Terrorism? What Terrorism?
Another theory advanced by a particularly callous sect of academics involves the so-called “statistical argument.” Events such as 9/11 are dismissed as relatively infrequent and the casualty count, when set against the fatalities contingent upon standard, domestic, or “normal” misfortunes, is regarded as comparatively insignificant. Such a hypothesis, of course, is pure nonsense and is easily deflated. The statistics pertaining not only to traffic accidents but to alcohol-related deaths or even being struck by lightning, which are supposed to put terrorism in context, only reinforce a kind of dream world, a species of farcical irreality. This is the sort of surreal dimension inhabited, for example, by terror pundit and Columbia University professor Phillip Bobbitt, who, in his Terror and Consent, informs us that the number of terror deaths and bathtub drownings is “about the same.” Remember to strap on a scuba diving tank next time you take a bath.
As we can see, there is plainly no shortage of academics and faculty lounge debaters peddling chimeras, striving to minimize the very real danger we are in, and working to narcotize us into a state of political and cultural somnolence. Academic John Mueller, author of the rather fatuous Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We Believe Them, has recently jumped into the game, appearing on a panel at Ohio State University discussing Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in which, along with fellow professor John Quigley, he sought to further diminish the reality of the terrorist threat. Osama bin Laden, it turns out, is really a 21st-century anti-colonialist and the attack on the WTC was carried out by the American government. Interestingly, the panel was co-sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Our propitiating academics are the fortunate and voluntary exiles of our time, having left the rigors of real life behind and opted for life in an insular seminary of detached speculation, guaranteed by the tenure system. “It’s a bad situation,” writes Mark Bauerlein in MindingTheCampus.com. “The very system that academics invoke to fend off critics has become part of the problem. Ideological bias has seeped into the standards of professionalism. … Tenured professors enjoy their lifetime paychecks and proceed by professional habits … los[ing] touch with common sense and real-world implications.” I am reminded of those wonderful lines from the 18th-century poet Peter Pindar’s Laughing at the King:
For men (it is reported) dash and vapour
Less in the field of battle, than on paper.
Writing in FrontPage Magazine, Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, maintains that the professoriate must reform itself in order to combat the “continued public perception that the academy is intellectually monolithic” as well as “goofy and out of touch.” But this is far more than merely a “perception”; it is a blunt fact, especially, though not exclusively, in the humanities and the social sciences. And, naturally, the law faculties. Barack Obama, we recall, was once an academic, however obscure and of uncertain achievement. He too suffers the pathos of untested erudition, rebranding the “war on terror” as “overseas contingency operation.” Contingency? Overseas?
This out-of-touchness with the real world explains why law professors like Robert Chesney of Wake Forest University and Peter Margulies of Roger Williams University opposed the conviction of José Padilla (a.k.a. Abdullah al-Mujahir) for conspiring to commit terror, on the grounds that, although he was affiliated with a radical jihadist organization and supported terrorist operations, he had not yet committed an act of terrorism. Andrew Klavan wisely reminds us that “police work — like soldier work — doesn’t take place in the mind of a college professor.” Neither does world work.
As a character in the old spy-spoof sitcom Get Smart would exclaim, after witnessing the unbelievable asininities of the protagonist, “Ama-a-a-zing!” And it is indeed amazing. For the Maxwell Smarts of the academic world, it appears we must wait for people to die before we bestir ourselves to respond — and then, doubtlessly, to fold the casualty count into a statistical compilation that scumbles their significance. If this kind of thinking goes on for too long, the groves of academe will eventually turn into the graves of academe. For the world will not always be so obliging as to stop at the gates of the university.
Renowned Middle East authority Elie Kedourie had a credulous public in mind when he wrote in an article dating back to 1961 that, in the absence of exact and grounded knowledge, “the academic advising or exhorting action will most likely appear a learned fool, babbling of he knows not what.” What academics don’t “babble” about is equally troubling. Scarcely a word can be found in their voluminous tracts concerning the bellicose initiatives of the expanding terror cartel involving Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea, with America in the cross hairs. Too obvious, no doubt, for those who pride themselves on their subtlety to notice.
For all their supposed little grey cells, our academics are no Hercule Poirots, able to resolve the mysteries they confront. On the contrary, they are, on the whole, quite modestly equipped. It is perhaps not too farfetched an analogy to compare the modern liberal university to a nutrient vat of amphibious brains disconnected from reality and wired to a giant computer, taking the illusions they are fed for a transcript of the actual world. For the effectiveness of campus theories is approximately nil or, if anything, utterly counterproductive.
