Advertisements

This Time in Turkey

The latest Islamist outrage occurred Tuesday in Istanbul, Turkey, where at least three gun-toting suicide bombers slaughtered at least 36 people and seriously injured another hundred or so at the Ataturk Airport. At this point it’s unclear if it was the work of the Islamic State or the Kurdish separatists who have more frequently launched terror attacks in Turkey, although the experts guessing it’s the former and admitting it might yet be another group, but it any case it adds to the horrifying death toll of the past millennia and a half of jihad.
This time around was mostly a Muslim-on-Muslim slaughter, as has been common during much of the past millennia and a half of jihad, but of the course the victims at an international airport in such a cosmopolitan city as Istanbul included some infidels. At this point it’s not known if any of them were Americans, but we have several friends and family members who have travelled through what they all describe as the airport’s heavily secured hallways, so it could have been anyone from anywhere. Why any non-Kurdish Islamists would choose to target Turkey is also unclear at this point, as there any number of explanations.
There’s an ongoing resentment about all the years that Turkey’s Ottoman Empire ruled almost the entirety of the Islamic world, and even though that ended way back at the conclusion of World War I that’s no so long ago from the millenarian and a half perspective of jihad. The airport is Istanbul is named for Kemal Ataturk, whose reformers dragged Turkey out of the ruins of the post-Ottoman Empire and into something resembling the modern world, and from the Islamist point of view that’s even worse than the Ottoman Empire. The Turks have lately been involved in squabbles with everyone from Russia to Syria to the Syrian regime’s Islamic State enemies to of course those pesky Kurds, so the country has any of number of reasons to be attacked.
Since the good old days of Ataturk and his fellow “young Turks” the country has seen the more or less modern and cosmopolitan types in Istanbul and other urban areas demographically overwhelmed by the more fervently religious and therefore more fecund rural portions of the country, and Turkey has lately become Islamist and troublesome enough that its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and associate membership with the European Union have become problematic, but they’re still not nearly Islamist enough to spare themselves further Islamist terror attacks. It’s a tough spot to be in, but to quote an old song it’s nobody’s business but the Turks’.
As horrific as it was the Istanbul attack didn’t exceed the death count inflicted by an Islamist nutcase’s attack on the much softer target of an Orlando, Florida, nightclub not long before, so at this point in the millennia and a half of ongoing jihad everyone everywhere has to adjust its policies.
The American left tried to explain that larger death toll at an Orlando nightspot catering to homosexuals by a man who phoned into the police and clearly explained that he was acting on behalf on the Islamic State was actually the fault of those darned gun-toting and Bible-thumping Republicans, but this time at least the president admitted that it was some sort of unspecified “terrorism” and didn’t try to blame it Chick-fi-la or any bakers who decline to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, which would have been quite a stretch even for the president, and at this point it’s hard to guess what policy changes might be made. Both of the presumptive major party nominees hoping to succeed him have offered appropriate sympathy and outrage for the victims, and vowed the requisite resoluteness, and it remains to be seen which of them will win the next news cycle. Even the Democrat has lately started the using “Islamist” to describe all this jihad, and the Republican has been very stern if somewhat inconsistent and incoherent about it from the very beginning, but we’re not placing much hope in policy changes. Until the entirety of the barren west rouses itself against once again against the fecund forces of Islamism we expect the jihad will continue.

