Carl Davidson – 11/16/15

This page was last updated on November 19, 2015.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY; Carl Davidson; Facebook; November 16, 2015.

Carl Davidson (KD): “THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: Why isn’t it a good idea to tag ISIS as ‘radical Islamist terrorism,’ as all the right wing pundits and candidates are demanding? Look at it this way. Would it be a good idea to define the KKK as ‘radical Christian terrorists?’ No, it only makes a muddle of what they are about. Would the KKK consider it a plus to be named ‘radical Christian terrorists? My guess is that they would, and see it as a back-handed political victory. ISIS, technically speaking, is a subset of a very small minority within a wider Sunni Islam called ‘Salaafists.’ If you want to name them accurately, that’s what it is. And note that ‘wars’ are largely fought and finally won politically, not just with ‘boots on the ground.’”

Regarding the KKK, history tells us “radical Democrat terrorists” would be a lot more accurate.  As you’ll read below, earlier this year KD used the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) instead of the KKK.

Even if it were true “that ‘wars’ are largely fought and finally won politically, not just with ‘boots on the ground,’” among the obvious exceptions would be the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I & II, and the China Civil War.  While politicians are involved at the end when a war is lost/won, it’s usually because at least one of the belligerents surrenders and/or recognizes his cause is lost and continuing the war is pointless.

For whatever reason, KD wants his followers to believe “right wing pundits and candidates” came up with the term “radical Islamist terrorism” and its variants and is offensive to Muslims.  I just did a quick review of a handful of Middle and Far East news websites.  Though it may not have been a statistically-correct sample size, it appears the Middle and Far East refers to ISIS and its ilk as Islamists, and they generally don’t use the “radical” modifier to soften it.  I look forward to KD telling Middle and Far East Muslims the correct way to refer to Islamists.  Two of KD’s go-to “news” outlets, Russia Today (funded by the Russian government) and teleSUR (funded by the governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Venezuela, also use Islamist.

So, why is KD set on getting us to substitute “Salafist” for Islamist when the rest of the world thinks Islamist is correct?  KD isn’t a stickler for accuracy, so I’m guessing it’s about politics and in a way that would hurt the U.S.  The economic and political power of Salafis/Wahhabis – most of whom are not terrorists - is concentrated in the Persian Gulf (PG) oil states.  Perhaps KD thinks using his terminology would stress our relations with the PG states and push us to “green energy.”

KD and I discussed this topic back in January on the Beaver County Times website.  KD started the discussion in a comment about a letter-to-the-editor entitled “Jews have more to fear than Muslims.”  Below is the entire thread.

===

carldavidson posted at 7:37 am on Tue, Jan 13, 2015.

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in this world, Mr. Thompson. Would you blame them all? If so, what is to be done with them? A new round of Crusades? Those in the past solved nothing.

“Here in our country, we have outfits like the Westboro Baptist church performing outrages in the name of Christianity, picketing the burials of soldiers. Do we hold all Christians responsible?

“I think not. The current round of outrages in the Islamic world are carried out by Salifists, a minority within a minority among the Sunni. We would do well to narrow the target in our understanding of what is going on.”

sdcox posted at 3:04 pm on Tue, Jan 13, 2015. (In case you’re wondering about “sdcox,” our household BCT subscription is my brother’s.)

Mr. Davidson once referred to Salafis (aka Wahhabis) as “a teeny offshoot sect” of Islam, likes to compare the WBC with Salafis, and asks “Do we hold all Christians responsible” for WBC acts?

Most of us know Salafis by the name Wahhabi, though some say they are not 100% synonymous.  According to Wikipedia, “22.9% of all Saudis are Salafis (concentrated in Najd), 46.87% of Qataris, and 44.8% of Emiratis are Salafis.  5.7% of Bahrainis are Salafis and 2.17% of Kuwaitis are Salafis.”  22.9% of Saudis, 46.87% of Qataris, and 44.8% of Emiratis is not exactly “a teeny offshoot sect” when you factor in geographic proximity, political power, and economic power.

According to Wikipedia, WBC “consists primarily of members of his [the late Fred Phelps] extended family; in 2011, the church stated that it had about 40 members.”  “40 members” is “a teeny offshoot sect.”  No Baptist denominations recognize WBC.  Christian denominations universally denounce WBC.  That makes sense given WBC teachings and WBC appears to denounce all Christian denominations.  When WBC tries one of its protests, I’ll go out on a limb and guess most of the counter protesters are Christians.

As despicable as the WBC is, it’s dishonest to compare it with Islamic terrorists.  While WBC “outrages” (mostly protests, speeches, etc.) are vile, they are nonviolent.  On the other hand, “outrages … carried out by Salifists” kill people, usually in bunches.

Should we blame all Muslims for the actions of “a minority within a minority among the Sunni?”  No.  Should we expect followers of a religion to do all they can to weed out those who kill in the name of that religion?

Robin Cox

carldavidson posted at 3:35 pm on Tue, Jan 13, 2015.

“Mr Cox, as you somewhat suggest, not all Wahabis are Salaafists. And the Wahabis are still a minority within Islam.

“And the same source you use also notes that the Salaafists divide into three, with only one into violent ‘jihad.’

“So they are a minority within a minority within a minority--and as I’m sure you know, Islam spreads across many continents and countries globally, not just in the Emirates or the land of Saud, encompassing 1.2 billion people.

“Muslims around the world have frequently made the point of their opposition to this sect. I would agree that the main force to put the ISIL and its allies out of business should come from within the Islamic world. If the former ‘Crusaders’ take on the main task, it’s likely to cause more problems than it solves, as we can see from the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.

“The numbers of the Phelps cult are indeed small, and perhaps I could have picked a larger fundamentalist cult to make my point. But the WBC outfit is more widely known, and I think the point still stands, ie, just as you can’t blame all Christians for them, you can’t blame all Muslims for the Salafist Jihadis.”

sdcox posted at 8:15 pm on Tue, Jan 13, 2015.

Mr. Davidson, I did not intend to “somewhat suggest, not all Wahabis are Salaafists.”  Though they got there from different beginnings (the not 100% synonymous I meant), they appear to have the same beliefs today.  That said, I’m not an Islamic theologian.  Yes they are small in number compared to 1.2 billion (though even 0.5% would be 6 million), but you ignored the point I made about their economic and political power and their concentration in an area that provides them operational freedom they would not have if evenly dispersed throughout the worldwide Muslim population.

You liken the Iraq War to the Crusades though you know that’s another bogus comparison.

Since you’ve had time to think, what current “larger fundamentalist cult” than WBC with actions, numbers, and wealth comparable to Islamic jihadis could you pick to make your point?  As I wrote previously, “Should we blame all Muslims for the actions of ‘a minority within a minority among the Sunni?’  No.  Should we expect followers of a religion to do all they can to weed out those who kill in the name of that religion?”  What if they don’t or are ineffective?

Robin Cox

carldavidson posted at 7:12 am on Wed, Jan 14, 2015.

“Since no Christian cult have access to oil wealth, stolen or otherwise, I don’t think we’re going to find an exact analogy, Mr, Cox. Analogies never are. But the ‘Christian Identity’ groups come to mind, as well as the Christian Reconstructionists and the Dominionists.

“I don’t think the point about Iraq is far off. We certainly didn’t invade that country to get rid of WMD, but more under the NeoCon delusion that the US superpower would remake the Middle East more to its liking and, to a degree, in defense of Israel or ‘The Holy Land.’ Al-Quada effectively made use of this blunder to call us ‘Crusaders’.

“In any case, my main point here is to narrow the target, and oppose those, like Sen Graham, calling for a ‘War of Civilizations’ or a ‘religious war’. Wouldn’t you agree?”

sdcox posted at 1:01 pm on Wed, Jan 14, 2015.

Mr. Davidson, you can have your opinion about the purpose of the Iraq War.  I’ll stick with the Iraq War Resolution (link below).

As for Sen. Graham, you know he did not call “for a ‘War of Civilizations’ or a ‘religious war’.”  What Mr. Graham said was, “I have no idea why the president of the United States won’t call this a religious war when the president of Egypt does.  Our strategy to combat radical Islam is failing.”  Mr. Graham was referring to a speech given by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in late-December and on New Year’s Day 2015 (link below).  You’ll note Mr. Graham was also referring to your “narrowed target,” “radical Islam.”

Here’s an excerpt from the speech: “It has reached the point that [this ideology] is hostile to the entire world. Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion [Muslims] would kill the world’s population of seven billion, so that they could live [on their own]? This is inconceivable. I say these things here, at Al-Azhar, before religious clerics and scholars. May Allah bear witness on Judgment Day to the truth of your intentions, regarding what I say to you today. You cannot see things clearly when you are locked [in this ideology]. You must emerge from it and look from outside, in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology. You must oppose it with resolve. Let me say it again: We need to revolutionize our religion.  Honorable Imam [the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar], you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4704.htm

Robin Cox

carldavidson posted at 7:22 am on Thu, Jan 15, 2015.

“You make my point, Mr. Cox. Sen Graham criticizes Obama for not calling the campaign vs ISIL and others a ‘religious war.’ If Obama were to do so and engage in such a war, how would the US do so? Practically speaking, it would have to be Christianity vs Islam, since all the forces capable of waging such a ‘war’ in the US are largely secular or Christian. And the fact that many leader from within the Islamic world are speaking up against the Salafist minority in religious terms also makes my point. The defeat of ISIL and its ilk is best done by Muslims themselves. The US might help indirectly, but direct engagement tends to create more problems than it solves.”

sdcox posted at 12:50 pm on Thu, Jan 15, 2015.

Mr. Davidson, if pointing out you lied about what Mr. Graham said/meant “make[s] your point,” I’m glad to help.  I think most people know acknowledging you’re in a “religious war” is not the same as calling for one.  Though they would end up the spoils of war, currently-non-Muslim land and wealth are not the goals of the enemy.  The enemy wants to convert, enslave, or kill non-Muslims and is in a “religious war” with us whether we call it that or not.  Acknowledging we’re in a “religious war” doesn’t have to mean our motivation is the same as our enemy.  We saw that in WWII; our motivation was not the same as Nazi Germany’s.  We should, however, acknowledge the enemy’s motivation.  Mislabeling usually doesn’t end well.

If “many leader from within the Islamic world are speaking up against the Salafist minority in religious terms” were true, Mr. Al-Sisi’s comments before Islamic clerics would have been unremarkable.  Instead, the prevalent reaction – at least among non-Muslims – is along the lines of “thank God someone of import in the Muslim world appears to get it and appears willing to take a stand.”  It will be awhile before we know if Mr. Al-Sisi’s words garner widespread support and – more importantly – positive action among Muslims.

I think most people would agree “The defeat of ISIL and its ilk is best done by Muslims themselves,” but to date that hasn’t happened, whether it’s al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, Jemaah Islamiyah, Taliban, and so on.  Do you have an “enough is enough” point?  If so, what is it?

Robin Cox

carldavidson posted at 11:46 am on Fri, Jan 16, 2015.

“Mr Cox, I understand that the Salafist fascist gangs would like to claim ‘religious war’ for their criminal endeavors. My argument is that we should not grant them the point. It only adds to their stature, not ours.”

sdcox posted at 11:43 am on Sun, Jan 18, 2015.

Mr. Davidson, does this mean you’re going to stop using their language that refers to us as “Crusaders?”

Robin Cox

In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g> 

© 2004-2015 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.