They Dont Hold These Truths To Be Self-evident

From a forum for expatriates in Indonesia:

A man, who is himself a Muslim and appears rather pious, somewhere in Aceh filed a lawsuit against exceedingly loud mosque loudspeakers (calls to prayer, sermons and other assorted blabbering are blasted whenever the mosque people feel like it).

A forum member, who is a westerner living in Aceh and apparently a convert to Islam commented:

It would be best if the mosques administration considered the man's request. They seem to believe that being loud encourages people to be more religious. The message should be clear and should not loudspeakers. We are encouraged to give da'wah through "beautiful" preaching. If it annoys that man and others then it is not acceptable.


Like I said before, the man's argument for a crowd in Aceh should not be based on "it's too loud." People here will interpret that as an attack on their values, an attack on Islam. Pointing out that it is not Sunnah is probably his best bet.

And with disconcerting punctuality, the mortally offended mob acted:

But Hasan, a Muslim, said despite being taken to see the deputy mayor and Muslim leaders, and then being escorted to the court where he was forced to withdraw his legal suit, he had ultimately won a rare victory. “I was forced to withdraw my lawsuit as an angry mob threatened to kill me,” he said. “But after I dropped my case, the volume was significantly turned down by about half.”

Still, the man achieved some success, and his health and property suffered no harm. At least so far...

Another member then remarked:

This last line suggest that it is a problem confined to Aceh due to sharia law. It ain't confined to Aceh, and it ain't due to sharia law.


The article is silent on why--in such a religious and ostensibly spiritual and holy milieu and among a people and religion that values consensus--the request to turn it down was met, not by dialogue or channeled through institutionalized peaceful mechanisms for handling grievances, but rather by intimidation and threats of violence and death. Something doesn't add up here.

I think I know why, pardon my arrogance.
  Most Muslims still have a primitive mindset in which there is no such thing as individual rights. Belief and doctrine and the collective (the Umma in this case) trump everything else.   Trampling over the desires, apsirations and even health of individuals is seen as perfectly fine when belief and rituals* are involeved.   Sadly, it is a fact that a lot of Muslims don't hold these truths to be self-evident, that that all men are equal, that they are endowed by their very humanity with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.**   And to quip:

If you want to deal with Muslims on their own turf you have to deal with them in terms they respect and understand.

Indeed. And when Muslims seem to understand and respect only being arrogant and brutal, what should we do?   Now I can agree with the concept that going off with a lawsuit rather that talking in person to the people involved (but are we sure the man complaining about the noise didn't try do it?) is irritating and can be seen and conflictual. But there's many ways to deal with it before threatening violence.

* Image is everything in Indonesia. You're not rich if you don't show it off; you're not pious if you don't make a spectacle of your piousness; you're not respectful of other people if you don't use the proper words. What goes on behind closed doors... well, that's a different matter.   ** Yes, it is slightly edited. For one with my ideas about life and universe and everything, this version makes more sense.

Self-Satirizing News

From Indonesia:

Nowadays, people are witnessing the Holy Koran being corrupted not only on the interpretation of its content, but also on its procurement.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has named Golkar lawmaker Zulkarnaen Djabar a suspect in the alleged corruption of the Koran procurement project at the Religious Affairs Ministry.

The scandal may implicate other lawmakers.

Last year, the KPK released a survey stating that the ministry was among the most corrupt government institutions, reminding the public of a long list of graft scandals in an institution that has repeatedly been led by so-called “devout people”. Kyais and ulemas have headed the institution, such as Wahid Hasyim, Mukti Ali, Munawir Sadzali, Tolchah Hasan, Quraish Shihab and Said Agil Husin Al Munawar.

However, the Jakarta Corruption Court sentenced Said Agil Husin Al Munawar, who is known as a hafiz (a person who has memorized the entire contents of the Koran), to five years’ imprisonment in 2006 for his involvement in a graft scandal in managing the Dana Abadi Umat trust fund, or haj fund of the past.

No need to comment further.

Update 17:00:
In other news:

YOGYAKARTA: Hundreds of local people in the village of Candi Binangun in Sleman regency’s Pakem district, flocked to the pasar murah (low-priced market), jointly organized by the Indonesian Islamic University (UII) and PT Sinar Mas, to purchase palm oil sold at reduced prices on Sunday.


The discount market program was aimed at anticipating the food crisis and offsetting the spike in prices of basic food commodities, including cooking oil, that usually occurs in the lead-up to the Ramadhan fasting month, said G. Sulistiyanto, the managing director of Sinar Mas.

Comments to the article?

Typical.


This is an oil which has fats that should be limited just like trans fats; they clog your arteries and can lead to heart problems.

In addition, production of palm oil is leading to deforestation.

Such a program should not be a welcome relief for residents in the face of rising obesity, heart disease and the well-being of the rain forests of Indonesia.

STARVE A JAVANESE, SAVE HIM AND SAVE GAIA!

Muka Poker

Which means "poker face" in Indonesian... seems fitting to these news:

The US pop diva Lady Gaga’s scheduled concert fiasco proves that certain hard-line groups have been successfully pushing local authorities to meet their demands, indirectly controlling the nation, a Muslim scholar says.


