"Any twelve-year old with an X-Box or PS2 or computer with a competent video card and a fast processor must have been exposed to the likes of these games at some point or other. The shooting and killing of rag-headed Afghans or Iraqis (especially after the first Gulf War) in video games ideally should fall under the umbrella of "inciting violence against others"."
by Mohamed A. Faraj (Saturday July 23 2005)
In today's New York Times article "Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide" (July 22, 2005), Thomas L Friedman simply continues on his long path of doing what he does best, i.e. acting as self-declared and passionate mouthpiece of the U.S. government. It is nothing new in the recent history of mainstream news reporting, with journalists and reporters competing with each other to score bonus points with the powers-that-be. It seems to be the great journalistic fad of our times that has journalists in bed with politicians and military authorities and academics all in one. In this arena, Friedman simply leads the way by leaps and bounds.
Take for example his recent article on the aftermath of the second wave of London bombings. His concern is that in addition to fighting the "war on terror" on the military, political, and economic playing fields, a thorough effort has to be made to deal with them on ideological grounds as well. The same line of thinking occupied the Cold War debate, where the argument was made that communism had to be discredited ideologically and the benefits of capitalism demonstrated intellectually in order to win over the hearts and minds of poor peoples throughout the Third World. Thus Friedman argues that a "war of ideas" must be vigilantly fought against the type of radical Islamist thought that promotes and feeds off hate and ignorance. His suggestion reads as follows: "We need to shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual human rights report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence against others."[1]
As an example of this problem of hatemongering, Friedman uses the bookstore (called "Iqra Learning Center") frequented by some of the London bombers. To be more specific, Friedman quotes the Wall Street Journal to reveal how this bookstore happened to be "the sole distributor of Islamgames, a U.S.-based company that makes video games. The video games feature apocalyptic battles between defenders of Islam and opponents. One game, Ummah Defense I, has the world 'finally united under the Banner of Islam' in 2114, until a revolt by disbelievers. The player's goal is to seek out and destroy the disbelievers."[2] Now this is where most mainstream academics and journalists in the West get all tangled up and a bit hazy. This is precisely where they began to lose their consistency and fall into that shady world of hypocrisy and double standards. For unless Friedman himself is childless and therefore hasn't ventured much into the world of video games, one cannot understand exactly how he overlooks the virulent video game culture in the West that promotes and incites hatred against Arabs and/or Muslims.
"For years, American combat video games have featured Arabs as enemies, encouraging gamers to kill anonymous Middle Easterners with barely a second thought. China is the enemy in a rash of recent games, prompting the Chinese government to ban some of them. Even the United States military is getting into the act, using games to recruit soldiers."[3]
This, too, is nothing particularly new. Any twelve-year old with an X-Box or PS2 or computer with a competent video card and a fast processor must have been exposed to the likes of these games at some point or other. The shooting and killing of rag-headed Afghans or Iraqis (especially after the first Gulf War) in video games ideally should fall under the umbrella of "inciting violence against others". According to David Leonard of Washington State University, who critically analyzes video games as part of "an important pedagogical project of U.S. war practices"; "Virtual war games elicit support for the War on Terror and United States imperialism, providing space where Americans are able to play through their anxiety, anger, and racialized hatred."[4] By pointing this out, we do not contend that two wrongs make a right, nor is this a diversionary tactic used to deflect attention away from the very real and serious problems in the Muslim world. Yet it is worth noting that Friedman chooses to simply ignore the flip side of the coin, as all well-trained hypocrites are apt to do. Inciting hatred only bears value when it is "them" inciting hatred against "us". Their video games and literature must thus be analyzed thoroughly, "exposed" and "spotlighted", according to Friedman, so that they know that the world is listening to and watching them vigilantly. In doing so, we may conveniently ignore our own forms of inciting hatred and our own crimes. We have the magnifying glass directed towards those "others" and stubbornly refuse to use it against ourselves, presumably out of fear of what this would reveal, though this thought is rarely ever spoken.
Friedman is most probably the leading liberal U.S. mouthpiece writing in arguably the world's most influential and far-reaching newspaper. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that his views and ideas are to be taken seriously, especially as he gives advice to the powers-that-be. Thus when someone like Thomas L. Friedman suggests that "excuse-makers" for terrorism "are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed", it is safe to assume that such advice will seriously be taken into consideration. It is nothing less than advice to stifle and muffle dissent, to purge by exposition those who disagree with the views of Friedman and his official buddies. According to this logic, there is absolutely no correlation between worldwide grievances and terrorism. Actions that happen in one part of the world have no effect on what may happen some other place across the globe. There is no cause and effect relationship here, only the fluke and random acts committed by crazed fanatics. This type of deductive reasoning is quite convenient because it consciously refuses to engage the question of what conditions and circumstances breed criminality and/or terrorism.