Let us listen to genuine thinkers, not university virtuosos. “We have entered another world,” writes André Glucksmann in City Journal. “The threat of Ground Zero, small or great, advances behind a mask. The human bomb claims the power to strike anywhere, by any means, at any time, spreading his nocturnal threat over the globe, invisible and unpredictable. … The terrorist without borders makes us think about him always, everywhere. … Each of us waits for the next explosion.” The general run of our academics and intellectual elites, however, lapped in their dolce far niente, wait instead for the next book deal, the next invitation to hold forth at learned conferences, the next promotion, the next CNN appearance, the next citation or award — and who knows, maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize. These are, for them, the real issues, as they continue, in Glucksmann’s words, “regilding the clocks of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land” and dispensing the bromides that “prove their innocence and comfort their fragile souls.”
“What, me worry?” Mad magazine’s cover mascot Alfred E. Neuman famously asked. The answer to that question today, at least for those who still have their heads on their shoulders and are not given to glib scholarly lucubrations, is: “Yes, worry, be very worried.”
Who said, ”Ideas so stupid only an intellectual could believe.” ???
I think it was George Orwell.
Academics, self-declared ”experts”, ivory-tower day-dreamers, have ZERO common sense. Political correctness smothers intellectual honesty, rational analysis based on evidence goes out the window. Politicians & journalists contribute to the disconnect with reality.
Physical and catastrophic terrorism is still potentially there. But now it behaves like earthquakes do. There are thousands of minor movements, but the major occurrences are been foiled by better intelligence and preventive measures.
I get the feeling that the aggressive political motivations of the jihadists have been reduced by lack of peer support and less financing. The hate is still there but maybe it’s becoming more personal and less politically structured. A mapping of the occurrences in the last year will hopefully support this theory. Unfortunately, the past is not the future . . .
I would argue that the incidence of Islamic terrorism is directly proportional to the extent to which the Koran is accessed and accepted as the word of Allah. The command to engage in Jihad is found therein and anyone who claims it’s about personal morality rather than imposing the faith upon infidels is clueless or a lying liberal.
Islamic terrorists like bin Laden have told us what motivates them. I’ll take their word over the fatuous theories of fatheaded professors who have found refuge from the real world.
It’s not surprising that Islamic terrorism is proportionally less in Europe than in America. Obviously, if you can get Sharia concessions without overt acts of terrorism you will take that route.
Wherever Islam is in charge human rights are in danger. The examples of these clueless professors excusing the horrific reality of Islam illustrates the fact that in some people the threat of terror is all that is required to provoke submission.
I must congratulate Muhammed for being clever enough to dress up his totalitarian political movement as a religion. It has made it immune to criticism from simple minded liberals.
Why anyone gives a rat’s tail what an academic says about anything is a mystery. University tenure represents the most sophisticated and lucrative form of welfare. If one believes that, “Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.” Then consder, “Those who can neither ‘do’ nor ‘teach’ become college professors.
Right Vivo. Wishful thinking and hope and change will keep you safe. After all, you don’t live in an earthquake zone, right? There’s an elephant in the room that many just do not want to acknowledge, let alone confront. Islam is and always has been the enemy of all that is not Islam. The ability to ignore the obvious is indeed astonishing. We should only be thankful that most people prefer to be secular and the majority of Muslims don’t take jihad that seriously.
95% of Americans have no clue about ISLAM and it’s genesis. Ignorance will be our downfall. Islam is a religion of the sword,and the first to go will be homosexuals and liberals when they (muslims) gain power. Good luck upper east side!
I agree entirely, Booker Gain. May I provide a horrible example? That would be the Rev. Jim Jones’s People’s Temple cult. Jones claimed to be (1) an atheist political philosopher and (1a) a Congregationalist minister; (2) black and (2a) a son of a father who belonged to the Ku Klux Klan; (3) a Communist and (3a) head of a private charity. He performed hoax miracles, even claiming to have raised people from the dead. His financial frauds were vast; his commune in Guyana was collecting $20,000 a month from the U.S. Social Security Administration, in the name of retired or disabled church members.
The people who helped him accomplish all this weren’t the illiterate ghetto dwellers who made up most of the church. They were intellectuals recruited from the colleges of California. The most prominent of them, Timothy Stoen, was just one year out of Stanford Law when he was plotting to murder religious columnist Lester Kinsolving for writing critically of Jones. They were proud of their opposition to what Jones called the racist, fascist United States. Just as you said of Mohammed, he dressed up his totalitarian political movement, complete with his own concentration camp, as a religion. And the simple minded liberals swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
@3. Booker T. Gain:
“…being clever enough to dress up his totalitarian political movement as a religion”
I agree, but you must then also give credit to Marx for dressing his crazy religion up as a political movement. I find the similarities amazing. Perhaps that is why Commies and Islam have gotten on so well over the years. Both Marx and Mo packaged their desire to rule as despots in a way that was palatable to the target audience. Too bad they didn’t get into marketing instead.
