[lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History (The Fourth Rail)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:10:47 -0800
Interesting articles, Brian. I've been thinking about Phil's theory that
those who advance the Moral Equivalence argument have logical assumptions
for it and are only inhibited from presenting them by not being clever
enough writers. I had the ME argument in mind as I read bill Roggio's
"State of the Jihad" assessment. But the assessment took the concern away
from a "terrorist vs the U.S." sort of debate. The US is mentioned in
regard to providing support to the Iraqi government and blockading Somalia.
But Militant Islam, most of it associated with Al Qaeda according to Roggio,
is continuing to war against infidel leadership in every Muslim nation in
which it can gain a foothold. What would Fukuyama, Roy & Kepel say about
Roggio's assessment? They imply that the "Jihadists" are primarily
alienated Muslims who have immigrated to Europe and are seeking meaning in
their lives. Roggio shows that the Islamic Militants are engaged in any
sort of combat that presents itself. If they can, they will take over a
portion of a nation as they have in Pakistan. But they aren't afraid to
engage in full-scale warfare as they did in Somalia, but if a nation's
government is too well organized or two alert, they will do some suicide
bombing, and if they are defeated they won't give up. They will engage in
an insurgency.
In my note about the halving of the British fleet, I considered the
possibility that the Militant Islamic threat may be no more serious than
Fukuyama, Roy & Kepel describe it. Roggio would disagree with that idea. He
would say the war at this point should perhaps be described as Militant
Islam against the infidel governments of the Middle East and other Muslim
nations - and that the Militants show no sign of running out of resolve.
I returned to the moral equivalence idea. How can we frame it logically, if
we assume there is no difference between what the terrorist does and what
the defender against a terrorist does? The ME adherent assumes that we
ought not to kill terrorists for moral reasons, that is, killing them will
make us like them and it would be wrong to become like them. We, if we
carry out this idea as a program, will offer no resistance to the
Terrorists. The question of what will the Terrorists will do in the face of
our non-resistance is irrelevant. Will they back off or will they consider
our non-resistance weakness and attack us even more? We don't care because
we have taken a moral stance and our stance is independent of what the
Terrorist might do.
What if they did attack us even more, would that alter our moral stance that
we must not kill them because killing them would make us as bad as they are?
Surely not. The fact that they see our pacifistic stance as an opportunity
rather than an example to be emulated doesn't alter the force of our ME
belief: We must not kill terrorists for moral reasons.
Are there any reasons that would justify our killing terrorists? Surely not
if we believe that killing terrorists is immoral. We must not under any
circumstance kill terrorists. But what if they kill great numbers of us?
That would make no difference because we have our moral standards.
But what if they kill every infidel that won't convert to Islam? It makes
no difference because we have taken a moral stand against killing them for
any reason.
From history we know that if Militant Islam is successful, infidels with few
exceptions are either killed or forced to convert. We know that after
conversion, descendents of former infidels share the same views about
killing infidels as other Muslims; which would mean that the moral stance
against killing Militant Islamics would not carry over into the period after
they were converted to Islam. It is limited by the Islamic victory. After
the victory that moral stance is forbidden. They must henceforth kill, or
approve of killing, or at least hide their opposition to killing infidels.
Perhaps it is too much to expect the Moral Equivalent adherents here on
Lit-Ideas to approve of killing infidels, but their children or if not their
children then their grandchildren will be indistinguishable from any other
Muslim.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 5:29 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online
History (The Fourth Rail)
Embed reporter Bill Roggio has written an outstanding history of the Islamic
Courts in Somalia and posted it to his site:
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/the_rise_fall_of_som.php
He's also done a State of Jihad briefing for the year 2006 covering the
different theaters of action but I haven't gotten to read that yet. It can
be found here: http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_state_of_jihad.php
Other related posts:
