[lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs. Experience

Lawrence, the obfucation King...

Alright Lawrence, let's deal with the London Bombings. 

Here's Shehzad Tanweer in his 'martydom video', 'What you have witnessed now is 
only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become 
stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq." 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/06/terror/main1780895.shtml

Later in the piece it states that the London bombers were self financed and 
notes that another of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, claimed that the 
British public were to blame because they supported governments that 
"continuously perpetuate atrocities" against the Islamic world.

On the following page there are a number of links that deal with Muslim opinion 
on the bombings.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0705/dailyUpdate.html

For example, "(Iraq) has been a great concern for Muslims. It is an ongoing 
concern, especially the situation in Palestine, Chechnya. These impact on the 
psyche of young people," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary General of the 
moderate Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Britain's biggest Islamic group.

And again, 
Taji Mustafa, a spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation the government 
announced it intended to ban after the bombings, agrees.

"People expect the government, if it is sincere about looking at the causes of 
anger, to consider Iraq. It refuses to even countenance that as a possible 
factor," he told Reuters. "It seems to be interested in giving an appearance of 
doing something rather than actually tackling the issue at hand."

What I find interesting is that Lawrence, based on his extensive reading (of 
western commentators on the problem) thinks he knows better than mulsims do 
about how they feel. In the following article 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1843114,00.html

leading British muslims write to Tony Blair to state that 'his foreign policy 
in Iraq and on Israel offers "ammunition to extremists" and puts British lives 
"at increased risk".'

Anecdotal Lawrence? Do you still say that there are less extremists as a result 
of the war in Iraq?

Now then Pakistan. Lawrence says that the US needed "...Pakistan's cooperation 
prior to and during the invading of Afghanistan in order to drive out the 
Taliban and pursue Al Quaeda." And ordinarily you'd agree, but where did the 
Taliban and Al Quaeda go to? Pakistan for the most part. 

And which organisation funded Atta?

Which organisation was involved in the murder of Daniel Pearl? 

Which organisation has been blamed for the Mumbai train bombings?

Answers on a post card to Lawrence...

Simon





  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lawrence Helm 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 4:05 PM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs. Experience


  Robert, apparently Simon wants to go on; so you be the judge



  Simon asks if I accept that the "war in Iraq created more fundamentalists 
than there were before."   The initial discussion began not with a question but 
with an assertion, "Lawrence, my assertion is a simple one. The war in Iraq has 
caused moderate muslims to be attracted to fundamentalist ideology. Because of 
the war (which, it should be noted, had nothing to do with 9/11), there are now 
more fundamentalist muslims than there were before. Because of the war in Iraq, 
people died in Madrid and London."



  I know of no evidence to support Simon's assertions and beliefs.  I spent 
some time with the question of how many Moderate Muslims there were in the 
Middle East, with Omar, and we discovered that we couldn't find any evidence 
one way or the other; so I ask what evidence Simon had to support his assertion 
that there were fewer Moderates and More Fundamentalists in the world (he 
didn't want to restrict this matter to the Middle East) and he responded with 



  "It's not just the extremists in the middle east that are the problem. It's 
also the home grown ones. How do I know there are more extremists. Because they 
blew up trains in London and Madrid and because I've heard interviews with 
muslims in Britain who cite the Iraq war as a major contributing factor in the 
formation of their views. And yes, there are moderate muslims all over the 
world. They're the ones trying to explain that the extremists don't represent 
Islam, they're the ones saying how they never knew that their friend was 
involved. But they're also the same ones pointing at Iraq and saying how they 
understand why this is going on."



  Note that Simon changed "fundamentalist muslims" to "extremists."  I don't 
have a problem with that.  But it is in the above section that he provides his 
evidence for his assertion that the number of "Fundamentalist Muslims" aka 
"extremists" have increased as a result of the war in Iraq.  Here is his 
evidence: Because they blew up trains in London and Madrid and because he's 
heard interviews with muslims in Britain who cite the Iraq war as a major 
contributing factor in the formation of their views."



  I recognized his argument as a fallacy and attempted to explain that to him.  
I continue to believe that the term "Anecdotal Argument" is essentially "The 
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization," but I won't insist on that.  His Fallacy is 
the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.  He cites two terrorist attacks and an 
unknown number of interviews that he has heard as evidence that the number of 
extremists has increased.  We need not go into his subsequent assertion, namely 
the reason for the increase, to see that he is guilty of the Fallacy of Hasty 
Generalization.  His sampling is not sufficient to justify his conclusion.



  To tidy things up let me say that if he could produce a sampling that did 
support his assertion that I would accept the conclusion that the war in Iraq 
caused an increase in the number of Extremists.  However, he has not produced 
such a sampling; so I do not accept his conclusion.



  Would you like to lecture one or the other of us now, Robert?





  Robert needn't comment (unless he wants to) on what follows:



  As to the rest of what Simon has written, I presented my understanding of 
Pakistan's situation and he responded with his own understanding.  I noticed at 
once that there was a major gap in it.  He neglected to describe the occasion 
for our being allies with Pakistan.  He didn't deal with our needing Pakistan's 
cooperation prior to and during the invading of Afghanistan in order to drive 
out the Taliban and pursue Al Quaeda.  He asserted that the US was being 
hypocritical in wanting Pakistan as an ally while ignoring that Pakistan was an 
ally against the Taliban and Al Quaeda.  Why the US would be hypocritical for 
wanting Pakistan's help in opposing the Taliban and Al Quaeda he doesn't 
explain.  He just laughs.  Whether laughter is a fallacy I won't pursue.  



  Lawrence






------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:47 AM
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience



  You should have been a politician Lawrence. You're so adept at avoiding the 
question. In this instance you try and pour scorn on the questioner.



  Here's what Jeremy Paxman would do: he'd ask the question again. And again. 
And again. So:



  Do you accept that the war in Iraq has created more fundamentlists than there 
were before? 



  "In the meantime we must deal with the world as it is.  Not all nations are 
presently Liberal Democracies.  Pakistan is not a Liberal Democracy.  We know 
that.  Everyone knows that.  We must deal with Pakistan as it exists, not as we 
would like it to be."



  This made me laugh, it really did, especially the last sentence. Here we have 
a country that, along with Afghanistan and, arguably, Saudi Arabia, was the 
most responsible for 9/11, a country that is a dictatorship, a country that is 
one of the principle centres of mulsim extremism, and what was the US 
response...let's be allies. Meanwhile, there's Iraq, a country not responsible 
for 9/11, a country without WMD, but with a ruler who pissed off Bush and which 
happens to have a load of oil and what was the US response...let's invade. 



  That's the hypocracy Lawrence, or it would be if this was a war on terror, or 
a war for liberal democracy.



  "And then you conclude with the belief that I will be speechless as a result 
of your brilliant analyses: [     ] "



  Ah now Lawrence, you see that was a debating tactic, to make sure you 
wouldn't actually walk away again...



  Simon

Other related posts: