I guess this is the kind of post I swore off, but I think this is an important meme to spread in the face of anti-Islamic hatred in this country: The real meaning of the arabic word Jihad.
Jihad is not a war to force the faith on others, as many people think of it. It should never be interpreted as a way of compulsion of the belief on others, since there is an explicit verse in the Qur'an that says:"There is no compulsion in religion" Al-Qur'an: Al-Baqarah (2:256).
So much of what Americans believe about the Islamic faith is wrong, as was much of what the terrorists believed about their own religion. [via the Wannabe]
I've been trying to live a normal life, to relax, to stop worrying about things far beyond my control, but my mind keeps turning back to Tuesday's hell on earth. Everywhere I turn, someone's got their own interpretation of events or opinion on what we should do. I've got my own ideas that I'd like to express, and normally, this would be my place to do so.
But it's all coming together as inchorent noise, from the TV news that can't step away from an event this Important evne though they have no new information to contribute, to the little websites like mine with personal perspectives. Maybe I need to write something, for myself, to help pull my own jumbled thoughts together, but I don't think I can do anyone else any good by posting it here. The most I can do, at this point, is to stop adding to the noise over Tuesday's horrors, and suggest that others do the same.
Not that I'll stop posting anything else I feel like, whether my own little obsessions or the latest meme that's floating around the net.
P.S. I'm sure there are people who have some real information to provide or real experiences to share. All I'm asking is to think about whether you're adding signal or noise.
Actually, Pete, I don't know which spammers are worse: The ones ripping off those who wish to contribute to victims of terrorism, or the ones equating anti-spam advocates with terrorists.
Some movies, TV shows, etc. will be changed or delayed, as I mentioned before, to reflect changing attitudes about terrorism or in consideration of the feelings of those hurt by the disasters. Others will be changed because their settings no longer exist.
In these terrible times, it's good to watch the tech community put its problems aside, and supply what we were all so desperately short of: plenty of wild unsolicited opinions.
Ow. After the last few days of reading people's accounts and opinions of Tuesday's events, contibuting to the endless spewing on MeFi, and venting my own feelings on this very site, I fear that NTK is, as usual, brutally close to the truth.
Still, this weblog has become a useful way for me to deal with my own thoughts and feelings; in writing them down for an audience (no matter how small, or even imaginary) I have to consider my opinions more carefully to put them in words. So I'll probably continue my own mumblings here, mostly for my own benefit; please feel free to ignore me. (As if you didn't already.)
Most of the major broadcast and cable networks are changing their programming in response to Tuesday's act of terrorism. Networks are replacing terrorist-themed movies for the next week or so. The new series "The Agency" is replacing its series opener, which would have featured a terrorist bombing. Even the seemingly innocuous Food Network swapped episodes of "Good Eats" last night; the scheduled rebroadcast of Mission: Poachable would have revolved around a "culinary terrorist" whose "plan is to contaminate the city's water with court bouillon."
I went to the comic book shop yesterday, mostly for the sake of doing something normal and routine. I don't usually buy Superman, but for some reason, I decided to take a look at it. There's been a major crossover in DC Comics over the last month or so, especially the Superman titles, where Earth has been under attack by an alien enemy. This latest issue (which was printed sometime last week at the latest) deals with the reconstruction after the invasion.
On the second page, there was a picture of twin high-rise towers with holes blown in them; when I saw it, all the fear and sorrow that I've been holding back over the last couple of days came to the surface. I just fell to my knees and shook for a minute.
Now, this wasn't meant to be the World Trade Center; the towers were side-by-side instead of corner-to-corner like the WTC, and the caption read "Metropolis". But the image of the wrecked twin towers was just too much for me coming from a fictional source instead of the real-world images to which I've been numbing myself.
(Yes, I've posted this elsewhere, but I intended all along to mention it here.)
Robert Wright suggests a scenario in which the U.S. joins together with other nations in a coordinated response against terrorists and those who harbor them:
Consider an alternative. Bush declares that the Afghan government is morally obliged to turn Bin Laden over and that, if it doesn't, it will risk military attack and occupation—and its leaders will themselves risk being either killed or put on trial for complicity in murder. He asks for support from the international community—including military support from NATO in the event of a war with Afghanistan. And he puts all of this in the proper rhetorical context: He is not just retaliating, but rather setting the kind of precedent that the entire world needs to set as we approach an age when terrorists will have nuclear and biological weapons.
In all likelihood, Bush would get military backing from NATO, and, more generally, sufficient international support to help turn the entire exercise, however bloody, into a precedent of lasting value. (Note: If he wants to avoid the bloodshed, he could whisper this threat to the Taliban before announcing it to the world; once public, the threat becomes psychologically and politically harder for Afghan leaders to succumb to.) In fact, as Anthony Lewis suggested this morning (in a column that was a paragon of reason in the face of crisis and nicely counterbalanced Safire's column on the other side of the op-ed page), Bush should seek forceful support from the United Nations; Russia and China, as Lewis noted, have no interest in sustaining terrorism.
For all our wealth and technology, the United States is but one nation, with a mere 4% or so of the world's population. No matter how powerful and terrible our unilateral response, I doubt it will convince committed terrorists that they can't destroy or neutralize us eventually. If, on the other hand, they find the people of the world joined together, and every man's hand turned against them, their hopes become even smaller. [via MeFi] Update: Here's the Anthony Lewis column that was mentioned.
I just want to repeat a comment I made on MetaFilter about an appropriate degree of retaliation.
...all the talk of "paving" Afghanistan sickens me. Let's assume for a moment that Osama bin Laden, perhaps even with the tacit approval of the Taliban, is behind this attack. (I agree that's the most likely case, but I hesitate to jump to conclusions.)
Even if action against the Taliban is justified, there are many people in Afghanistan who are victims of the Taliban's oppressive regime as well. Think of all the women being denied basic human rights because the Taliban's interpretation of the Koran makes them second-class citizens. Think of the religious minorities in the nation forced to wear identifying badges. Think of the desparate refugees on that ship that no one would allow to dock last month, and of all those trapped in Afghanistan who would still jump at such a slim hope of escape. Think of the rebel guerrillas still fighting to overthrow the Taliban regime as recently as their attack on Kabul yesterday. Do all of these people deserve our wrath as well?
I understand that if we choose to take military action against the Taliban, innocent civilians will die; while it saddens me, I accept that hard truth. But an act of pure, indiscriminate destruction against an entire nation would be as great an evil as the cowardly attack we witnessed yesterday.
I am sick to my heart of all the xenophobes who want to slaughter anyone with the wrong skin color, or the wrong religion, or who live in the wrong place, for revenge.
Patience is now the hardest thing. Patience is now the most necessary thing. The danger is that our retaliation will be rapid, scattershot and partial. That would be disastrous. Our response, when it comes, should be accurate, convincing and complete.
All we know is that if you have a small group of people with skills obtained in the civilian world and a lot of commitment, they can (temporarily) bring down the first world's financial system, transportation system, the US military and all three branches of the US government. And probably all for a very low price.
