The subject of my religion came up in conversation. The imam was fascinated. He was anti-Semitic, but impersonally so. His abstract detestation of Jews was trumped by a practical curiosity. He phoned a friend who, like him, had never met someone from my tribe. That friend brought another friend. Soon, we were having a colloquy on several subjects—the putative righteousness of Osama bin Laden’s cause, the alleged treachery of Bill Clinton—but our focus narrowed to matters of faith. I raised the subject of Muhammad’s often complicated, sometimes violent relationship with the Jews of Arabia. These men, like many Muslims, believed that the Jews had behaved perfidiously toward their Prophet, and they endorsed Muhammad’s decision to behead some 600 of his Jewish enemies, the males of the vanquished Banu Qurayza tribe.A question I have for Goldberg is whether it was really true that the "extremists wanted to persuade reporters" and something changed. Or was it always the case that reporters were exploited as a means to an end — they were used to communicate and the head-cutting videos are powerfully communicative? You were always being used. That would be my hypothesis.
Back then, it did not seem foolhardy to engage Muslim terrorists on the subject of beheading....
१७ नोव्हेंबर, २०१४
Jeffrey Goldberg is "Remembering a time when Islamist extremists wanted to persuade reporters, not kill them."
He begins: "In the spring of 2000, I lived for a month in a Taliban madrasa, a religious seminary, located on the Grand Trunk Road outside of Peshawar, in Pakistan." Excerpt:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Did Jeffrey Goldberg not hear of Daniel Pearl? Since when did they have a problem decapitating journalists?
John Donne:
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Jeffrey Goldberg:
“I used to tell people that as a reporter for an American news organization, it was like we were wearing armor,” Dexter recalled. “People just didn’t go after American reporters.”
The following charts are examples of Al Qaeda network beheadings from the years 2000-2005. It is important to note that the charts do not include the previously mentioned unidentified bodies, hostages kidnapped and later released, or hostages executed by gunfire or other methods.
Click through to see the charts.
I lived in Pakistan for a couple years in the mid-90's, and I cannot count the number of conversations I had that sound like his. I disagree with your assessment, strongly.
At that time, before the radicalization of traditionalists, you didn't want to be a Hindu or Sikh in Pakistan but there was no issue with `people of the book'.
Daniel Pearl went to work in Pakistan based on this on the ground reality - that before 9/11 Pakistan was a crime filled corrupt military-run country but not one that was hostile towards Jews and Christians. You sure as hell didn't mess with the ISI or piss off the military, but religion was not the death sentence it is now.
Daniel Pearl was a huge shock through people who working Pakistan, this is a change from when this reporter worked in 2000 [and before].
Just ask the Aḥmadiyyah or Sufis how things have changed in Pakistan. Actually, good luck finding someone willing to admit that in public ...
Not to be picky, but I think Ann is conflating "Islamic extremist" with "terrorist".
As of 2000 I'm not so sure that the Taliban wanted to do anything other than rule Afghanistan according to their own principles. They may have used terror tactics within that country to achieve their domestic political goals, but they held no international terrorist brief.
They might have admired Bin Laden, whose ultimate goal, as I recall was to replace the rulers of Arab countries with more religiously pure men, and who was willing to turn to international terrorism to aid in that goal, and they obviously gave him refuge, but that doesn't mean the Taliban were the same as Al Qaeda.
Of course, the US blurred the distinction between the two by invading Afghanistan, so that a Talib defending what to him is his homeland wound up side by side with Al Qaeda fighters, and (once out of power) adopted many of the same insurgent techniques.
So the Taliban would have wanted reporters to see & understand their position, like all governments do, but what not have been interested in beheading them (in 2000).
Of course things have changed. The extremists exert a powerful attraction to many in Islam. They have made the strictest teachings of Imams reality and they are pushing the extremes further. With guns and other military-grade implements of destruction.
The House of Peace (e.g. Islam) is in perpetual struggle with the House of War (e.g. infidels). The Koran advocates that "The Ends justify the Means". Any tactic is acceptable of it furthers the cause of the House of Peace.
Alternately, there is an expiration date on any Muslim promise to an Infidel.
