autolyse in killing sprees directed at their own members (sometimes initiated by government moles acting as agents provocateurs), until the thing burnt itself out, more or less.
So, on the one hand there's evidence for your analysis. OTOH, there's no guarantee any given "side" will triumph, only a guarantee that innocents will get killed anyway. Which is very sad, but welcome to Planet Hobbes, and do enjoy your stay. The exit is over there in that pine box.
FWIIW,
TSM_in_Toronto
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 07:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 09:38 pm (UTC)I have yet to hear of any credible threats to either Harper or the Seperatistes (the closest analogs I can think of to an opposite point of view from my own), but if I did, I would denounce whoever made them, immediately, loudly, and to the authorities with jurisdiction to stop them.
So, yes. More of this, and faster please. I can't tell you how big a smile this news put on my face.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 10:19 pm (UTC)????
Yanqistani ignorance here...splain, please?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 10:42 pm (UTC)(Possibly Albertan ones too.)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 10:54 pm (UTC)People who feel that the francophones in Quebec are a "pure" people (as in Pure Laine), with enough reason to hold a grudge against the rest of Canada in general, anglophones in specific, and immigrants in particular. They use this grudge as an excuse to pass bigoted laws (see the codes of conduct banning "stoning of women" in certain towns), and claim it gives them the right to stop being part of Canada as far as taxes and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms go, but still keep all the benefits such as Canadian passports, trade agreements and equalization payments (where rich provinces like oil-heavy Alberta send money to poorer provinces, like Quebec at the moment).
I live in Montreal, and I'm an anglophone Liberal federalist.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 04:42 am (UTC)Me, I've seen enough directed at Canadian Francophones to think it's a lot more of a two-way street than English Canadians would like to think.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 05:17 am (UTC)I have no qualms with French Canadians. I live here, I'm learning the language, (not perfect, but passable), and I don't expect to always get english service. I agree that having french service where people speak primarily french is a good thing, and the francophones have been screwed on that front in a lot of places (the French Canadian in my own ancestry is from the Red River area). I will make the same distinction between francophones and separatists that I will make between republicans and tea party-ers. One has a valid, reasoned point of view that happens to be different than mine. The other...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 07:12 am (UTC)In the meantime, better keep your sticks ready (http://sweasel.com/archives/7524).
You know, just in case.
My original comment stands: this is some of the best, most hopeful news out of the Middle East I've heard in a long time.
Of course, if the cops are on the other side (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70A4WU20110111?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true), things can get pretty dicey. We'll see how this works out.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 02:12 am (UTC)TSM_in_Toronto
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 05:05 am (UTC)But ... y'all might like Tere Bin Laden.
It's a funny, Indian-made film about a Pakistani journalist who wants to emigrate to the US. He decides that his ticket is an interview with Osama Bin Laden. Since he can't find Osama Bin Laden, he persuades a local chicken farmer (a sweet, simple guy) to pose as Osama Bin Laden. Wackiness ensues.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 10:49 pm (UTC)As the saying goes...
- Krin
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."
—Douglas Adams (ref)