Young people want to be powerful and imitate those whom they read about in the newspaper. During George W. Bush’s presidency, whom have they read about in the paper? Osama bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, Zacarias Moussaoui, Abu Musab Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, and the list goes on. Nearly all of these guys are powerful take-charge ass-kickers. Unlike the Gangsta Rappers whom kids were imitating in the 1990s, the Muslims in Western newspapers don’t merely wave 9mm pistols out the windows of their SUVs. These guys actually do manage to kill the people they hate, often by the thousands.
If George W. Bush had delegated the pushing aside of Saddam to an underling in the State Department or Defense Department and never mentioned the words “Iraq” or “Saddam” in any speech he might not have glorified being a pissed-off Muslim to such an extent. But as it happens W. has given center stage to angry Muslims for the last three years. This might encourage older folks with a lot of property to protect to become fearful, vote Republican, and give up their civil liberties in exchange for security. But for young punks without much to lose one would think that the sight of all of these Arab bad-asses on TV would encourage them to convert to Islam and at least talk the talk if not actually walk the walk. (According to this International Herald Tribune article, it is already happening in France, especially in the prisons where more than 50% of the inmates are Muslim.)
This week’s New Yorker has a story on the Madrid train bombings. The article quotes a message posted by an Al Qaeda affiliate:
“We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections,” the authors write. Bush’s “idiocy and religious fanaticism” are useful, the authors contend, for they stir the Islamic world to action.
See http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040802fa_fact
The postulated “bad-ass” phenomenon is almost certainly true, but what might have happened if GWB wasn’t president? What would Gore have done?
terrorists kill “often by the thousands”? how about “occasionally by the thousands”.
Yeah, yeah, yeah… and Reagan was a boon to all the Marxists, and before that Churchill was a boon to the Nazis. Communism and National Socialism would have surely collapsed for lack of recruitment if only Carter and Chamberlain had been re-elected.
Ben:
Have you considered taking anger management classes?
Yep, Bush is aching for a fight and waging a crusade against islam will certainly get him one. Rather than a Napolean we need a Gandhi. This web site holds up India as a model to base world peace on (aside from the occaisional fundamentalist hoo-haa)
http://www.gerforum.org/home.html
To quote:
“To move toward such a future, the international community can draw on India’s centuries of experience of diverse communities of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and Buddhists living together in peace, and on India’s deep religious and Gandhian heritage of nonviolence.”
Oh right. India. Home of the annual Hindu-Muslim-death-by-the-thousands riots and occasional Pakistani-Indian war. Yes great example.
Phillips argument is so ridiclous, I wonder if I’m taking it too seriously.
The Hindu-Muslim riots in Gujarat have had less to do with tension between religious groups than they have to do with politicians attempting to revive chauvinistic beliefs for their own benefit.
In this case both Bush and his Islamic political counterparts are to blame for fanning the flames of aggression between religious groups.
They attempt to draw their consitiuencies around them through religious rehtoric and show little compassion for the victims of aroused sentiments.
I think your overall comment is on the right track… but Saddam as a “pissed-off Muslim”? Saddam may have nominally been a Muslim, but my understanding is that Iraq was more of a secular society than most in the Middle East. And “often by the thousands”? Perhaps “sometimes scores at a time” would be more appropriate?
Without the (unnecessary) hyperbole, I think you can make a powerful statement using this theme.