Our academic “elites” cannot see the threat for the same reason that they cannot see the political bias on their campuses. They think that their belief system is the only true way and are constantly reenforced in this thought by their peers. They will engage in endless rationalization to plaster over the facts, playing with numbers and words to draw a veil over their eyes, so as to avoid the reality that so avidly desires their destruction.
“Terrorism? What Terrorism?”
This happens to be an exact quote of W’s response to the CIA memo placed before him in Texas in Aug. ’01.
You could see this coming shortly after 9/11. The NY Times began running a number of articles about muslims in America and oh, the fright the delicate dears felt at a possible backlash from what just had to be bitter, ignorant, and violent Americans. Those cave men who lacked the sophistication of the Times and say, Maureen Dowd, and who might be disposed to vigilante violence.
From there is was a short step to where we are today, amply touched upon above.
The truly wise,[back to the NY Times] know who the real enemy is, the ones at home, whose party affiliation and/or political beliefs shall not blaspheme my lips.
For them the 1st Amendment is to be reviewed and perhaps massaged a bit, & not in their favor.
Enough, back to tolerating and understanding muslims, there being only so much tolerance to go around.
Bublio, 44, 4 real, are you actually quoting the evil Bush. What happened? Mao quotes suddenly out of fashion? At least, even if you are right and the context leads to your conclusion, the evil Bush changed his tune. Since this also happens to be Mr. Obama’s opinion, to the point that his admin won’t even call a … um … club a club but have come up with a stupid meaningless euphemism, what’s your point exactly. No, on second thought, don’t tell me. All you provide around here is background noise.
SAgeman, missed the fact of jihadism when he was deployed in Pakistan, two decades ago, hezoomed in on the original AQ cohort, but doesn’t include all the franchising efforts by Chechens, the GSFC, the various Lashkars, Uzbek
and other ethnic fronts
11. Thomas_L…..: “…Mr. Obama’s … admin won’t even call a … um … club a club….”
Ooooh, I get it! Funnneee! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge….
Dave, I think you’ve found your true audience.
#9 -
And how exactly, assuming your quote is true, does this excuse others from holding that same view after September ’01?
If you have a point, would you try to get to it?
#2 -
“Physical and catastrophic terrorism is still potentially there. But now it behaves like earthquakes do.” An unfortunate comparison, as minor movements do not rule out a catastrophic quake.
Cause now I’m a racist, right Booblio? You’d like us to think you’re a walking library but the stuff that feeds off of pond scum is brighter than you.
As long as the rudderless revisionists sneer at those who use, “Rami Ayyad” as a term to be put into a search engine, and they won’t do so; we will continue to see the willful blindness of those Accomplices to Evil.
9. biblio44:
biblio44 I cant find the quote you attribute to G. W. Bush.
But your great democrat Senator and President ‘hope to be’ John Kerry said:
Democrats consider them a ‘nuisance.’
Wonder how the family’s of those that have died/burned alive, decapitated,
feel about our resident Islamic nuisances?
algore is an expert at moving the goalposts. Fortunately for the rest of us, he has no defense and turns the ball over every other play on offense. So field goals and extra points don’t matter.
The fact is that even with a nuke the terrs are not a direct threat to destroy America. They can kill a lot of people, which is a drag, but in the long run not a national issue.
What the left has done is take that fact and stretch it into the non-fact that terrorists are harmless. They can be very harmful to citizens, even if they are not a threat to the nation.
Although if the Mad Dog Mullahs use a nuke on Moscow, the odds are that one of the Local Russian commanders would launch his nukes toward America once he realized why Moscow wasn’t answering the phone.
The last estimate I saw was that around 20% of the Soviet ICBM’s would actually make it to their target and explode. So while painful, that isn’t enough to be fatal to the nation.
Today’s news,
I believe John Kerry is from Massachusetts?
But nothing to see here-
/just move along,
they are nothing but a ‘Nuisance.’
Let me reiterate:
THE EUPHRATES RIVER IS DRYING UP.
There’s no ‘if’ the USA will be bombed, it’s a matter of when, where and how.
Blindness.
So much blindness.
I’ve found that many libertarians – Ron Paul types – often have the exact views as the left now.
“Oh, we caused 9/11 by being evil Jew supporting terrorists.”
“Islamic jihadists are freedom fighters who are reacting just as we would if Saudi Arabia had an Air Force base in America and if they meddled in our affairs.”
“I don’t care about the rights of muslim women. There’s some logic to their system and they choose to live that way.”
“Islamic jihadists targetting American civilians is no different than civilian casualties caused by U.S. air strikes.”
“Christianity and Judaism has just as many fanatics in it as islam does.”
“The patriot act is facist and needs to be ended without delay.”
“Islamic jihadists are no threat to the U.S. whatsoever. Our country is so big and they’re just a bunch of thugs.”
“We should go after using the police since they’re not a military threat. Or if we do use the military then it should be light like UAVs and NAVY SEALs.”
“9/11 was an inside job! It was an excuse for the Zionist neocons to invade the whole world and serve the bidding of Israel and violate the Constitution!”
“We can’t afford to syat in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should use the money here at home.”
“Bushy worshipper!”
Blah blah blah…
I hear that kind of crap all the time from the right and the left now. Gee, thanks Ron Paul. That’s quite the legacy you left on the American right. Now we’re all dangerously self-destructive moral relativists and conspiracy theorists.
The far right is becoming increasingly libertarian and so are right wingers in general. Being involved in two wars, being under constant threat of terrorist attacks, a failing economy and constant propaganda from both sides left and right who have similar idiotic views on islamofacism are a serious danger to Western Civilization.
I want to recommend that the Gitmo “detainees” that want to blow our freakin heads off…be sent to Massachusetts, to live next door the Kerry’s kids/ Or 1600 Penn ave…Obama’s kids could learn some new words.
Well, since they are not a “threat” it would be a cultural exchange type thing.
Holder and Gates are a disgrace to America, total socialists or worse.
#20.. Delia, INDEED YOU ARE RIGHT!!! the Euphrates is (being)drying up. It’s a real point of contention!!
The puzzle pieces are being put together one by one…Babylon, seven streams, Turkey’s project at Ataturk. I find it very interesting. Israel’s (temporary) defeat is yet to be seen
There’s terrorist in your back yard right now! OK, maybe not a terrorist, and maybe not right now, but it could happen. It could happen.
22. gracie,
As much as I think I’ve been preparing for the days to come, I know deep down I’m ill prepared.
I’m terrified.
In looking at the big picture, the percentage of islamists that hate us is huge. Is it as large as the population of the United States? If it is, we are still in deep dodo.
I’ll call a professor and have him call the police.
Having studied the Koran more than half a century past, having scanned it again while reading commentarists’ books, it’s as clear now as it was then.
The Koran is a civil code for warlordism than guarantees a favored few at the top with lots of women, and a massive reservoir of testosterone crazed young males soldiers at the bottom.
Throw in the deomographics (Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” is easy to read).
Yes, be afraid.
5. Thomas_L:
“Islam is and always has been the enemy of all that is not Islam.”
You need to read again what I wrote.
26. pelaut:
“a favored few at the top with lots of women, and a massive reservoir of testosterone crazed young males soldiers at the bottom.”
Sounds like the Project for the New American Century . . . or maybe The Crusades.
Vivo – Hate to break it to you ol’ buddy but I don’t read anything you write. I just catch it in my peripherals because I’m so much faster than you. Give it up! Here read mine again, however. The truth hurts.
“Islam is and always has been the enemy of all that is not Islam.”
This is the current official Department of Defense definition of terrorism: “TERRORISM — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
SOURCE: JP 1-02.
The Crusades? Please.
How about 300+ years of Islamic expansion by the sword? How about entire cites and tribes being slaughtered in the name of Allah? How about the modern day oppression non-Muslims in Muslim controlled nations?
Now and Then your ignorance is towering, in fact I’d say it competes with Obama’s ego.
95% of Americans have no clue about ISLAM and it’s genesis.
This.
If you asked most Americans about Mohammed, they would tell you “he was like Jesus for Muslims” if they even knew who the heck you were talking about at all. Their assumed idea of Mohammed is that he was like Jesus, Moses, or Siddhārtha Gautama when the reality is he was more like a Jim Jones or Charles Manson.
29. Thomas_L:
“Vivo – Hate to break it to you ol’ buddy but I don’t read anything you write. I just catch it in my peripherals because I’m so much faster than you.”
Uhhh?
The National Archives Building has a white chalk line drawn around the display of the Constitution; It appears to be a victim of a hit and run by the Obama administration.