Friedman maintains that terrorists do what they do because they are terrorists, clear and simple. He quotes Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen as saying that "These terrorists are what they do", then slyly adds "And what they do is murder". As if it takes a genius to figure that one out. Terrorists by nature commit terrorist acts, which by definition include murder. In any case, the logic is quite reductive. This type of reasoning is akin to the type of grade-school clichés that claim that "You Are What You Eat". It bears no substance or clearly thought-out argument. Why is a terrorist a terrorist? What makes people engage in terrorist acts? Is it simply ideological leanings? Are there absolutely no other legitimate motives that can be included within the equation of terrorism? These clichés simply reaffirm standard and conventional thinking because they are convenient, uncomplicated, and because everyone seems to regurgitate them ceaselessly so that in the end they become self-evident truths.
To argue that terrorists are criminals and mass-murderers who deserve to be brought to justice, but at the same time to argue that perhaps some of their motivations do come from legitimate grievances, is taboo and unacceptable. Friedman, like many of his colleagues, has trouble making the distinction between "justifying" terrorism and "explaining" it. The same diligence that social scientists apply to problems such as crime and poverty, for example, and the links and correlations between the two, would not apply when it comes to terrorism. Those who engage in terrorism do so because they are inherently evil and because it's in their nature to do so, according to the likes of Friedman. No other rationale is acceptable or tolerated, and if it is considered at all it is lumped under some derogatory category such as "excuse-making" or "justifying terrorism". Again, the great guru of the liberal mainstream media has thereby effectively marginalized and quarantined dissent by portraying those who try to explain the motivations or reasons of terrorism (so as to better deal with it) as not much better than the terrorists themselves. Presumably, by the standards set out by Thomas L. Friedman, the Mayor of London himself, among other respectable figures, would also fit nicely into this subhuman camp, being "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists" themselves.[5]
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!"
From here the story looked liked it would end quite badly for the shepherd boy, and he certainly would have come to a sticky end were it not for a sudden stroke of genius.
He looked to his sheep, and then to the flock of villagers, who had come running so readily to his aid. He considered the crook in his hand, and the power he wielded with it. He then held that crook aloft and pointed his finger at the nearest villager.
"Are you seriously questioning the existence of wolves?" he cried.
"But there are no wolves h..." began the villager.
"You see? You see? He said it himself! This man would have you think that wolves simply do not exist! Surely you all recall that wolves once attacked a nearby village!"
Indeed they did. There was a sudden murmuring in the crowd.
"Innocent blood was spilled that day. Such horrendous attacks by these... these *animals* must not happen again."
The crowd murmured once more as they looked fearfully toward dark forest nearby. The shepherd boy took this as his cue.
"In that forest, they plot and plan our demise and they will not be happy until we are all dead," and here, again, he cast an accusing finger at the nearest villager, and raised his voice to say, "and yet here you are denying that they exist at all! Perhaps you are in league with the wolves?"
The crowd suddenly turned on the villager, who ran in fright.
"You see?!" cried the shepherd boy, "The enemy walks among us!"
And from that moment on, the shepherd boy found himself in charge of a much larger flock. He found that he could cry 'wolf' as often as he liked, and the villagers would always come running. He also discovered that - when he lost the occasional sheep through his own negligence - he could cry 'wolf' again to divert attention away from the loss or even blame the loss on the wolves.
Before too long, he had convinced the villagers that an even greater danger lay beyond the dark woods.
Another village on the far side was run by a chief who ruled with an iron hand. He loved to terrorise his own people, and he wore the cloak of a wolf to instil fear in the hearts of his enemies.
The shepherd boy spoke eloquently of the sheer evil required to do such a thing.
Eventually he convinced his willing flock to attack that village. There was great bloodshed, but everyone agreed that it was a price worth paying to rid the world of the growing wolf threat, and the shepherd boy was awarded a great bounty.
Now, it is common knowledge that wolves can sense weakness in their prey, and they soon set upon the second village and feasted upon the dead and dying.
In time, they grew in number, and grew bolder in their approach.
By the following summer, the wolves had come beyond the fields for the first time in living memory and attacked the shepherd boy's village. There was much crying and weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But nobody blamed the shepherd boy. They all considered the attack on the village on the far side of the dark woods to be a grand and necessary venture. They were convinced that the attack had to proceed in order to defeat the wolves - and to withdraw their soldiers now would surely make the wolves even bolder.
Sadly, they were all too correct on that second point.
