In a country wherre 14 million people own an april lavigne album and berny mac is exported to the world, why do some people still wonder why al quaeda and other fundamentalist islamamentalists hate t

I hardly think so.

Bollocks. Either you're being ironic or you're Ariel Sharon.

as for the war on terror, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&c=4&s=greider

Think - you just want to kill. That's all you want to do. You come from the mountains of Afghanistan. You got to the next village and you blow that up. Simple, less hassle and home for tea. You don't go the bother of training to be a pilot, hijack a plane and crash it into NY!

How about an airport runway?

I bet it's a lot easier to say shitty things like that if you didn't know anyone who died, Nick. Because then it somehow doesn't affect you. Because nothing does, right? Above it all?

no, actually, forget it. I'll just go away from here for a little while. please, everyone, continue to make nasty "humorous" and "provocative" statements, so you can hear the sound of your own beautiful fascinating voices echoing around inside your heads.

1. Mother Nature.
2. Dirty water.
3. Suicide.
4. AIDS.
5. Cars.
6. Wars.
[...]
5,390,208. Terrorists.
5,390,209. April Lavigne albums.

Why, to kill as many (and terrorize as much) as possible of course.

The point I'm trying to make is the terrorists are not doing all this for the purpose of trying to *change* anything; they cannot be negotiated with. It's not the same as taking part in an anti-war demonstration, or marching for civil rights or even those groups that commit violence in the name of say, environmentalism. There is no "message" as Queen said upthread. The fundamentalists simply see us as the enemy, their religion says kill the enemy, and they do it.

This is why I can't understand Queen's assertion that picking less populated areas would have "gotten their message across better".

Hang on, isn't terrorism a subset of war?

always happy to help

I mean really it's like saying "if the terrorists wanted to really attack the beating heart of England, they'd attack Yorkshire"

The Fall of Public Man and The Civitas of Seeing.

"Masses of people are concerned with their single life histories and particular emotion as never before; this concern has proved to be a trap rather than a liberation," he wrote. Given that each self is "in some measure a cabinet of horrors, civilised relations between selves can only proceed to the extent that nasty little secrets of desire, greed or envy are kept locked up".

After 9/11, everywhere I went in New York seemed to be playing Radiohead -- the epitome of whiny emo suburban self-pity. Though Thom Yorke would no doubt be loathe to admit it, the terrorist attacks have boosted sales of this kind of music, which could be characterised as a kind of 'white flight' on the emotional level.

Momus, you obv agree w/ the guy already, because this kind of thing is unanswerable -- if you read it in the Sunday Times you'd spit it out. I mean, prove it. As for Radiohead, who I don't like, well I'd have thunk PJ Harvey's last LP, which won the Mercury Music Prize on the evening of 9/11 was the big whiny-emo album that autumn (Thom connection), but it's crazy to call it 'introverted', ie 'X would be better if they wrote songs about Y'.

Since I've been LiveJournalling this year (although using LiveJournal as a place for public life rather than private agonising) I've seen a lot of the 'concern with nast little secrets' Sennett talks about. And yes, PJ Harvey is another symptom of the same malaise. I agree with Sennett that the 'cabinet of horrors' is a kind of Pandora's Box. It doesn't really add much to public life to open that box in a public space, just clutters the agora with demons.

Richard Sennett's thing is to champion some aspects of the 60s -- the public actions of 1968, specifically -- while deploring others -- the Me Generation, Therapy and New Age cultures, etc -- perhaps you could say these were dilutions that happened in the 70s. And perhaps you could say that Sennett is championing an 18th century idea of the city (and of course both the French and American revolutions come out of that tight, dense urban world of coffee houses and public debate, the embrace of pluralism and equality), whereas Radiohead, New Age hippyism, even Therapy culture, come out of a more conservative, frightened 19th century Romanticism, a post-Rousseau notion that Nature is benign and the city corrupt. Let us wander, lonely as clouds, in SUVs, around our leafy suburban streets!

1968 is an interesting case in point: I think it's a kinda conservative reaction against Gaullist central planning: instead of living in the lovely left bank, students now have to inhabit these vile box-structures out in Nanterre. I sympathise with them, but *because* they were romantics, abhorring the forgetfulness embodied by the modern city, which builds over, represses, what's there. They liked a *certain form* of the city, perhaps.

Anyway, I have to go out into public space now! Or rather, transfer from this public space to the meatspace of an art gallery!

But: Merkin revolution: obviously conservative.
French revolution: well, liberal-conservative, then.
1968: it's a tough call. It isn't conservative, but it clearly is not comparable to definitely 'left-wing' revolutions like Cuba or Russia (good thing too). There was surely a conservative instinct at play, and the reaction of French intellectuals at Tel Quel etc to pop culture and the retreat to rarefied avant-gardism is effectively conservative in that no social revolution is going to happen w/out some engagement with the mass of people.

like, fer shure

It means that ppl enjoy art/entertainment, and if they have the financial resources to do so, they will pay money to obtain said art/entertainment. Yeah it would be great if the world could just stop for a minute and go "hang on, no more spending any wealth before we have this poverty/environment/diseases thing worked out", but that's never happened in any nation, and unless you don't own a single piece of pop culture in your home, or in fact any sort of commodity at all, you'll have to realise that, if you think the hatred is justified, it's just as justified against *you* as it is against Avril fans.

Mind you, if you want to establish Avril and Bernie Mac as symbolic of things Al-Quadea despises about western culture, go right ahead - I suspect that seen under this light, they're also symbolic of what I treasure the most in it (w/o much enjoying Avril musically, mind you.)