Rector of the Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University Komaruddin Hidayat told The Jakarta Post that certain groups within society had successfully influenced the government to intervene against Indonesian’s freedom of expression, adding that authorities should have protected it.

“This is a setback and a pathetic situation in which we find the public sphere where Indonesians should be able to express themselves without restraint in fact faces intervention from one community that has become a powerful force in this nation,” he said Wednesday morning.

He added that while hard-liner groups had pressured the authorities, several members of the government apparently had relented to their demands, saying that it was a “politically correct” move to do.

“This situation proves that there are fraudulent officials that have been using the hard-liner groups to further their own political interests,” he said.

The reaction of many common people to this story is "Why such a big deal of Lady Gaga while there's also Indonesian singers doing indecent things on stage?".
And if you want to see what I'm talking about, do a Youtube search with the words "dangdut panas".

Not that the Islamic ballbusters have nothing to say about this erotic dangdut stuff, but the antagonism to Lady Gaga reached paroxystic levels. Some time ago the FPI staged a demonstration - honestly pathetic, but it seems effective - where they called her an "illuminati robot". David Icke must be proud.

Hipocrisy, stupidity, lack of logic, the usal shit.

Update 21/05: However, if you think that the Muslims are the only ones detesting Lady Gaga, you are wrong. In South Korea and the Philippines the Catholics made a big fuss about this singer's concerts.

Spontaneous Eat Lead Motherfucker Syndrome

I was wondering when something like this would start to happen: 

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- An American soldier left his base in Afghanistan and went from house to house in two villages, killing 16 people in their homes, a provincial official told CNN Sunday.

Of course it's always a one-way street for the usual suspects:

Regardless of the number of victims, the incident looks likely to inflame tensions still further between foreign troops and Afghan civilians, many of whom were enraged by the burning of Qurans by American troops last month.

Bombings, killings, burnt churches and assorted violence committed by Islamic extremists instead must never ever "inflame tensions" with the rest of the world, eh?

Troppa Fiducia

Sapevo che gli estremisti islamici si erano accodati alla rivolta popolare contro Mubarak in Egitto, e sapevo dei rischi che questo comporta.

Ma tuttavia speravo che le cose sarebbero andate per il meglio, che l'estremismo islamico ed una delle sue prime manifestazioni - l'odio per Israele - sarebbe rimasto ai margini.

Bè, mi sbagliavo: Cairo: assalto ad ambasciata israeliana - Il governo: applicheremo legge marziale.

Insomma, sembra che chi aveva previsto una deriva islamista in Egitto abbia visto giusto.

C'è da dire però che il governo non sembra avere sposato per intero la linea anti-israeliana ed anzi ha continuato a legnare con disinvoltura i facinorosi. Però non promette bene.

Asking The Imam

Dear Imam,

Is it permitted for a young Muslim mother to go to the supermarket wearing an appropriate jilbab, yes, and a dress that surely covers wrists and ankles but at the same time is so tight around the buttocks that it can be seen she's wearing a thong underneath?

Yours respectfully
The Second Version

This post is inspired by true events.

The Deadman's Revenge

Now that the old goat Bin Laden is dead, there is in many countries fear of revenge attacks by al-Quaida or some other organization.

But large-scale attacks take long preparations, a few months at the very least - it is also a function of the magnitude of the operation.

So, even if Bin Laden's comrades in arms started plotting revenge right yesterday, we won't see them in action for large-scale operations before the end of the year. And with the almost obsessive attention to terrorism of this age, I doubt that another attack of 9-11 scale can be mounted, at least in the West.

Terror plans already underway may be hastened to conclusion, but they would have to be at an advanced stage already. So I don't see much of an effect on attack plans already underway.

What can happen is action by isolated fanatics acting out individual jihad. It happened already in the past, and can happen again in the future. However, while these attacks can cause death and spread fear, their real potential is very limited: isolated individuals cannot perform actions that require... more than one individual; their supply routes for weapons and explosives are restricted and time constraints make difficult to draft complex and articulate plans.

We might see some attacks that result in the death of the attacker and maybe a few people unfortunate enough to be in close proximity, but not much more. At least I hope.

Revenge attacks are not a sufficient reason to adopt more extraordinary anti-terror measures. Also considering that a good part of the measures of today are more for the show than for effect, actually.

I Think I Said So Already

Kevin Baker quoted - not approvingly, I must say - yet another blogger claiming that "Islam must be eradicated" for being an existential threat to Western civilization.

Nevermind that Western civilization is rotting from within in the first place, but I have been reading this sort of stuff since I joined Little Green Footballs in 2002 or so.

And repeating it doesn't make it any more true or accurate.

Some may be thinking that now that I am living in Indonesia I am becoming a friend of Muslims, or too scared of retribution to express harsh opinions.

No, not really. I realized something that I thought already, that Muslims are people like you or me and not impenetrable, intractable alien beasts.

But considering people from other places impenetrable, intractable alien beasts is a failure that many Americans display.

