The New York Times‘s Michael Slackman sees the Middle East’s young Islamists as a bunch of misguided hippies:
Across the Middle East, young people like [Jordanian college student] Mr. Fawaz, angry, alienated and deprived of opportunity, have accepted Islam as an agent of change and rebellion. It is their rock ‘n’ roll, their long hair and love beads. Through Islam, they defy the status quo and challenge governments seen as corrupt and incompetent.
Well, yes and no. Among Middle Eastern youth, radical Islam does serve a social and psychological function similar to the one rock ‘n’ roll once served in the West. It provides the comfort of groupthink, the imposition of an aesthetic, and the blueprint of an identity. But that’s where the similarities end.
Even at its most aggressive, rock ‘n’ roll is toothless. At its most transgressive, it’s commercial gold. Chances are, if thirty years ago you were on stage spitting beer and screaming about anarchy, today you’re sipping tea and crying about taxes. The goal of pop music is entertainment. You can spice up rock culture with a dash of anarchy or communism or black power, but in the end it’s just elevated fandom. And when the demands of adult life come calling, the fandom is abandoned.
Jihad is for life. And, of course, death. Young Islamists in Jordan and elsewhere have a very specific idea about how to “challenge governments seen as corrupt and incompetent,” and it doesn’t involve song. If only sharia was nothing more than the Muslim equivalent of Beatlemania.
At least the Saudis provide oil. We’re equally in thrall to the Israelis, and they don’t provide us a single damn thing.
From another Topic:
4
Bob Miller Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:41 PM
The Saudis have managed to buy all administrations in DC, even those outwardly friendly to Israel.
True or not true?
I haven’t read the book by Unger or seen the Farenheit 911 film. So, apparently I didn’t get the memo on this Saudi conspiracy stuff being discussed in Greenwald’s post.
As far as I know (I hope), Saudi Arabia is technically an ally in which the US engages in much trade for petroleum from the Saudi’s and armaments from the US. There may even still be US military installations on Saudi soil – remnants of the Gulf War I – but I don’t know that to still be the case.
Anyway, I don’t mean anything offensive or negative, I’m just trying to understand. In the realm of contentions, are the Saudi’s an enemy of the US?
the “realm of contentions” and “I hope”?
Let me help you out Anthony Seta. There is reality here and now. Your hopes and dreams that the terror-sponsor Saudi Arabia is only a bad guy on this blog is ridiculous. Instead of “hoping” why don’t you do a 2 minute google search on the history of Saudi Arabia? See if you find anything resembling Wahabism, millions of dollars to influence American education, and terror sponsor worldwide.
Then get back to the blog with your findings.
weak
Saudi Arabia is the terrorism we’re supposed to be fighting, but our government (and every other government on the planet) pretends that they’re allies for obvious oil related reasons. We (and Israel) also depend on these terror supporters to defend us from the big, bad Iranians and Russians. It doesn’t matter who is in charge, the left or the right, these idiotic policies will continue until the American people get sick of them.
We should have wised up after 9/11, but we didn’t. For now, the right and the left use various alliances with the Saudis as means of attacking the other side – but no one suggests that we do anything to change our self-destructive policies.
Some books and other research on Saudi Wahhabism and terror sponsorship worldwide (from the right/left and everything in between)
Former Ambassador Dore Gold’s “Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism”
Former CIA agent Robert Baer’s “Sleeping with the Devil:How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude”
other sources:
Lawyer Stephen A. Cozen of Cozen O’Connor. His law firm filed an appeal on behalf of several dozen insurers that paid out billions in claims to businesses at ground zero. He tried to collect against the Saudi sponsors of al Qaeda, but they couldn’t be prosecuted due to “diplomatic immunity”
The Times Online noted that the majority of terrorists, terror charities, suicide bombers and guantanamo detainees were Saudi in their article “Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror: The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers”
Matthew Simmons, geologist noted that the Saudis were lying about their oil supply (they have less than we think) in his book “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy”
In the article “Saudi Doubletalk” MSNBC reporters revealed that Saudi Chief Justice Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan enlisted young Saudis to go to Iraq to become suicide bombers and wage jihad against American troops. Since the Washington Post later reported that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi, it’s obvious that King Abdullah okayed Al Luhaidan’s warmongering efforts.
The International Assessment and Strategy Center reports on how petrodollars fuel the “Little Explored Offshore Empire of the International Muslim Brotherhood”. The Saudi-financed Muslim brotherhood is the financial and ideological wing of Islamism’s military infrastructure. Their branch offices in the US include CAIR, ISNA, the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Student’s Association. This organization also works with American “peace and Justice” groups like ANSWER. They’re responsible for the violent protests against the Danish Cartoons and military action in Gaza.
In his article “The connections between the Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda” former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus describes the history of our obsequious ‘friendship’ with Saudi Arabia.
The real reason for the ire of Contentionistas, via Politico:
“But [Freeman's] inclusion in an important, low-profile job represents, among other things, the vastly diminished sway of the neocons — long at odds with the professional intelligence community — who launched a concerted, public effort to torpedo the move.”
No more influence. Too bad. You were doing such good work, foreign-policy-wise.
Interesting that Kenneth’s post in no ways tackles the points that Abe made in his post or the the, shall we say, controversial, aspects of Freeman’s views. New Politics!!!
US pulls out of Durban II:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/US_pulls_out_of_Durban_conference.html?showall
some good news from the Obama administration, for a change
Well, if a relationship with Saudi Arabia exempts one from participation in government, I guess we should have been told that before we elected the two Bushes, whose close friendship with the Saudi royals is well established. And if close connections to middle east allies taints one’s objectivity, well, there are a lot of AIPAC types who are going to suffer in Washington. I mean, it’s so hard to understand why you lost this argument!
Obama likes a diversity of opinions and he values independent thinkers. Wasn’t there a time, not long ago, when the single most awesomist thing one could be in the whole wide world was a maverick? Someone tell Snowe, Spector and Collins those days are over.
Kenneth is exactly the useful idiot that the Obama administration loves. No need for facts, discussion, or analysis of the situation or person. Just basic taunting, or political trash talking. yes, New Politics.
used to be called Marxism.
#10
I keep thinking Joe Lieberman.
Boy, this post really brought out the Brownshirts.
From powerline, Freeman on 9/11:
“And what of America’s lack of introspection about September 11? Instead of asking what might have caused the attack, or questioning the propriety of the national response to it, there is an ugly mood of chauvinism. Before Americans call on others to examine themselves, we should examine ourselves.”
Women that dress provocatively are asking to be raped.
#15–Perhaps America should start wearing a burqa…
And what of America’s lack of introspection about September 11? Instead of asking what might have caused the attack, or questioning the propriety of the national response to it..
Instead of introspection we needed more extrospection (if there is such a word). We accused our own security services of letting the attacks happen, but did we blame the wealthy Gulf Arabs who organized and paid for the attacks? Did we think about how stupid it was (and is) to call the country that had sponsored the attacks an ally?
After the Mumbai attacks, the Indian government listed the names of the Pakistanis who were involved, and they asked that they be prosecuted for their crimes. How many Saudis did we accuse of involvement in 9/11? How many were prosecuted? How many Saudis were prosecuted for their support of al Qaeda’s terrorism in Iraq?
Saudi Arabia was just as complicit as the Taliban was for 9/11, but after the attacks, our state department worked overtime to ‘mend’ our ‘friendship’ with them. Those are the policies we need to reconsider.