The shepherd boy had created an even greater danger, and he knew it.
He also knew that the only way he could escape the wrath of the villagers would be to continue as before. He cast his eyes on the horizon and wondered how long he should wait before crying 'wolf' yet again... and, indeed, if he would even have to bother crying 'wolf' at all.
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Boy Who Cried Wolf:
» Explainers, not popes from Indigo Jo Blogs The British right-wing press’s campaign of vilification against Islam continues today, with no less than three hostile articles by three of the usual suspects: Anne McElroy, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Amir Taheri. The last gets a two-page spread ... [Read More [ http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/index.php/2005/07/20/explainers-not-popes/ ] ]
Tracked on July 20, 2005 11:55 PM
==========
Comments
=====
Tim - this is excellent and deserves a far wider readership.
Posted by: Scaryduck at July 20, 2005 11:14 AM
=====
Brilliant. But really, if saying "You fat fucker" doesn't get through, what chance has a fable?
Posted by: Backword Dave at July 20, 2005 11:54 AM
=====
At the risk of merely adding another superlative, this is outstanding stuff.
Impressions The Christian Century Magazine [Issue of] August 09, 2005
by James M. Wall
Among the messages of sympathy that poured into London following the July 7 bombings were condolences from the governments of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Iran, Turkey—all nations with majority Muslim populations—and at least two Muslim nongovernmental groups: Hamas and Hezbollah.
But as Middle East scholar Juan Cole pointed out on his Web site "Informed Comment, [ http://www.juancole.com/ ]" only ArabicNews.com and a few Chinese sites mentioned this list. The Western media gave little attention to this strong Muslim expression of solidarity.
Why this omission? Support from Muslim nations did not fit the dominant narrative in the U.S., which insists that "the reason we are attacked is that they hate us and our way of life, and we are not going to let that deter us from fighting terror." This narrative is not based on reality.
The narrative also insists on a connection between Islam and terrorism, even though suicide bombing is anathema to Islam. Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, has compiled a database that includes every suicide terrorist attack anywhere in the world from 1980 to the beginning of 2004. "The facts show that suicide terrorist attacks are not primarily an outgrowth of Islamic fundamentalism and are, almost always, part of an organized campaign to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military force from territory that the terrorists consider home." The world leader in suicide bombing is Sri Lanka, where a secular Marxist group draws its recruits from Hindu families (Chicago Tribune, June 29).
Western nations are not involved in a "war" on terror against people "who hate us." What we are involved in is a dance of deception led by leaders in Washington and London who took us to war for reasons they know to be false and who now compound that deception by hiding behind the rhetoric of a simplistic struggle against evil. The U.S. media are complicit in this deception. The British media are not much better, though some journalists, including the London Independent's Robert Fisk, point out the nakedness of the Whitehall and White House emperors.
Fisk had the courage to probe a painful point: Yes, the July 7 London attacks were barbaric, he says. But weren't these also barbaric—"the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints?"
Prime Minister Blair made this pledge on the day after the London bombings: "They will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear." Fisk responded: "'They' are not trying to destroy 'what we hold dear.' They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East."
Deception dulls the mind—perhaps this explains why the usually well-informed Blair said that there should be two states in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine side by side, with two peoples, Arab and Jew, and two religions, Jewish and Muslim. Hopefully, the archbishop of Canterbury called Blair to remind the prime minister that there is also a Christian population in Palestine with historic connections that date back at least to the first journeys of Paul.
Blair's remark drew no reaction from either the American or British media, a further indication of the cultural-religious ignorance that encourages the absurd "clash of civilizations" paradigm—Muslims against the West—that is currently in vogue.
One journalist fond of the clash of civilizations paradigm is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has been writing columns of advice to Muslim populations, calling on them to modernize their faith and get on the capitalist train before modernity leaves them at the station. On the day after July 7 he suggested that Muslims worldwide are surrogate parents for the London bombers:
When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. . . . It is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst.
The assumption that worldwide Islam bears the responsibility for radical young men and women who blow up buses and trains is devoid of logic and conscience. Is Friedman saying that the only brothers for whom we must be keepers are those who share our religious tradition? This implies something I do not think Friedman wants to say: Islam "caused" these terrorist acts and Islam alone can make them stop.
Enough of giving advice to Muslims. Our responsibility is to demand that Western leaders accept that what they've done to others has a direct connection to what is now being done unto us. Of course we want our leaders to remain vigilant against violent attacks. But meanwhile, it is time to stop blaming others, and to heed the scriptural command to "look to your own house" (1 Kings 12:16).
James Wall is senior contributing editor at the Christian Century.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