I agree more with the position of Kevin himself, or the commenter Geekwitha45, as I have been doing for a long time.

Bigotry For Everyone

I wrote before that my experience with Muslims here in Indonesia has been positive: the months passed since then have only confirmed my opinion.

I know that there are violent extremists here, but so far I have not met one in person. Muslims here are not saints, but their virtues and vices fall well within the normal bounds of human nature.

But this posts is about bigotry. Before I touch that argument, however, I have to provide some backstory.

Around mid-July 2010, my mother-in-law suffered a bad stroke and she has been in a vegetative state ever since. She spent nearly one month at the hospital in critical conditions; during that period of time I and my in-laws took turns to stay with her, and it is only through the generosity of friends and relatives that the bills have been paid. Now she is at home in her own room, attended 24/7 by two nurses; she still requires many medicines and treatments. Hopes for her improvement are, sadly, close to nonexistent.

Many people have prayed a lot for my mother-in-law; catholics and protestants and muslims and the odd buddhist; they prayed to different gods but for the same end.

My in-laws were so stricken that when one nurse said that her boyfriend who is into magic and supernatural can perform rituals to rid my mother-in-law of the evil spirits making her sick and to protect the house from more spirits, they agreed. The sorcerer performed the rituals, got paid good money but nothing much happened – I guess he's just a crook playing on people's grief.

So the family tried another avenue, a protestant minister who claims to able to perform another sort of ritual – I don't know the details of it, but it is said to end with the sick person either recovering or finally passing away. The pastor came and asked many questions, about the family and eventual supernatural events that occurred. But then, instead of going on with the ritual he became incensed at the fact that my relatives display many crosses and images of Jesus and Virgin Mary around the house. He found that very offensive, to the point that he refused to perform the ritual unless those sacred images were not just put away, but disposed of. The unsaid response to his request was that he can stuff it.

The minister's conclusion was that first my parents-in-law attracted evil upon themselves studying pranotherapy (which is a technique for healing people through natural energy) some years ago, and then the sorcerer left even more powerful evil spirits around.

Now, one of the nurses is a Muslim – devoted it seems, because she prays five times a day, but she prefers to wear shorts and t-shirt rather than the veil. Religion has never been an issue in our daily dealings – well, except when I boiled a piece of ham, and she wouldn't use that pot for her own food even after washing. The other Muslim around the house is the maid who comes in a few hours per day to cook food and do the chores; she is a friend of the family to the point she refused another job offer because she thinks that we are more in need of a hand.

Recently, the family invited another minister to come and pray; he did so but he also offered some bizarre suggestions to improve the situation. He said that we should pour lard oil all around the house to neutralize the sorcerer's spell (apparently those supernatural beings survive on a strictly halal diet). Also, he said that the sorcerer's girlfriend has evil spirits in herself, so we should secretly rub the patient with lard oil to act as a barrier and to make the nurse uncomfortable until she'd eventually leave. Moreover, he said, there should be no Muslims in the house.

Now, however you slice it, tainting a Muslim with haram products is a lowly trick and the suggestion of a muslim-free house smacks of bigotry – especially when the persons that should be excluded have in fact been loyal hard-workers.

I told my story, now you decide how to place it in your universe.

To Each His Own Opinion

I found another example of those statements that make me roll my eyes in disbelief not because they are wrong or stupid, but because statements like those can only come from completely different axioms, if not thought processes.

Without any further ado, let's examine the most curious part.

Their “holy book” is a pagan screed about a moon god written by a pedophile.

Well, ok. Let's get one thing out of the way first: according to the Koran itself, Mohammed consumed his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old, which would make him a paedophile for most if not all of modern jurisdictions.

But apart from that, I can't see what is so inherently evil in a "pagan screed about a moon god". Worshipping the moon was a rather common pastime in most of the world and everybody was a pagan before christianity came around. It is quite obvious that "pagan" and "moon god" here are not used for their descriptive value, but are only pejoratives.

In any case, that was just a warm-up. The bizzarre stuff comes later.

[...]
C.) The word “pagan” is a technical term meaning “non-Christian/Jew”.

Yes, it is. But it was used not in its technical meaning - rather, as implying primitive and superstitiuos beliefs.

It is often used to describe people who worship something other than God.

Ah, here we go. I suppose here God is the Christian god, with the implication that there is no other true god out there. Which I think it's fine taking the Bible literally, but other people - particularly those who take a different book literally - would dissent.

This is an old argument, and an intractable one. Until God, Jehova, Allah and all the other supreme beings settle their scores in a Divine Smackdown Tournament for us umans to see, there's no way to tell which one is the mightiest.

“Allah” is a made-up moon god.

That's very interesting. From a mechanistic perspective, all gods are made-up, at least for the part concerning their interaction with humans. What makes the existence of Allah any less provable than the existence of other gods? Moreover, does a theist really want to discuss proof of the existence of god? Many fine philosophers have tackled this issue from both sides, and as far as I know it's still a draw. And what's with that poor Moon again?

There is no such thing as “Allah” as a god except in the minds of Muslims.

