Why Do They Hate Us?Strange answers lie in al-Qaida's writings.

Remarks from the Fray:

The portrayal of the collected al Qaeda writings as a Mein Kampf may be imprecise, sure. But when Hitler's Mein Kampf was written he was in prison, a failed revolutionary, pretty much written off as a crackpot, and nobody except him and a few followers would have predicted his rise to leadership of Germany. That part of the comparison doesn't sound so absurd on the face of it. Probably, like Hitler, al Qaeda leaders are mixing together justifications of their past acts, mobilization tactics for the public at large, and self-aggrandizing predictions to bolster their own symbolic importance.

--slothrop

(To reply, click here.)

The most acute observation Reza Aslan makes, is that Al-Qaida's leaders do not formulate "any specific social or political policy" but instead they have "grievances—many, many grievances". Aslan seems surprised by this, but there is no reason to be.

For this is nothing but the normal behavior of any group of people who are irrational in their convictions. In this Al-Qaida is not that different from believers in astrology or homeopathy, holocaust negationists, creationists, the followers of Dan Brown, or the latest anti-scientific fad -- global warming skepticism. All aggregations of people around an irrational basis have in common, that their ideology in the end consists of a series of objections and rejections. They reject factual reality and the logical systems that describe it. They do not substitute a logical system of their own, because they don't need one, and it would be impossible to construct one anyway. Any attempt to construct a coherent theory would only produce a shambles. Objections against other ideas suffice. That they are "so heterogeneous, so mind-bogglingly unfocused" does not matter. The motto of the irrationalist is "Just say No!"

The question is, what does Al-Qaida actually reject? Every indication suggests that ultimately, they reject our form of "modern society"; the type of secularized, liberalized, gender-equal, religion-neutral, human-rights-based society that radiates out from the rich west and finds followers everywhere. It pains me to admit it, but when G.W. Bush says that "they hate our freedoms", he actually has a point. It is mind-bogglingly arrogant and unproductive to equate "freedom" with the American Way of Life, as Dubyah too often seems to do. But yes, I think it is defensible to say that Al-Qaida hates freedom, in the liberal sense of the word.

The modern usage of the term 'liberal' dates back to the early 19th century when political debate raged in the Spanish Cortes in Cadiz, in the part of Spain not occupied by the French, and the political left, those who rejected the feudalism of the old regime, were called liberales. The right-wing groups of the time were dubbed serviles, 'the slavish ones', because their political ideal was the absolutist reign of king Fernando VII. They were traditionalists who wanted to keep royal absolutism, the fiscal privileges of the nobility, the supremacy of the Catholic church, and even the inquisition.

It is probably best to think of Al-Qaidas leaders as serviles. They are traditionalist radicals. Their political dreams hark back to a golden age that never existed -- That is the irrationality of it.

The rank and file, of course, are likely to have their own very diverse motivations, and many recruits would just as likely fight under another banner, if that gave them an opportunity to take revenge for their grievances. Fighting an intellectual battle with Al-Qaida is probably rather pointless.

--Mutatis Mutandis

(To reply, click here.)

I suspect that we will have to live with terrorism from all quarters for a very long time, because it is more of a pernicious meme of it's own than the product of any particular social or political factor we can work on. Sure, it's a meme that exists more symbiotically with some hateful ideas than with others, it's not independent of ideology, but I'm afraid that no creed will ever claim a monopoly on this meme. It's a meme we are seeing now, at this point in history, because it is enabled by wealth and technology which make the instruments of large scale destruction available to even the barely-employed. For much of history, to terrorize you had to have a band of supporters...a band of thugs, a tribe,a city-state, because that was the only way for an individual to amplify their power sufficiently to terrorize more than a few people. There are only so many people you can hurt with your bare fists, and one man, no matter how strong, can't take on the crowd at a baseball stadium. No more, though. Now any broken person can take on a baseball stadium. Any broken person in almost any place on the globe can now manage to find and afford a firearm if they really want, and the globe is awash in explosives and electornics for making bombs. We live in an age that is enabling for anyone who wants to take on a crowd, who wants to make a big scene. All the moreso given that another technology, media, makes the splash an individual can make all that much bigger, since it will echo around the world. Communications further reinforce the dangerous meme by linking each crazy person with every other crazy person out there.

I don't highlight technology and wealth to demonize technology, nor do I mention media to say that The Media is to blame. Rather, I mention it as a matter of fact, a bit like saying that the invention of air travel has the unfortunate side effect that now we have such a thing as the jumbo-jet plane crash that kills 350 at a time. There were no great horse or pedestrian crashes in Roman times, so this is a new illness we have to deal with. It's a small price to pay, because of course there were a thousand other ills in Roman time. Plane travel is worth it, but it brings novel costs along with it's new benefits. I think, to a substantial degree, terrorism is one of the novel costs of the modern world. One, I hasten to add, that we should work hard to minimize, but one that will be impossible to eradicate.

--Kolmogorov

(To reply, click here.)

(8/6)

• Cohen: How an Economic Crisis Is Like a War
• Froomkin: How's Bush? Put a Fork in Him.
• Milbank: A House Divided Along Twisted Lines
• Robinson: Ugly Politics at Justice | Q&A