— Bud Norman

Advertisements

Radical Islam By Any Other Name

“That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet,” William Shakespeare once wrote, but he’s just another dead white male that nobody bothers to read these days. Modern liberals believe that words do indeed have magical powers that can alter whatever reality they are intended to describe. Thus a man can become a woman with a simple change of pronouns, a university can erase its long-ago racism with a few more up-to-date names on some buildings, the problem of illegal immigrants can be made to disappear simply by calling the millions of people who have immigrated here illegally by some more polite name, such as “undocumented Americans” or “dreamers,” and the latest euphemisms can imbue all manner of malodorous things with that sweet fragrance of moral superiority that keeps the modern liberals’ noses constantly upturned.
The latest problem to get this mystical linguistic treatment is radical Islam, which we are now assured does not exist. Although the semantic shamans won’t go so far as to pretend that terrorist attacks haven’t been occurring all over the world with increasing frequency and savagery in the past decades, and that there’s usually someone with a Muslim name shouting “Allahu Akbar” at the scene and a group calling itself something Islamic claiming credit,  they will go so far as to pretend that anyone who draws the intuitive conclusion that the Religion of Peace has anything to do with it is just a nasty old bigot. Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking to the staff of the American embassy in France just days after somebody or another shot up six sites in Paris for some reason or another, insists that “It has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with criminality, with terror, with abuse, with psychopathism — I mean, you name it.” So long as you don’t name it Islam, of course, Kerry is content to deal with the problem on whatever convoluted language and new coinages you might prefer. His predecessor at the State Department, the supposedly presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, speaking just hours before some terror group or another for some reason or another killed all the hostages at a Mali hotel who could not recite verses from the Koran, went further to insist that “Muslims are peace and tolerant people who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Clinton was so proud of the statement that she “tweeted” it out to her followers, a surprising number of whom responded with scathing criticism, and the Democratic Party has already released an internet advertisement criticizing the Republican’s repeated use of “radical Islam” that features the formerly vilified George W. Bush saying that Islam is a Religion of Peace and we’re not at war with a religion and all the obligatory boilerplate that he never got any credit for back in the day.
So long as the shootings and bombings and stabbings and beheadings and crucifixions continue one will have to call it something, though, and Clinton has chosen to call it “jihadism.” It’s better than “psychopathism,” we suppose, but we can’t see how it’s a more politically correct term than “radical Islam.” Our big old Random House dictionary doesn’t have an entry for jihadism, but it does define jihad as “a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims,” and our 13 volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary are so old they offer the alternative spellings of jehad and jahad and define it as “A religious war of Mohammedans against unbelievers in Islam, inculcated as a duty by Koran and traditions,” and pretty much every etymologist will tell you that it’s a term having something to do with Islam. The more respectful but less precise lexicographers like to define jihad as a peaceful struggle to better one’s self, and for some reason they usually cite quitting smoking as an example, but even Clinton seems to have given up on that. The terror group calling itself Islamic Jihad, and the proudly self-proclaimed jihadists doing all the shooting and bombing and stabbings and beheadings and crucifixions, and such widely respected-within-the-Islamic-world scholars as the late Ayatollah Khomeini saying “I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim” that jihad does not mean a more literal war against the unbelievers has given the word a certain connotation that cannot be easily shaken, no matter how many well-intentioned Turks start laying off the hookah.
There are subtle and nuanced arguments to avoid the words “radical Islam,” as are required for such difficult sophistry. The gist of it is that by acknowledging the Islamic beliefs of the people we are obliged to fight and kill we signal to the entire Islamic world that we are at war with the entire religion, forcing all those more peaceful and tolerant Muslims who otherwise would be disinclined to shoot and bomb and behead and all that to join with their more belligerent co-religionists. This seems at least slightly plausible, given that all those peaceful warriors are probably already suffering the crankiness of nicotine withdrawal, but even the Democratic Party’s internet advertisements explicitly acknowledge that America’s leadership has always stressed how the country and its allies are only at war with those particular sorts of Muslims who are avowedly and actively and often effectively at war against us, and even such right-wing crazies as the Republican presidential candidates and ourselves are always careful to affix that “radical” qualifier to make the same point, so by now all those peaceful Muslims should be reassured. The term “radical Islam” does include the “I-word,” but we’re all adults here and might as well acknowledge the obvious fact the terrorists are acting in strict accordance with a very ancient and still widely-held understanding of Islam’s holy book, and surely those peaceful Muslims will frankly acknowledge the current struggle does indeed involve the more radical elements of their religion. One can argue that no true Muslim wants war, because Islam is a Religion of Peace, just as one can argue that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, because any one that did is no true Scotsman, but it’s still a fallacy and you’re still left with a large number of people who want to kill you in the name of Islam and don’t care how painstakingly polite you’ve been to the religion that you insist they don’t practice, and we suspect that by this point even some of the most peaceable sorts of Muslims are probably starting to contemplate which side is more likely to prevail.
Our reading of history suggests that the side with the high-tech weaponry and most modern scientific know-how is usually a good bet, but the side that knows what it’s fighting for and who it’s fighting against is often a formidable underdog. In the current conflict our side is fighting with itself over proper protocol for transgendered persons and that building named after a guy who built it but who owned slaves long ago and what to call all those immigrants who are here illegally, and we refuse to acknowledge that we’re fighting at against the same radical ideology that has been intermittently at war with the west for the past 1,400 years, long before there was western imperialism and Israel and George W. Bush and all the other usual exculpatory grievances, and which has always claimed to be Islamic. When a former Secretary of State and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is reduced that to claiming that it is merely “jihad” and therefore has nothing to do with Islam, it’s a good time for hedging bets.
If this all sounds too war-mongering and xenophobic and Islamophobic to your ears, we’ll happily recite all the rote assurances about the vast majority of the world’s Muslims being peaceful and tolerant and disinclined to chop off your head and take your daughter as a sex slave. We wish them well, and assume they wish us well in our efforts to defeat those who are committing atrocities in their name. People being people, though, we assume that there are some among the presently peaceable Muslims who are waiting to see how it plays out. Every strain of Islam has always found itself in conflict with some aspects of western civilization, and although most Muslims in the western world have found a peaceable and tolerant accommodation there are many who wouldn’t mind if the west were a little more accommodating itself. In some cases they might be making reasonable requests, in other cases intolerable demands, but Kerry and Clinton and all the political correctness in the world won’t keep them from contemplating a Muslim world. President Barack Obama contends that the Republican rhetoric about radical Islam is a recruiting tool for the terrorists, but the better recruiting tool for a potential pool of new jihadists is the string of victories they’ve lately racked up.
Clinton and her two rivals have both sworn off the term “radical Islam,” and of course the party itself is rallying to the cause with that internet advertisement, but it’s going to be a tough sale. The polls show the public unimpressed, even the vulgar late night comedian and usually reliable Democratic pitchman Bill Maher is scoffing at it, and thus far the biggest political beneficiary is the one candidate who doesn’t seem to care how war-mongering and xenophobic and Islamophobic he sounds. The magic words about men being women and Woodrow Wilson never having been president of Princeton University and illegal immigrants being dreamers aren’t polling well, and we don’t expect they’re going to win a war.

— Bud Norman