There is no such thing as a god except in the minds of Christians. See how easy it is to turn theses arguments around? According to what objective standards and logical reasoning Allah is not a god, while God is? None, I'll tell you. It is only because another holy book says otherwise.

They are, technically, “pagans”.

See above.

[...]
E.) By definition, a true Christian can’t be “evil”.

Should we define evil then? A Christian who causes unjustified sufference and damage to others is not evil? Or he ceases to be a Christian? Which would be a neat argument, but also fallacious.

They may yet be sinners but since they are saved through grace, they are in a different category than a Muslim who is not.

Whose grace? The grace of God I suppose - but then Muslims will have Allah's saving grace, so we are back again in a bind. The only way out of it is to set aside the revealed truth for one's particular religion and adopt standards which may be arbitrary in their own regard, but apply uniformly to members of all religions.

However, setting aside revealed truth is about the last thing believers want to do, so the not-so-merry go-around will just keep spinning.

Muslims & Me

Some readers may have noticed that I spent almost two months in Jakarta and surroundings. During that time, I have interacted with a number of Indonesian Muslims and all those interactions have been positive.

Not idyllic, of course, but well within the limits of normal human interactions with civil persons - even if I occasionally acted in culturally-insensitive ways. Like asking a couple of Muslims if they wanted lunch during Ramadan.

My impression is that most Indonesian Muslims only want to live according to their beliefs but feel no need to impose those on others, or to eliminate any source of offense (beer is on sale in nearly every shop of Jakarta and other cities and most supermarkets have also pork, albeit in a special, clearly marked, section).

Muslims there also seem not to have much interest in living under Sharia law (it is only applied in the Special Region of Aceh, which is not the best and coolest part of Indonesia): with 86% of Indonesians belonging to Islam, if even a rather small part of them wanted Sharia law, it would be in effect already. Although it must be said that a number of municipalities have adopted at least some aspects of Sharia - while the central government, typically, looked the other way. A more detailed discussion can be found here.

But if you don't believe in my observations and opinions, or if you have read in some book that things are different, I have a piece of evidence gathered one month ago.

The article is oviously in Indonesian, but the numbers are universal:in the 2009 elections, not one openly islamic party went above 6.9% of votes. All of them except one suffered loss of votes since 2004 - and that one is a tiny party with only 1,5%. The headline say "Islamic parties feel Threatened" - they fear that their share of votes will fall below the 5% for parliament seats.

For a finish, a couple of articles regarding Gus Dur, the first elected president after the Soeharto era, regarded as one of the father of the country and famous liberal Islamic leader.

Republik Indonesia ke-65

Finally, I can put my hands on an USB modem and post something more substantial!

Today is the 65^th anniversary of the independence of Indonesia, which was proclaimed on August 17 of 1945.For days, it has been a triumph of red-and-white flags everywhere: big ones attached to buildings and flagpoles; small ones flying from trucks and cars; patriotic ads on TV. The national sentiment is quite strong here. I know, it may come as a surprise for those who think that nationalism is only a relic of a western-centric past.

This year, the Independence Day (hari merdeka) occurs during the Ramadan month. Not much changes here except for the fact that of the countless food stalls only a few remain open during the day – from sunrise to sunset. Most of them sell freshly prepared food or drinks, and it does not make much sense to remain open during the fasting. A good fraction of the small restaurants close during the day as well, but the ones in malls remain open. The main change is that workplaces have shorter lunch breaks and close at 17 so that people can reach home or some food joint by sunset – which is always around 18: traffic becomes even more maddening than usual these days.

My wife tells me that the observance of the fasting is pretty high here, although I have seen Muslims eating and drinking during the day.

Ramadan is also a big business occasion, I would say. Everywhere it's Ramadan sale, Ramadan special, Ramadan this and that. Special offers on morning and evening meals; special 2-liter bottles of isotonic drinks for the rehydration of the whole family after fasting; special handphone price plans; what I'd call prayer karaoke – Arabic script with scrolling Indonesian translation – for your Blackberry and so on. In these aspects, Ramadan is a secular holiday like Christmas has become in the West.

As a side, I can note that three prominent Indonesian Ulama* have stated that Jihad must be intended as a struggle for individual improvement and must not include acts of violence. I hope you'll be lenient if at the moment I cannot produce precise references to this story.

*I am not sure of what the definition of Ulama is. They are not clerics, but more like lawyer-type bureaucrats. For exemple, it is the Ulama Council that deals with halal certificates for food and drinks.

Saldatura Perfetta

Davanti a cose del genere che si può dire?

Tutti i Paesi industrializzati, soprattutto quelli grandi, sono responsabili per la crisi dell'effetto serra», ha denunciato il numero uno di Al Qaeda.

Soltanto che dimostrano che quello che io ed altri - sempre meno, però, temo - diciamo da anni sulla sconcertante vicinanza ideologica di tanti soggetti è vero.

I Do Not Regret Leaving London

And in this website you can find plenty reasons why. I noticed the dementification of the British populace and it was not pretty.