"Did Jeffrey Goldberg not hear of Daniel Pearl? Since when did they have a problem decapitating journalists?"
Obviously not. Pearl was beheaded in 2002. Goldberg describes events in 2000.
This needs the Taliban the Boyfriend tag. They've discovered negging.
Lucien wrote: Not to be picky, but I think Ann is conflating "Islamic extremist" with "terrorist".
The conflation is created by Jeffrey Goldberg. Goldberg's narrative does hinge on Daniel Pearl's murder, in the way that Mark suggests above.
It may be that the subhead that Althouse quotes is factually, statistically, true. It doesn't speak to the non-journalists who had no such protection.
The main issue was the lack of power; back in the wild days pre-Obama, they were not nearly in as powerful a position to alienate a media that was happy to pretend they'd all be good guys if that darn Bush would just go away.
Obviously not. Pearl was beheaded in 2002. Goldberg describes events in 2000.
The timing suggests that Bush had something to do with it then.
Yeah I went there. Because half your readers want somebody to do so.
"They might have admired Bin Laden, whose ultimate goal, as I recall was to replace the rulers of Arab countries with more religiously pure men, and who was willing to turn to international terrorism to aid in that goal, and they obviously gave him refuge, but that doesn't mean the Taliban were the same as Al Qaeda. "
-- We'll protect this guy, provide him arms and finances, support his goals and means -- but please don't assume we're in any way supporting him!
"they endorsed Muhammad’s decision to behead some 600 of his Jewish enemies."
To behead or not to behead: that's the question for jihadists.
Exemptions for Jewish journalists were always provisional.
Not to make light of it, but a local story in DC is a Maryland Jewish guy who was working as a contractor for AID. Kidnapped in 2011, by AQ...
He'd been there since 2004...
If he were Mossad or CIA, I could see hanging around P-stan for work, but Jews are supposed to have a survival sense about living in Islamic countries. After 911, you couldn't pay me enough...
May God help you, Warren Weinstein, because Teh Won, won't!
As of 2000 I'm not so sure that the Taliban wanted to do anything other than rule Afghanistan according to their own principles.
Really? I seem to remember the Taliban were the ones who gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden – who killed 3,000 Americans in NYC. Who could have avoided a war with the USA simply by handing over bin Laden. It seems to me that the Taliban's "own principles" included killing thousands of Americans in America.
… a Talib defending what to him is his homeland wound up side by side with Al Qaeda fighters …
An example of the anti-war meme that the USA 'creates' these terrorists by retaliating against terrorists. It popped up in anti-war circles mere hours after 9/11 and continues to be pushed by various anti-war types. Actually the opposite is true. Islamic terrorists are emboldened to further perfidy by weak responses to their terrorism.
Islamic terrorists are emboldened to further perfidy by weak responses to their terrorism.
I forgot to include the latest example: ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
By the way, are we done yet with the Administration's silly insistence (against the popular will) to grant ISIS more territory by a priori calling them ISIL?
chickelit: "By the way, are we done yet with the Administration's silly insistence (against the popular will) to grant ISIS more territory by a priori calling them ISIL"
No, we are not.
Further, we are now at a point where the Preezy is telling us how islamists beheading folks doesn't represent any religion "least of all the Muslim faith".
"...least of all the Muslim faith."
Which means it more represents the Christian faith.
Is there anything more predictable than a leftist making excuses/defending Islam and going after Christianity either explicitly or implicitly?
And maybe journalists were regarded as nothing more than tools. Once useful for propagating Islamist propaganda via the media, but in the age of social media more useful in bringing attention by having their heads cut off.
The arrogance of the media is that the Islamists viewed them as being any different than the rest of the infidels.
Some (i.e. journalists) will never have the scales fall from their eyes.
Reality is just so out of alignment with their mental picture of how things are that they will never see it for what it is. No price is too high for everyone else to pay to protect their "reality".
Leon Klinghoffer could not be reached for comment.
As usual, Grackle nails it.
Well done.
Althouse wrote:
"Obviously not. Pearl was beheaded in 2002. Goldberg describes events in 2000.