The second part was also as serious question - if those terrorists ever for one second happened to think about significant public edifices that would be more symbolic than WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pensylvania, without causing a loss of life but raising similar issues about US dominance/arrogance etc (again, I don't want to justify any of this), what might have happened?

It would've been less successful because a) it wouldn't have been a direct attack on the capitalist system, just a symbolic attack on some very ill-defined aspects of american cultural life; and b) the loss of lives hits people much harder than the loss of any beloved symbol.

Brooks: much talk of 'upper class', 'elite', 'leaders'.

Sennett: much talk of public life, pluralism, ethics.

"Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find 'no reason' to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were 'highly toxic' to humans and would cause death 'from asphyxiation.'"

Qur'an 8:7 "But God willed to justify the truth according to his words, and to cut off the roots of the unbeleievers"

Qur'an 8:59 "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): They will never frustrate (them).

Qur'an 8:60 "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of GOd and your enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know, but whom God does know. Whatever you spend in the Cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly."

Note "The immediate occasion of this injunction was the weakness of cavalry and appointments of war in the early fights of Islam. But the general meaning follows. In every fight, physical, moral or spiritual, arm yourself with the best arms against your enemy, so as to instil wholesome respect into him for you and the Cause you stand for."

Qur'an 9:5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" it goes on "But if they repent, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Notes: The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party shows no signs of desisting from their treacherous designs by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith"

Qur'an 2.191
actually, lets take 2.190 first "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not trangress limits, for God loveth not transgressors"
Now 2.191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse then slaughter.

Notes 191 : War is only permissable in Self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken it must be persued with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed : women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms."

notes 191: "This passage is illustrated by the events that happened at Hudaibiya in the sixth year of the Hijra, though it is not clear that it was revealed on that occasion. The Muslims were by this time a strong and influential community. Many of them were exiles from Mecca, preventing them from visting their homes, and even keeping them out by force from performing the pilgrimage during the universally recognized period of truce. This was intollerance, oppression and autocracy to the last degree, and the mere readiness of the Muslims to enfore their rights as Arab citizens resulted without bloodshed in an agreement which the Muslims faithfully observed. The Pagans, however, had no scruples in breaking faith, and it is unncessary here to go into subsequent event.

"In general, it may be said that Islam is the religion of peace, goodwill, mutual understanding and good faith. But it will not acquiesce in wrong-doing. And it'smen will hold their lives in defence of honour, justice, and the religion which they hold sacred. Their ideal is that of heroic virtue combined with unselfish gentleness and tenderness, such as is exemplified in the life of the Apostle. They believe in courage, obedience, discipline, duty, and a constant striving, by all the means in their power, physical, moral, intellectual, and spiritual, for the establishment of truth and righteousness. They know that war is an evil, but they will not flinch from it if their honour demands it and (a most imprtant condition) a righteous Imam (such as Muhammad was par excellence) commands it. For they know that they are not serving carnal ends. In other casesm war has nothing to do with their faith, except that it will always be regulated by humane precepts."

Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of the hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the hereafter."

Notes - "For the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to the circumstances, viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming or exilr. These were features of the Criminal Law then and for centuries afterwards, except that tortures such as 'hanging, drawing and quartering' in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practised in Arabia, and all such tortures, were abolished. In any case sincere repentancebefore it was too late was recognised as a ground for mercy."

weighing in on this, i'll point out that the yusuf ali translation is generally accepted as the authoritative english translation of the qur'an. (minding that a translation != the qur'an because the word of god is in arabic, not english or any other language)

???? but there aren't any newbies involved in this discussion, Dan! Queen G, as Suzy has mentioned, has been here for ages (or are you using the quotes here to indicate that you are aware of this, but think that most ILErs responding to the thread aren't? You *might* be right about that, but I don't think he's gotten that much more agression here than Momus has.)

(which sounds like classic scenester behaviour but never mind)

Sennett: much talk of public life, pluralism, ethics.

Gershwin: much talk of potato, po-tah-to, tomato, to-mah-to

sorry

But of course he does write fiction! He's written three novels. Victoria Glendinning cites this as a reason he isn't taken more seriously:

'His work isn't always as acknowledged as it should be because he's not just a sociologist but also a novelist, so his work doesn't fit into any easy slot. It is kind of uncategorisable and all the better for it.'

As Suzy has already noted, your parenthetical aside is correct. Furthermore, I am arguing that if Dave Q had posted this exact thread verbatim, people would have spoken to the core issues Queen G later explicitly stated almost from the get-go, or people would have at least asked for more clarification on what was meant by the original question before dismissing the topic.

But it goes both ways, you know: as a regular, Queen G should be pretty much aware that making a post where Avril Lavigne selling records (of all the artists that he could have chosen!) is shown as being some kind of reason (not justification, I know) for terrorists to hate America will raise some sparks on ILX.

This is not some sort of syndrome particular to ILX. This happens everywhere. People are inherently distrustful of people they know nothing about, in that if all you know about someone (be it a stranger on the street, or a random googler, or whatever) is one sentence they have uttered, then that's all you have to go on. Daniel_rf OTM.

'His work isn't always as acknowledged as it should be because he's not just a sociologist but also a novelist, so his work doesn't fit into any easy slot. It is kind of uncategorisable and all the better for it.'

oh, sorry - thanks for the info. i've never come across his novels. he's an interesting person. did you see he warned, in the sixties, of the coming Puritanism? and it's here.

i want to read his book on 'authority'.

thanks for giving me some ideas on summer reading material.