Also, I cannot fathom why some people still praise the Met Police as one of the best, after news like this:

The senior Metropolitan Police officer who led the operation that ended with the death of Jean Charles de Menezes in south London has been honoured.

Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick was awarded a Queen's Police Medal for distinguished service.

On a related theme, it is known that the man who tried to blow up an American airplane in flight (and the man who first took action against him was an artsy Dutch. So much for the wussy Europeans, eh?) became an Islamic extremist while in London [ed. see update]. It also emerged, from his internet postings, that he was sad and lonely.

Well, Londond seems to do that to people who do not have the right personality. There may be million people around you, but most of them just ignore you. And those who show interest in you often have ill intentions. It is not a big wonder that a desperate kid would join any group of people that can relieve his sadness and isolation.

Life in London surely had many interesting aspects, but I cannot say it was very happy. And that is another reason not to regret coming back.

Update 02/01/2010: And mea culpa. I did not read the article carefully enough the first time and missed some points. The Underpant Bomber wrote his depressed and lonely (and quite incoherent, at times) post while still in Nigeria and later Yemen. There and then is when he embraced an extreme form of Islam.

Mayhem In Bombay

A big group of Islamic extremists has attacked various targets in Bombay; up to date the casualty count is of over 100 dead and over 300 injured. According to many accounts, the jihadis (because it's virtually certain they are the culprits) targeted specifically Americans, Britons and Australians, but other westerners - including one Italian - were killed.

I know what happened; I am not much interested in seeing dramatic pictures or videos.

And I do not even want to begin listening to people excusing or making rationalizations or using moral equivalence in regard to this atrocity. All I want to hear is the best way to hunt the bastards down and string them up.

Velata Controversia

Qualche giorno fa, un guardasala (o forse due) del museo veneziano Ca' Rezzonico ha impedito ad una donna mussulmana che indossava un niqab - l'abito che lascia scoperti solo gli occhi - di entrare in una sala del museo.

Presto si è scatenanta la prevedibile bufera politicamente corretta, ed il guardasala si è trovato vicino al diventare una nuova vittima sacrificale sull'altare del multiculturalismo:

[...]Ma vorrei fosse chiaro che si è trattato di una libera e personale iniziativa del guardiasala», dice il conservatore del museo, Filippo Pedrocco. «Un fatto sgradevole, discriminatorio e stupido, non condiviso né da me personalmente né dal resto della direzione dei Musei civici. Prenderemo i provvedimenti necessari nei confronti del guardiasala. E mi scuso personalmente e a nome della direzione dei Musei veneziani con la signora per quanto accaduto».

Interessante questa affermazione: è una legge della Repubblica Italiana che vieta di girare a volto coperto, e che io sappia la legge non prevede eccezioni per motivi religiosi. Quindi il conservatore del museo non condivide il fatto che una legge della Repubblica venga fatta rispettare nei locali che egli gestisce. Quali altre leggi possono essere violate all'interno dei musei veneziani è una domanda legittima.

Poi finisce con la solita genuflessione (per non dire calata di...) preventiva. L'articolo del Gazzettino contiene altri dettagli sulla storia che non sono disponibile sui quotidiani nazionali.

Però per fortuna ci sono ancora persone, come lo stesso Cacciari ed esponenti del governo, che non sono ancora state infettate da questo virus intellettuale, per cui si sono schierate a difendere il guardiasala del museo.

«Nei Musei civici veneziani tutti possono vestire come vogliono, basta che non si velino gli occhi», è stata la battuta del sindaco Massimo Cacciari. Ma poi ha chiuso secco: «Non licenziamo nessuno, è certo. Come potremmo, semplicemente perché è stato un po' stupidino?». La parola del sindaco è stata l'ultima di una giornata di proclami. Con il sottosegretario alla presidenza del Consiglio Carlo Giovanardi che difendeva la legalità: «La legge è uguale per tutti, soprattutto quando nasce da ragioni di ordine pubblico. L'episodio può sembrare poco importante, ma è su come un Paese affronta queste situazioni che si gioca l'alternativa tra la reale integrazione degli extracomunitari e un disastro di incomunicabilità».

Alla fine però la cosa sembra sia stata risolta un po' all'italiana:

Da oggi, comunque, ogni struttura del Polo museale veneziano avrà una stanza (o «uno spazio a prova di privacy»), nella quale le islamiche con il volto coperto dovranno farsi identificare da una custode. «Ho dovuto agire in fretta e furia», ha spiegato la direttrice Adriana Augusti. Il responsabile dei Musei civici Giandomenico Romanelli aveva chiesto provvedimenti. Forse non si aspettava questi.

Mi va bene che le donne a volto coperto siano prima identificate, ma per me il nocciolo della questione è diverso. Qui siamo in Italia, non Arabia Saudita od Afghanistan. Va bene il velo o chador o hijab (o, al limite, abaya), ma per me cose tipo niqab o burka non si possono tollerare da noi. Patti chiari, amicizia lunga, come si diceva un tempo.

Comunque, da questa pagina web si può mandare un'e-mail ai Musei Civici Veneziani per far loro sapere come la pensiamo. Non lesinate i bytes...

Una Conversione per Tutti

La recento conversione al cattolicesimo di Magdi Allam ha provocato (e qualcuno ne è sorpreso?) una serie di polemiche da parte mussulmana.

Hamas ritiene che questo sia incitamento all'odio ed al razzismo da parte del Vaticano, e che quindi sia impossibile sperare in buoni rapporti fra le due religioni. Ma per quanto questa dichiarazione possa essere preoccupante, non si tratta certo di una novità visti i noti metodi simil-mafiosi di Hamas.

Più interessanti sono le critiche fatte da "A Common World. Secondo quanto riportato dal Corriere, si tratta più che altro di una disputa teologica del tipo "Il mio dio è meglio del tuo". Mentre per me c'è ben poco da discutere sulla conversione di Allam, e le dispute teologiche mi fanno venire il latte alle ginocchia, riconosco che se i contrasti fra Cristianesimo ed Islam fossero tutti sul mero piano teologico, ci sarebbero poche ragioni per preoccuparsi.

Però penso che ci sia un fondo di verità nelle obiezioni del gruppo di saggi (si spera) islamici: è difficile pensare che il battesimo di una personalità pubblica fatto niente meno che dal Papa in persona non serva anche a mandare un messaggio a tutti quelli in ascolto.

Se poi sia legittimo o meno adombrarsi per il contenuto di tale messaggio, è altra questione.

Dai blogs, la lettera di Allam che spiega il suo percorso spirituale ed un'altra riflessione sulla vicenda.

HTML corretto il 28/03.

La Posta in Gioco

Aribandus ha scritto un articolo sul waterboarding, dove descrive in dettaglio la tecnica e quindi afferma:

Credo che, con il fine di salvare migliaia (se non centinaia di migliaia) di vite innocenti dalla mano stragista di folli barbari che nemmeno di fronte ai bambini (li ammazzano e li addestrano a morire) si fanno scrupoli, sia pienamente giustificabile.

Non ho mai nascosto di essere d'accordo con questa visione, e l'ho ribadito nei commenti al post. Presto però è arrivato il previsto commento critico:

i vostri commenti sono agghiaccianti,prima di pensare alla posta in gioco pensate a chi sono questi presunti terroristi,dove sono stati catturati su quali basi,non stiamo parlandodi soggetti dichiarati colpevoli da un regolare tribunale.Ma di spietate torture sulla base di una presunzione. Se avesse avuto qualsiasi tipo di contatto con un iraqueno potreste essere voi con quel capuccioin testa.senza prove,Enjoy it!

Perchè dico previsto? Perchè ormai questi commenti sembrano fatti a stampo, sia come forma che contenuto. Le stesse idee ingenue, imbelli e buoniste espresse con lo stesso italiano sgrammaticato e la stessa confusione di concetti. Ogni benedetta volta. Non è gente che ha poca padronanza dell'italiano, ma addirittura dei propri pensieri.

Ma senza indugio, esaminiamo i diversi punti sullevati nel commento - non tanto perchè valga la pena dibattere quel preciso interlocutore, ma perchè tutta la discussione su quale trattamento riservare agli jihadisti ed altri combattenti irregolari ha implicazioni importanti.

i vostri commenti sono agghiaccianti,prima di pensare alla posta in gioco
Un minimo di rispetto per la nostra lingua - come l'uso corretto delle maiuscole e della punteggiatura sarebbe apprezzabile, ma non formalizziamoci. Essere in grado di controllare il ricorso alla violenza è un segno di civiltà, ma essere incapaci di usare violenza significa essere imbelli - ergo, non trovo per niente agghiacciante l'uso della violenza in situazioni estreme.
Quando poi la posta in gioco sono le vite di molte persone ed il destino di intere nazioni, perchè non dovremmo considerarla? Penso che sia immorale subordinare la vita di molti al benessere di pochi nemici dichiarati.

pensate a chi sono questi presunti terroristi,dove sono stati catturati su quali basi,
Povere vittime dell'uomo bianco, penso sia quello che la commentatrice vuole insinuare. Ma vorrei che per una volta questi personaggi la smettessero di criticare e basta per passare a fare delle proposte concrete. Sentiamo, quale metodo si può usare in pratica per accertare quali siano terroristi e quali no? Tenendo presente però quali requisiti tale metodo deve avere - per fare una lista parziale: essere abbastanza rapido da potere essere applicato sul campo di battaglia; non esporre le fonti ed i canali di intelligence dalle quali provengono le informazioni usate per la decisione; stabilire quale rapporto falsi positivi/falsi negativi sia accettabile. Suona complicato? certo che lo è.

non stiamo parlandodi soggetti dichiarati colpevoli da un regolare tribunale.
Va bene, allora ditemi quale giurisdizione, quale tribunale. Un tribunale civile - nel caso delle operazionin in Iraq ed Afghanistan, uno irakeno o afghano? Un tribunale militare istituito dagli stessi paesi? Un tribunale militare americano o della coalizione? Uno internazionale? Queste udienze dovrebbero assomigliare di più ad un processo vero e proprio, o ad un'udienza preliminare?

Ma di spietate torture sulla base di una presunzione.
Quanto il waterboarding sia spietata tortura lo lascio decidere ai miei lettori, facendo anche il confronto con le tecniche di tortura descritte nel manuale di al-Quaida che Aribandus ha linkato. Ma supponiamo che alcune persone siano state catturate mentre piazzavano mine comandate a distanza (odio l'acronimo IED): dobbiamo continuare a supporre che si tratti di terroristi* oppure ce n'è una ragionevole certezza?

Se avesse avuto qualsiasi tipo di contatto con un iraqueno potreste essere voi con quel capuccioin testa.senza prove,Enjoy it!
Avesse - terza persona singolare
Aveste - seconda persona plurale.
Eppure, io ho la ragionevole certezza che la maggiora parte delle persone che hanno contatti casuali in irakeni non finiscono per essere interrogate dalla CIA o chi altri. Forse perchè il waterboarding è riservato a soggetti di un certo valore?
Segundo l'ingarbugliato filo logico del commento, potremmo concludere che quando si hanno abbastanza prove, si può procedere all'interrogazione coercitiva. O almeno così uno potrebbe pensare, ma in un altro commento la risposta è stata che no, naturalmente non si può fare.

Passiamo ad un'analisi ancorata alla realtà, per favore.
L'obbiettivo dichiarato degli jihadisti è quello di estendere il dominio della lor particolare versione di Islam inizialmente su tutte le terre mussulmane - ed eventualmente su tutto il mondo. Per fare ciò sono disposti ad usare qualsiasi mezzo, ma sembrano avere una predilizione per la massima brutalità possibile.
Gli estremisti islamici per una buona parte non sono mammolette; sono invece persone dure, addestrate ed animate da una ferrea volontà fanatica. Non è per niente facile trattare con loro, ed infatti corre voce che alcuni interrogatori che usavano metodi "dolci" siano rimasti traumatizzati.
Le loro reti sono chiuse e difficili da infiltrare, e la struttura a cellule con una scarna catena di comando rende difficile mapparle (stabilire quali siano i membri e chi sia connesso con chi).

Gli jihadisti poi non corrispondono per niente al profilo dei soldati regolari: non si riconoscono in stati nazionali, ma soltanto nella loro ummah; non rispettano alcuna legge di guerra a parte le loro stesse e non concepiscono la distinzione fra civili e combattenti - tranne che quando diventa utile per scopi di propaganda.

Applicare sia le procedure della giustizia criminale che il trattamento dei soldati regolari a quelli che invece sono combattenti irregolari è inutile se non controproducente.

C'è poi qualcosa a riguardo della tortura che a molti sfugge. Parlando di tortura, ai più vengono in mente le immagini di processi per stregoneria ed eresia, nei quali - distorsioni romanzesche a parte - lo scopo della tortura era quello di ottenere una confessione che facesse da giustificazione a posteriori per una sentenza che era già molto probabile a priori. Chi veniva accusato di stregoneria od eresia aveva una scarsa probabilita di salvarsi, tortura o no. Invece, lo scopo dell'interrogazione coercitiva moderna è completamente diverso: viene usata per ottenere informazioni - la mappatura delle reti di combattenti; i canali di finaziamento e rifornimento di armamenti; i nomi ed i comportamenti dei reclutatori, le posizioni dei covi eccetera. Le informazioni ottenute dagli interrogatori possono essere verificate in modo abbastanza rapido - per cui, gli interrogati non se la possono cavare dicendo qualsiasi cosa.

Questo significa pure che le tecniche "dure" non sono usate per ogni Mohammed Achmed che viene catturato, ma solo con chi si ritiene ragionevolmente (nei limiti della confusione tipica della guerra) che conosca informazioni importanti e, ovviamente, non si convince a parlare con metodi più teneri.

Per finire (è quasi l'una di notte...), c'è quella piccola questione dell'onore e reciprocità. Si combatte da gentiluomini con i gentiluomini, ma da belve con le belve. Perchè la purezza morale serve a poco da morti.

On The Reliability Of LGF

I just can't help going back to that. But the last time I slipped was quite a while ago.

Dennis keeps righteosuly hammering away at stupidity wherever it pops up, and while digging at Gates of Vienna - a website where hyperbole, to be charitable, abounds - unhearted the following statement:

I no longer consider Little Green Footballs to be a reliable source of information.

The point is, LGF has never been much of a source of information, but rather a relay or aggregator of stories. Charles and his peers have produced only a small amount of original information (the infamous Fake TANG Memo being the most relevant); most of the time what Charles does is to excerpt, reproduce and link stories produced by other sources.
So the issues of reliability and accuracy should be taken to the primary sources rather than LGF - which cannot be considered responsible for content by other authors.

What can legitimately be discussed is Charles's vetting process for the stories to be published. And in this he's severely lacking; he and his readers suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias:

Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data. The "most likely reason for the excessive influence of confirmatory information is that it is easier to deal with cognitively" (Gilovich 1993).

Which causes them to accept uncritically any story that reflects badly on Islam, Europeans (yes, the very people), the Left, atheists and any other target. The in-depth (or should I say obsessive) parsing that is reserved to stories that reflect badly on America and a few other "good guys" simply does not exist in other cases. Prejudices? Very likely.
Then there are the "throwing bloody meat to the sharks" stories, which have little or no relevance to politics or the grand struggle of ideas, but appear only intended to reinforce prejudices and initiate orgies of lame jokes and the like.

Another issue is Charles' sneaky editorializing, such as dropping terms like "appeasement" and derivatives in the introductions to linked stories. CJ is definitely entitled to his own opinion and even to express it in sneaky ways, but it'd be far more constructive if sometimes he articulated in some more detail his positions and his proposals about the situation.
A recent case is this: CJ accuses the Philippine government of appeasing the Muslims separatists of in Mindanao. And the accusation may very well have grounds, but what is conspicuosly missing, both from the posts and comments, is what are the realistic alternatives. And with realistic I don't mean the "kill'em all" feverish dreams, but at least a half-competent discussion of the intentions and capabilities of all the parties involved.

Knowing all this, you can still extract some valuable information from LGF.

Difendere le Decisioni - 2

Come si inserisce la campagna in Iraq in questo quadro? La questione delle armi NBC di Hussein costituiva soltanto una delle parecchie motivazioni, anche se non era cosa da poco. E' opportuno ricordare che molti Paesi assieme agli USA ritenevano che Hussein avesse almeno l'intenzione di proseguire con i suoi programmi NBC; il disaccordo era su cosa fare a riguardo.

Di nuovo, avendo a disposizione i risultati delle ispezioni ed indagini eseguite dopo l'invasione è facile sostenere che alcuni dei timori fossero infondati (la mia impressione è che sostenere che Hussein avesse rinunciato ai programmi NBC basandosi sostanzialmente solo sulla sua parola e su di ispezioni che hanno incontrato infiniti problemi è quantomeno ingenuo), ma bisogna stare attenti a come si usa il senno di poi. Inoltre, è universalmente vero che agire soltanto quando una minaccia è diventata imminente non è per niente saggio dal punto di vista strategico - ma considerando quello che molti pensano sia riguardo le relazioni internazionali sia l'autodifesa individuale, mi pare che tale insegnamento si largamente andato perduto.

Comunque sia, la decisione di applicare la Dottrina Bush a partire dall'Iraq si poggia su diversi pilastri: c'era già un casus belli, ovvero il fatto che la guerra del 1991 non era ancora tecnicamente finita, e che il regime di Hussein aveva commesso parecchi atti ostili contro le forze alleate, in violazione degli accordi siglati.

Un altro fattore era l'opportunità strategica: l'Iraq ha un territorio relativamente favorevole - non come le aspre montagne del Pakistan o Iran; si prestava ad un attacco a tenaglia (piano fallito per la defezione della Turchia); non presentava il rischio di interromepere il flusso di petrolio del Golfo (una tale interruzione sarebbe catastrofica per l'economia mondiale) e non costituiva un nemico troppo forte - almeno per quanto riguarda l'esercito regolare iracheno; è legittimo pensare che la forza dei ribelli e jihadisti sia stata sottostimata.

Questa riguardo la forza del nemico può sembrare un'ammissione di viltà, ma a dire il vero è uno dei principi basilari dell'arte della guerra che se si ha la possibilità di scegliere non si attacca il nemico più forte (come potrebbe essere l'Iran) per primo - a meno che non ci sia una ragionevole certezza che vincere il nemico più forte potrebbe portare al rapido collasso dei quelli più deboli; ma questo non era il caso.

Ora non sembra che la Dottrina Bush stia funzionando particolarmente bene: il cambio di regime non si è esteso al di fuori dell'Iraq, e quest'ultimo paese non solo è scosso da continui attentati e violenze, ma nemmeno riesce a produrre un governo che tenti con decisione di uscire dall'immobilismo. Però non bisogna dimenticare che l'immagine dell'Iraq che ci arriva è comunque distorta dalla naturale tendenza dei media a preferire storie di violenza, sangue e distruzione rispetto alla più o meno pacifica quotidianità.

C'è poi il fattore con il quale ho aperto questo saggio: ci sono giornalisti ed intellettuali tanto assorbiti dal loro odio per Geroge Bush da preferire uno sconfitta americana in Iraq and un successo dell'uomo. Divent quindi un difficile separare gli effetti delle vere carenze della dottrina - o della sua esecuzione - dagli effetti del continuo disfattismo.

Per finire, mi chiedo quale coscienza abbiano in verità quelli che si rallegrano per il vero o presunto fallimento della Dottrina Bush. Viste le sue basi, queste persone in realtà si stanno rallegrando del fatto che una grossa fetta della popolazione mondiale sia incapace di vivere liberamente; si rallegrano del fatto che il Medio-oriente rimarrà nella morsa del fanatismo islamico e della tirannia; si rallegrano del fatto che molte viste sono state sacrificate per niente. Questo per me è un arido deserto morale.

(Riesco a malapena a scrivere coerentemente ormai. Per fortuna ho finito)