'My bad I read through the paragraph and didn't even notice the year.
chickelit:
"are we done yet with the Administration's silly insistence (against the popular will) to grant ISIS more territory by a priori calling them ISIL?"
Passing this on, with too little knowledge to evaluate it: I know one Arabic specialist, intel type, who calls them ISIL. When asked why, why not ISIS, his answer was, "Because it's a little insulting to them, and I hate these fuckers so every little bit helps."
So I'd like to think it's something like that, not just an effort to be more urbane than most of us (like anyone who says "pah-kee-stahn" but pronounces Afghanistan American-style, not that I am naming names).
Of course the Taliban treated Bin Laden as their guest, bu that doesn't mean they were working for or even with him. He did them favors, such as bowing up the leader of a Taliban opponent on September 10, 2001.
And no, they didn't run him over to the US. People in that country have entrenched customs about hospitality and protecting their guests -- customs which may have kept Marcus Luttrell alive some years later.
It will take a lot more beheadings before some people start to understand. They probably never will. You don't understand Taliban leaders or other Islamists. You never will.
I for one am glad the rank vermin in the media are now subjected to the same relative violence that say, aid workers are.
You [Goldberg] were always being used. That would be my hypothesis.
If you read the full article, you'll see Goldberg was aware of that -- it was a mutual using:
Even in the 1990s, the hatred, particularly in Pakistan, was sometimes palpable. I once went, at night, to a sketchy section of Rawalpindi, to interview a man named Fazlur Rehman Khalil, the leader of a terrorist group then called Harkat ul-Mujahideen. Khalil had co-signed bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa calling for the killing of Americans and Jews. He gave me tea, and told me that he would happily use nuclear weapons to eradicate the enemies of Islam. “If we had them, we would use them as necessary. But they’re very expensive,” he said. ...I had glimpsed a treacherous and secret subculture, and I was happy, because a reporter’s deepest need is to see what is on the other side of a closed door. In exchange, I would tell people in the West about Khalil and his beliefs. I was appalled by his message, and I wanted readers to understand the horror of it. But Khalil believed he was doing good works, and he wanted the world to celebrate his philosophy. Back then, the transaction worked for both parties. Today, when I think about the meeting, I shudder.
He also makes this interesting observation about why things have changed:
Extremists don’t need us anymore. Fourteen years ago, while I was staying at the Taliban madrasa, its administrators were launching a Web site. I remember being amused by this. I shouldn’t have been. There is no need for a middleman now. Journalists have been replaced by YouTube and Twitter. And when there is no need for us, we become targets.
Maybe we need to call the nice people the "Light Weight Muslims" and the Caliphate Jihadist guys the "Heavy Weight Muslims."
But then again what does it matter what infidels who are soon to be slaughtered call anyone.
There is now a 26 year old woman being held who is set to be executed next. Everyone loves to talk about equality, but a lot of people including women are going to have issues with a woman being decapitated by ISIS. Perhaps it will take the execution of a lady in the most brutal fashion for those who are saying what's the big deal to say "Wait a second. Something needs to be done.
If ISIS are chauvanists and don't execute the woman the way they do the men or let her go, are the feminists going to demand equality? Or are they going to stand for feminine privilege.
Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way.
La la la la...
There are very few Westerners who willingly go where they can easily be kidnapped by Muslim terrorists. Conspicuous among that few are reporters and aid workers. Why go hunting, when the game will come to you? I expect that when they run out of easy marks, they will begin to work harder.
Of course the Taliban treated Bin Laden as their guest, but that doesn't mean they were working for or even with him. He did them favors, such as blowing up the leader of a Taliban opponent on September 10, 2001.
That "Taliban opponent" was Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance, an ally of the USA.
And no, they didn't run him over to the US. People in that country have entrenched customs about hospitality and protecting their guests -- customs which may have kept Marcus Luttrell alive some years later.
Too bad for them that their "entrenched customs" included harboring the murderer of 3,000 Americans. Our own "entrenched customs," back when we had a President with an intact set of balls, included the destroying of the regime who helped murder 3,000 American citizens. So much for "entrenched customs."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा