114 Suras

February 11, 2005 8:18 AM

"He knew he was saying dangerous things." In a calmed Amsterdam following a recent explosion of ethnic violence, 1000 radical Muslims stand by.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket (105 comments total)

Re: Your first link, "This Article is Available to Subscribers Only."
posted by sohcahtoa at 8:32 AM on February 11, 2005

Calling Mr. Mcgraw. Paging mcgraw...
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:33 AM on February 11, 2005

"Thanks for letting us into your country-- ours are shitholes. Now play by our rules."

If someone does you a favor and gives you a chance to live life without waking up and finding bugs in your hair, you're obligated to behave yourself. But I'm willing to bet that the Dutch goverment has shot itself in the foot by erecting steep barriers to deporting the troublemakers.

sohcahtoa, get the bugmenot plugin.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:34 AM on February 11, 2005

when pim fortuyn was assassinated by a by a dutch animal rights activist no one suggested that animal rights activists should be deported.
posted by three blind mice at 8:40 AM on February 11, 2005

the New Republic link is also a reg. bug site. Bugmenot is helpful, but a little warning is appreciated on those.

When Timothy McVey and his buddies blew up a federal building, I don't remember a rush to imprision rednecks.
posted by inthe80s at 8:44 AM on February 11, 2005

There was a crackdown on militias though.
posted by fshgrl at 8:48 AM on February 11, 2005

When Timothy McVey and his buddies blew up a federal building, I don't remember a rush to imprision rednecks.

Imprison? The Feds preferred to kill them. Why would they soften?
posted by trharlan at 8:56 AM on February 11, 2005

When Timothy McVey and his buddies blew up a federal building, I don't remember a rush to imprision rednecks.

Tell that to Richard Jewell.

I do recall an awful lot of "Crazy Hicks In The Hills Are Coming To Get You!" hype for months afterwards.
posted by jonmc at 8:57 AM on February 11, 2005

when pim fortuyn was assassinated by a by a dutch animal rights activist no one suggested that animal rights activists should be deported

Back to their vegan caliphate?
posted by felix betachat at 8:58 AM on February 11, 2005 [1 favorite]

None of the bugmenot ids seem to be working for me (it is a paid subscription site after all).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:01 AM on February 11, 2005

When John Lennon was assassinated, I don't remember anyone suggesting that overweight white males who wear glasses be shot dead on sight. See the double standard? Long live the magical brown people!!
posted by shoos at 9:02 AM on February 11, 2005

Tell that to Richard Jewell.

He was a security guard. Was he considered a "redneck" by the media? I didn't get that vibe. I got more a white-collar-slob flavor from the way that whole incident was reported.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:03 AM on February 11, 2005

Where's mcgraw to save the day?
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:04 AM on February 11, 2005

I didn't think it was pay-for when I first checked the link, sorry for the inconvenience.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:06 AM on February 11, 2005

He was a security guard. Was he considered a "redneck" by the media?

A white security guard from Georgia pretty much sums up the negative redneck stereotype that much of the country and the media holds of rural whites. So "white collar snob," is accurate and a nice summation of some post-McVeigh phenomena.
posted by jonmc at 9:09 AM on February 11, 2005

Other Dutch, in addition to Van Gogh, who've dared to address the problem of radical Islam in the Netherlands have suffered predictable results:

From WaPo:

Sometimes the threats come by e-mail. Other times, warnings show up on Internet chat sites. Occasionally they are short video clips. The latest has a soundtrack of Arabic song and automatic-weapons fire, and a photograph of the intended target -- a Dutch lawmaker, Geert Wilders.

"He is an enemy of Islam and he should be beheaded," the narrator of one video clip posted on the Internet says in Arabic, against the crackle of gunfire. Behead him, "and you will earn a place in paradise."

From IHT:

Can angry young Muslims dictate what is and is not acceptable in the traditionally open-minded world of Dutch arts? In the past few weeks, it appears, the answer has been yes.

The main film festival in the Netherlands, now going on in Rotterdam, canceled a short documentary denouncing violence against Muslim women that was made by Theo van Gogh, who was killed in early November. An Islamic militant is accused of the crime.

The film's producer said he pulled the film on the advice of the police after receiving threats.

Sad that Dutch police's idea of standing up to terrorists was to cancel the production.

And the "b-b-b-b-but Timothy McVeigh" thing is wearing really, really thin as an answer to what's happening with radical Islam right now across the world. Continue citing that same example of domestic 'redneck' terrorism while a simple Google search will neatly provide another hundred of the jihad variety.

me stops posting, remembering how unfashionable it is to criticize terrorists and not BushHitler
posted by dhoyt at 9:10 AM on February 11, 2005

While there may be worse things than fanatical American Christians, I'm still afraid to wear a T shirt mocking Christianity in public: someone might get "justifiably offended" by my exercise of free speech and "punch [me] in the nose". But if I object to all the pro-Jesus bumper stickers and such they'll accuse me of "persecuting religion".

I can happen here -- it does happen here.
posted by davy at 9:13 AM on February 11, 2005

Wow. Great. A couple of Timothy McVeigh references, a link to an article condemning Clinton for Ruby Ridge and Waco, and tongue-in-check BusHitler reference. This thread really does have it all. It's enough to make me wish Matt would unban 111, and see what this thread can really do.
posted by psmealey at 9:14 AM on February 11, 2005

And the "b-b-b-b-but Timothy McVeigh" thing is wearing really, really thin as an answer to what's happening with radical Islam right now across the world. Continue citing that same example of domestic 'redneck' terrorism while a simple Google search will neatly provide another hundred of the jihad variety.

This was sweeped under the carpet, dhoyt.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:15 AM on February 11, 2005

Hey davy, pipe up when the evangelicals are stabbing people in the streets.

Until then, be quiet while grown-ups are talking.
posted by felix betachat at 9:15 AM on February 11, 2005

I gotta go with Alex on this one, dhoyt. While Jihadists are far more active and destructive at the moment, ati-government/white-supremacist/extreme PsuedoChristian groups that produce shitstains like McVeigh, Eric Rudolph and the assholes who murdered Alan Berg out in Denver are not to be taken lightly.

For the sake of moral consistency, I condemn and loathe both groups and hope they either wither up and blow away in the wind or get their just desserts some other way. But I also realize that niether group developed in a vacuum, and that various cultural, economic and political factors allow them to continue to flourish, and those must be addressed to prevent them from attaining critical mass in the future.
posted by jonmc at 9:23 AM on February 11, 2005

When John Lennon was assassinated, I don't remember anyone suggesting that overweight white males who wear glasses be shot dead on sight. See the double standard? Long live the magical brown people!!

See, the problem with that tired comparison is obvious-- unless you're in the tinfoil hat club, Lennon was shot by a lone paranoid. Timothy McVeigh was a cretin with 3 friends and a bunch of sympathizers who seem to lack his initiative. Chapman and McVeigh were not part of some network with deep connections that exploits foreign governments' immigration laws all over the world. Skin color isn't the issue here-- it's just a technique to make people who disagree with you look ugly. Don't be Karl Rove.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:26 AM on February 11, 2005

...pipe up when the evangelicals are stabbing people in the streets.

No, some of them encourage their brethren to hang out in bluffs with sniper rifles, instead.

Until then, be quiet while grown-ups are talking.

Indeed!
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:27 AM on February 11, 2005

dhoyt, most acts of domestic terrorism in the US are not committed by Muslims. McVeigh is brought up a lot simply because his act of terrorism was fairly recent, quite famous, and had a high body count. If you want me to link to a few hundred other acts of US non-Muslim terrorism over the years, I will, although I'd find it tedious.
posted by kyrademon at 9:27 AM on February 11, 2005

But obviously the crackpot militias in America bear no resemblence--in either organizational ability or success rate of attacks--to Islamic terrorists. Alex cites one example in a year in which we saw how many Islamic terrorist attacks throughout the world? You'll also note that our militias are not exporting themselves to Germany or Dubai to wreak havoc. American militias are not composed of the sharpest tools in the shed and are not bound by a unifying philosophy or religion. We should be wary of them, to be certain, but they do not pose anywhere near the sort of threat as Islamic terrorists.
posted by gsh at 9:28 AM on February 11, 2005

The 1,000 figure is less shocking when put into the context of other numbers involved.

1,000,000 muslims in The Nethelands.
1,000 considered "radical" (criteria for this definition unknown)
"Several dozen" prepared to use violence.

All of this from a single source with a clear interest in hyping a threat.

dhoyt: My concern is that lately it has become vogue to use criticism of terroism as an excuse for anti-Muslim bigotry. So it's helpful to point out now and then that terrorists are a minority among a minority.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:30 AM on February 11, 2005

It's sad and ironic that the Netherlands has become the front line for this, since it was ethno-religious plurality there which helped put spark to the tinder of the Enlightenment. I would imagine that it's this reputation for pluralism in the Netherlands and the US that provides a major impetus for religious fanatics of both stripes.

That said, American extremists are mostly isolated and laughable. Muslim fanatics, by contrast, are starting to crystallize around a coherent ideology which aims to destabilize and displace western democracies. The Dutch are dropping the ball and the US isn't helping. There's got to be a middle path between passivity and invasion.
posted by felix betachat at 9:34 AM on February 11, 2005

I don't quite get the why liberals are so supportive of fundementalist islam. Even when nonviolent, Fundi islam is opposed to everything you belive in.

I mean, if you belive we should respect religious and cultural diffrences, how can you promote something that seeks to destroy other religions and cultures?
posted by delmoi at 9:36 AM on February 11, 2005

This link should let you guys get at the TNR article without registering (maybe).
posted by kickingtheground at 9:37 AM on February 11, 2005

Gsh, felix, we still don't know who sent the anthrax letters in 2002, but the evidence suggests it was not Islamic terrorists. Much suspicion is placed on former military personnel, either serving officers or researchers. Given the targets, it seems to imply something about what person or group sent the anthrax.

Of all the countries in the world, only the United States and the former Soviet Union had sanctioned, known chemical and biological warfare programs. Other countries, such as apartheid South Africa, worked on these in secret, with the assistance of our respective governments.

It is no stretch of imagination to put together disgruntled white people in the military, access to these compounds, and skilled knowledge of their use. I'm more scared of nutball Americans in my own country than OBL, frankly.

Check out the ADL if you want to educate yourself on white supremacist groups and ties to militias and evangelical groups. It's scary stuff, and more widespread than you'd like to admit.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:38 AM on February 11, 2005

MC: that was my attempt at tongue in cheek.
posted by shoos at 9:38 AM on February 11, 2005

"Laughable", felix betachat? I'm sure that, say, all the abortion doctors who have been killed find American extremists simply hilarious.

And delmoi, I'm supportive of freedom of religion, not funadmentalist islam per se.
posted by kyrademon at 9:39 AM on February 11, 2005

I don't quite get the why liberals are so supportive of fundementalist islam.

I've met very few who I'd describe as actually "supportive," of Islamic fundies, and most I know actively deride them. It just that in times of understandable anxiety, innocents get caught up in the web and that is 1)wrong in and of itself and 2)adds fuel to the fire of people like Bin Laden's paranoid fantasies. IIRC, post Ruby Ridge there was something of a spike of interest in far right activity, and that's not unconected to the government's actions there.

On preview: I wouldn't call the Extreme Right (or the Extreme Left for that matter) "laughable" but their definitely not as well organized as the Jihadists. And (and this is key) the overwhelming majority of American do not find their organizations to be attractive options, for a variety of reasons.
posted by jonmc at 9:44 AM on February 11, 2005

Alex, kyra: I guess I'm not concerned because I think that the radical right in the US is about at the limits of its influence right now.

In the Muslim world, though, the radicals command a quiet groundswell of support, financial and emotional. This is post-colonial politics with a jihadi face. Bin Laden and Co. are able to represent themselves as a viable alternative to Western Imperialism by capitalizing upon seething resentment among even secular nationalist Arabs.

Read Ajami's Dream Palace of the Arabs and you'll get a sense for precisely how the jihadis are different from our home-grown wackos.
posted by felix betachat at 9:46 AM on February 11, 2005

This link should let you guys get at the TNR article without registering (maybe).

Sorry, didn't work.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:49 AM on February 11, 2005

Where's mcgraw to save us?
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:54 AM on February 11, 2005

Chapman and McVeigh were not part of some network with deep connections that exploits foreign governments' immigration laws all over the world.

fair enough, mr. mayor, but volkert van der graaf, 32, founder of the Zeeland Animal Liberation Front WAS part of an international network of people who ARE arguably engaged in terrorist acts.
posted by three blind mice at 10:10 AM on February 11, 2005

I would imagine that it's this reputation for pluralism in the Netherlands and the US that provides a major impetus for religious fanatics of both stripes.

I think you and others are somehat overhyping the cogency of radical islam's message and reach. It is an empty message that appeals in whole to few people besides young, out-of-work losers with nowhere to go and nothing to do, much like other radical movements all over the world. There is nothing 'special' or particularly threatening about it (with some caveats). The problems in the Netherlands are at their heart assimilation/ethnic problems-- the same problems which Europe, with its two-faced immigration program (move here, work, but for god's sake don't live next to me or marry my daughter), has been dealing with for decades. The problem is that now outside forces are trying to influence the young and disaffected and spur them into violent action. The #1 solution for this problem is a re-examination of the immigration system coupled with efforts by the state to take care of the mess they've made with their borderline racist policies and attitudes.

Also, a note on tolerance. Is there a more overhyped value in the world today? Tolerance means you just barely 'tolerate' someone's existence, which is about as far from acceptance as you can get without kicking someone in the face. In America, we don't have tolerance, you are either an American or you're not. We don't import masses of immigrants, then give their children welfare and free housing so they can sit around, bored as shit, and think of radical ideas against those who won't look them in the eye in the street, but 'tolerate' them. Hey, I was born here, thanks for 'tolerating' my exisitence!

Dutch liberalism is a myth. In reality, the Dutch were some of the world's most oppresive colonial masters, and their current system of 'toleration' has created an undercurrent of resentment and racism in the local population, and confusion and anger in the immigrant one. Short-sighted policies coupled with ridiculous quasi-socialism have created a disaffected community which needs to be more then just tolerated for it to work. All told, though, 1,000 radicals is nothing in the scheme of things. You could whip that many people into a racist frenzy at your typical Ajax match.

Read Ajami's Dream Palace of the Arabs and you'll get a sense for precisely how the jihadis are different from our home-grown wackos.

I've read it, and besides the details and specifics, they're exactly the same as home-grown wackos all over the world. You are too hung up on terms you don't understand and ideas which are exotic and alien. In the end it's the same macho bullshit about taking over the world from the bad people. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure why you think that book is relevent, if anything it shows that the Arab world's extremists have a lot more to be pissed off about then most other people's. Care to elaborate?
posted by chaz at 10:12 AM on February 11, 2005

When John Lennon was assassinated, I don't remember anyone suggesting that overweight white males who wear glasses be shot dead on sight

Phew! I live another day.
posted by unsupervised at 10:19 AM on February 11, 2005

I have a feeling gsh and felix have a point here. I mean: white supremacy is a huge problem, and should be stopped, but does that have anything to do with the issue here? Certainly, if anyone wants to use this article to justify rounding up all Muslims and jailing them, they're wrong to do so, but nobody is. The point is that pluralism is a difficult thing that takes a great deal of effort.

There's also a further difference between white supremacy and radical Islam. While chaz is right, and the wackos Islam has sitting on the borders are just as crazy as the American kind, the situation of Muslim schoolgirls in France, to name only one of a host of available examples, has shown that integration and assimilation are part of a much larger problem: the problem of the integration and assimilation of Muslims into Western democracies.

This article quotes a newspaper that notes that "mosques, churches, and schools are being attacked." The anti-immigration sentiment that's rising, if this article's correct, shows that the "look the other way" form of pluralism doesn't work. Real tolerance takes a great deal of work; and it will be increasingly difficult for European countries, and the United States, too, to welcome Muslims with open arms. If we want to stay diverse, it is required that we learn not only to be "tolerant," but to be caring for those around us.

I don't know if that's the answer, but I can't think of a better one.
posted by koeselitz at 10:49 AM on February 11, 2005

It is an empty message that appeals in whole to few people besides young, out-of-work losers with nowhere to go and nothing to do

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't share your head-in-the-sand optimism. The "out of work loser" phenomenon is a demographic reality in the Muslim world right now. Violence is the response of those who have no other viable means of expressing dissent. With repressive, non-democratic regimes in the middle east and s. asia and the barriers to civic participation in place in Europe, I think the whole situation is a tinderbox.

You're absolutely correct. The problem is, in large measure, the guest-worker phenomenon in Europe. It's a scandal, for example, that Germany is still able to maintain racial quotas on citizenship despite its facist past. These societies are not open and their guest workers are a permanent underclass. The US ought to be spending at least as much effort clamoring for citizenship rights for Muslims in Europe as we do rattling the chains of the Iranians, the Saudis and the Egyptians.

I cite Ajami because (in my recollection) it was an ode to a form of Arab nationalism whose time has passed. I was reading it around the same time I read Mahfouz's Cairo Trilogy. Both gave me a sense of a time during which Arab aspirations for national dignity were in full flower. But what emerged were not vital democratic societies which empowered their citizens and emboldened their nations. Instead, they got oppressive regimes and a yen for scapegoating Israel and the West.

This history is terribly complex, I'll grant. One has to grapple with it, though, before making facile comparisons between right-wing extremism in the US and Muslim religious violence. The rhetoric is not just "taking over the world from bad people", it's about restoring a glorious imperial past and ameliorating a deeply wounded body politic.
posted by felix betachat at 10:53 AM on February 11, 2005

You should post more often, Felix.
posted by dhoyt at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2005

Alex, why have you asked three times for McGraw? Is it a Beetlejuice thing?
posted by dhoyt at 11:17 AM on February 11, 2005

That said, American extremists are mostly isolated and laughable.

That must be why the debate about teaching evolution is over, huh. Or do you just mean the ones with guns?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:23 AM on February 11, 2005

it's about restoring a glorious imperial past and ameliorating a deeply wounded body politic.

So how is this any different with right-wing extremism?

What you're describing is almost entirely the same. Just replace "imperial past" with "patriarchial, Christian hegemony", and "wounded body politic" with "wounded egos of rural, white poor".

I simply don't understand why these comparisons are facile, when the evidence shows that, at least within the US, right-wing extremists are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists.

Further that right-wing extremists are even more dangerous, perhaps, because the media chooses to focus the public's attention on Islamic terrorists who cannot attack a majority of them.

Why was Krar given such a light sentence? Why was his criminal activity swept under the rug? After the OK City bombing, why were APBs put out for Arabic-looking fellows over the next four days? Why were those APBs forgotten when McVeigh and Nichols were captured? Why is it wrong to bring up abortion doctor snipers? Are these people not terrorists?

I think I would like honest discussion of these questions before I begin to accept that carpetbombing brown-skinned peoples in lands far away is good policy, just because they happen to be Muslim.

Still waiting for mcgraw...
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:32 AM on February 11, 2005

delmoi: I don't quite get the why liberals are so supportive of fundementalist islam. Even when nonviolent, Fundi islam is opposed to everything you belive in.

To me, this strikes me as an interesting whitewashing of history. In the 1990s, left-wing publications were the voice in the wilderness regarding the Taliban while it seemed to be vogue for conservatives online to point to low crime rates in Islamist countries as examples of the benefits of a religiously-motivated, harsh on crime, goverment. Islamism was an internal problem so long as the Taliban put a damper on the drug trade.

Since 9-11, conservatives have belatedly taken up the cause of human rights in a select few Islamist countries. But given the blind eye towards similar problems in Kwuait and Saudi Arabia, I suspect that this is just war propaganda.

I think that what confuses you is that liberals are supportive of religious freedom. What disturbs me as a liberal is that whenever we start talking about Islamic terrorism, we end up talking about immigration from Islamic countries. And that seriously bothers me because it seems that we've gone from thinking about how to stop terrorism to how to stop Islam.

As a third thing, I'm a bit reluctant to treat Theo van Gogh as a martyr giving his life in the face of invading Islamic hordes given his well-documented bigotry and tendency to refer to Muslims as "goatfuckers." Rather than some enligtened activist, he appears to have been the other side of the problem.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:33 AM on February 11, 2005

Thus spake Chaz:
I think you and others are somehat overhyping the cogency of radical islam's message and reach. It is an empty message that appeals in whole to few people besides young, out-of-work losers with nowhere to go and nothing to do, much like other radical movements all over the world.

Perhaps you could address the recent Frontline episode in which a number of interviewees made it clear that conversion to jihadism usually begins when young Middle Eastern and/or Muslim men have been abroad (particularly to Europe, mostly for advanced university study). By and large, these are intelligent, well-educated men, not Muslim slackers.

These men are not the Cletuses of the Middle East.
posted by gsh at 11:37 AM on February 11, 2005

Perhaps you could address the recent Frontline episode in which a number of interviewees made it clear that conversion to jihadism usually begins when young Middle Eastern and/or Muslim men have been abroad (particularly to Europe, mostly for advanced university study).

Bingo. And it's worth recalling that Sayyid Qutb had his own radicalizing experience at a church-sponsored dance in Colorado.
posted by felix betachat at 11:45 AM on February 11, 2005

I simply don't understand why these comparisons are facile, when the evidence shows that, at least within the US, right-wing extremists are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists.

This is a bit like debating whether one prefers diarhhea to constipation. Neither one is any kind of Mardi Gras.

Perhaps you could address the recent Frontline episode in which a number of interviewees made it clear that conversion to jihadism usually begins when young Middle Eastern and/or Muslim men have been abroad (particularly to Europe, mostly for advanced university study). By and large, these are intelligent, well-educated men, not Muslim slackers.

That seems like it would lend credence to those who would consider Jihadists more dangerous, since well-educated men would be more likely to well-organized and strategically advanced. The Far Right Americans seem to have some fairly intelligent people in leadership positions who seem to have the strategy of using the Cletuses of the world as shock troops and bullet-catchers.
posted by jonmc at 11:49 AM on February 11, 2005

I simply don't understand why these comparisons are facile, when the evidence shows that, at least within the US, right-wing extremists are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists.

Can you present this evidence, please. Because if someone linked to it, I missed it. Just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. Feel free to sidestep with an accusation of homophobia if you can't find anything.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:49 AM on February 11, 2005

"white supremacy is a huge problem, and should be stopped, but does that have anything to do with the issue here?"

I was simply responding to dhoyt's implication that McVeigh is the sole example of non-Muslim terrorism, and is somehow an exception that proves the rule. It's not the case, either domestically or abroad. No further agenda from me.
posted by kyrademon at 11:54 AM on February 11, 2005

Can you present this evidence, please. Because if someone linked to it, I missed it. Just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. Feel free to sidestep with an accusation of homophobia if you can't find anything.

Not biting, but thanks for trolling.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:05 PM on February 11, 2005

What Curley said.

I'm more scared of nutball Americans in my own country than OBL, frankly.

I wonder how many times that same hollow, fashionable pose will be repeated on MeFi before someone finally calls BS.

Still waiting for mcgraw...

That's four times called out for your friend McGraw. Care to explain?

I was simply responding to dhoyt's implication that McVeigh is the sole example of non-Muslim terrorism,

And I was responding to the thuddingly predictable & diversionary McVeigh invocation in a thread about Islamists in Holland. It's telling how quickly some folks change the subject when this topic comes up.

Muslim fanatics, by contrast, are starting to crystallize around a coherent ideology which aims to destabilize and displace western democracies. The Dutch are dropping the ball and the US isn't helping. There's got to be a middle path between passivity and invasion.

It bears repeating. The talking point about "these are just some scattered individuals living in caves" is a dangerous kind of ignorance.
posted by dhoyt at 12:11 PM on February 11, 2005

"Hey davy, pipe up when the evangelicals are stabbing people in the streets."

First, I'm not talking about "evangelicals", I'm talking about "fanatics"; that is I'm not talking about a variety of religious experience, but about the need to force one's religion on the rest of us. Fanatical Unitarians would be just as bad.

That said, damn, ain't beating people up on the streets with impunity bad enough? And bombing abortion clinics? And ruining people's lives with rumors and slander? And subverting what "democracy" we have left with their hate-filled agenda? Now you want us to give them one more chance, to wait till they start stabbing people too. I say they've been appeased enough already.

As for what you said about Ajami , I haven't yet read him, but the reading I have done on these subjects myself -- Mahfouz' fiction, the history and ideology of the original Ba'ath Party, a biography of Nasser, etc. -- I too feel like the Arabs lost out on a chance to develop "vital democratic societies which empowered their citizens" (to quote you). For that I blame the Cold War, the CIA, and the Israeli government, as well as fools, fanatics and fuckups inside the Arab world itself.

But, by the way, when people insult me personally I'm tempted to discount them and everything they say, regardless of how much I might learn from or because of them. (E.g., since you brought up Qutb it seems a good idea for me to read up on the Muslim Brotherhood.) That is, with just a little less effort on your part you might be a good influence on me.
posted by davy at 12:22 PM on February 11, 2005

with just a little less effort on your part you might be a good influence on me

I've tried, remember?
posted by felix betachat at 12:27 PM on February 11, 2005

I wonder how many times that same hollow, fashionable pose will be repeated on MeFi before someone finally calls BS.

Perhaps when it ceases to be true? I can count the number of terrorist attacks on US soil by Al Qaeda on one hand, while I run out of fingers and toes for terrorist incidents commited by naturalized or native US citizens. Yet which is considered more dangerous?
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:28 PM on February 11, 2005

AlexReynolds: Not biting, but thanks for trolling.

And not supporting your indefensible contention, either.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:30 PM on February 11, 2005

Perhaps you could address the recent Frontline episode in which a number of interviewees made it clear that conversion to jihadism usually begins when young Middle Eastern and/or Muslim men have been abroad (particularly to Europe, mostly for advanced university study). By and large, these are intelligent, well-educated men, not Muslim slackers.

The point I was making was not about the slackerism but the unintergated-ism. Most of these men are unmarried, unpopular, and studying to advance themselves in countries where they may be intellectually equal, but socially they are not understood or even cared for.

I'm the last person to say (on purpose) that radical Islamic terrorists do not pose a danger and a serious threat, definitely it is the most serious external threat to Western democracies. That said, I think it is an easy movement to defeat. It doesn't have a strong religious or moral backing, it doesn't have answers other then violence and law-and-order. If Iraq can become a functioning country, and Palestine can get its due rights, you will see that number in Holland drop from 1,000 to less then 100.

As felix betachat wrote so well, Islamic fundamentalism only has power where people are powerless. Be they powerless in Muslim countries or in the West, when you remove the barriers to advancement, the lure of fundamentalism wanes dramatically.

I would disagree with felix, however, because I don't see a difference in the basic rhetoric of extemists of every stripe, be they Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or race-based. White Power people are talking about Valhalla for Thor's sake. But anyway the main difference is in avenues for expression.
posted by chaz at 12:30 PM on February 11, 2005

I can count the number of terrorist attacks on US soil by Al Qaeda on one hand, while I run out of fingers and toes for terrorist incidents commited by naturalized or native US citizens.

Can you please, PLEASE list these? Stop at 10.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:31 PM on February 11, 2005

White Power people are talking about Valhalla for Thor's sake

I blame Led Zeppelin.
posted by jonmc at 12:36 PM on February 11, 2005

Hey Major Curley, what year would you like me to stop counting "terrorist incidents commited by naturalized or native US citizens"? 1776? 1831? 1863? 1898? 1937? 1974? (Eschewing anachronism, I can't start counting US citizens before 1776.)
posted by davy at 12:41 PM on February 11, 2005

Another thing that maybe should be thrown in is how we as societies judge violence in general. If the 18th St. Gang in Central LA suddenly said their inspiration was Jesus Christo, would it make their drug running, territory-advancing, informer-murdering, innocent bystander shooting, any different? Is killing for power/money/prestige any different if there is a 'religious' or 'nationalist' motivation?
posted by chaz at 12:42 PM on February 11, 2005

Of course, the definition of "terrorist incident," is often dependent upon the politics of of the definer, right or left.
posted by jonmc at 12:43 PM on February 11, 2005

No need to stop at ten, Mayor Curley. Let's just look at anti-abortion (forget, for the moment, white supremacists, militias, and the many other sorts of home-grown crazies):

According to the Office of International Criminal Justice of the University of Illinois at Chicago at http://www.acsp.uic.edu/, there's been over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings

According to the National Abortion Federation at http://www.prochoice.org/, between 1989 and today there were 24 murders or attempted murders, 189 incidents of bombing, arson, or attempted bombings or arson, and 3339 incidents of invasion, assault and battery, trespassing, death threats, burglary, or stalking. Simple harrasment or bomb threat incidents look to be in the low five digits.

So, that's quite a bit more than ten right there. From *one* set of local terrorists. Shall I go on to the others?
posted by kyrademon at 12:45 PM on February 11, 2005

jonmc, as a kid I thought "Valhalla" was his girlfriend. And, good point about 'the definition of "terrorist incident."'
posted by davy at 12:46 PM on February 11, 2005

Me: "with just a little less effort on your part you might be a good influence on me"

felix_b: "I've tried, remember?"

You missed my point: I said 'with a little LESS effort'.
posted by davy at 12:50 PM on February 11, 2005

What kyrademon said, MayorCurley, and certainly more if you need me to post other examples. I'm sure you'll have a snappy troll in response.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:50 PM on February 11, 2005

Of course, the definition of "terrorist incident," is often dependent upon the politics of of the definer, right or left.

Jonmc, I don't know about this. Violence done for political coercion can be called terrorism, regardless of the political "side". Do we need to redefine violence?
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:53 PM on February 11, 2005

Alex, what I meant by that if you asked someone from the far right if say, Operation Rescue was a Terrorist Group, they might say no. Or if you asked someone from the left whether, say, the Weather Underground were terrorists, you might get the same answer, regardless of the fact that both groups (by your definition, and frankly my own) meet the criteria. Just an observation about human nature.
posted by jonmc at 12:58 PM on February 11, 2005

"I don't see a difference in the basic rhetoric of extemists of every stripe, be they Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or race-based."

I agree. I also don't see why there would be much difference in extremists' tactics when they take to violence; the Tamil Tigers remind me of the Ismaili Assassins, for example, and John Wilkes Booth.

By the way, isn't it sad that right-wing Christians can feel powerless in today's America? Talk about "delusional".
posted by davy at 12:59 PM on February 11, 2005

And here's a site that seems to keep tabs on news items about violence from white supremacists:

http://www.rickross.com/groups/supremacists.html

A much-shortened list of sample headlines:

Arizona Gay Murder Trial To Begin
Utah man gets 8-year sentence
White Supremacists Turn Violent in Federal Court
Court bars move for extra-long sentences in transient stomping death
Criminal, given chance, now charged in invasion
Boyfriend charged in woman's death in Squirrel Hill
Trial begins for man accused of being 'Unknown Terrorist'
Hoarder of Arms Gets 11 Years
Suspected white supremacists arrested after body found in car
Five White Men Face Charges in 2001 Attack
Testimony opens in trial of White Wolves member
Texas man admits having chemical weapons
White Supremacist Jailed in Chasing Case
Md. Man Pleads Guilty to Weapons Charges
Man pleads guilty to taking part in racist mob
Ex-member of white supremacist group sentenced
White supremacist named Enemy No. 1
4th suspect found in fatal beating
Four sentenced in hate-based crimes
Suspect in standoff charged, held on $1 million
Homemade Guns Seized In Highlandtown Rowhouse
Man to plead guilty to firearms charges
Killer of Gay Couple Gets 29 Years, More
Supremacist held on gun charges
Legislator under fire for helping 'hate group'
Man Pleads Guilty to Killing Gay Couple
White Supremacists Admit Terrorizing Local Family
Two indicted on espionage charges, linked to supremacist groups
'Aryan Brotherhood' gang members plead guilty
to plotting murders, other violent crimes
Racine County Man Accused Of Stockpiling Weapons
Authorities Arrest Suspected White Supremacists
Alleged White Supremacists Charged
White supremacist planned race war
Racist groups catching Utah's eye
White supremacist guilty of knifing
Boston Couple Plotted Blasts to Incite Race War, Prosecutor Says
Supremacist groups posing greater threat
Yukon man gets death sentence
White supremacist formally sentenced to death
4 arrested, tied to theft ring
3 charged in hate crimes
FBI arrests second man tied to local arms stockpile
White supremacist ordered held without bail for anthrax mailing, racist letters
Racist charged in mail threat
Brothers Sentenced for Calif. Fires
Two found guilty in 1999 hate crime attack
Supremacist Brothers Plead Guilty
Father and son target kids in a confederacy of hate
White Supremacist Sentenced to Three Years in Prison
White supremacist killed in Illinois Store Standoff
Florida Cops Arrest 3 on Hate Crimes
FBI Arrests Alleged Hate Leaders
Nab White Supremacist
Man admits he defaced church
Four arrested in bomb investigation
No bail for man in gun case
Ocean Shores Killing Leaves Citizens Caught In Between
Leader of Supremacy Church Arrested
Oregon town is bracing for showdown
White Supremacists Said Beat Man
Second Man Convicted in Dragging Death
White supremacist goes on trial in black immigrant's slaying
Racist Describes Killing of Gay Man In Alabama
Two jailed men may be linked to Sacramento synagogue fires
White Supremacist Convicted
White Supremacist Sentenced to Life
Testimony begins in racist plot case
White racist convicted in brutal dragging death
Texas sheriff "knew somebody was murdered because he was black"
Dragging death linked to racist group recruiting
posted by kyrademon at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2005

Jonmc, wouldn't it be more honest for people to say "there are good terrorists and bad terrorists"? Some people might even "advance" enough to be talking about kinds of terrorism (say against property rather than people, or specific assassinations rather than "9/11"), instead of just "with us or against us".
posted by davy at 1:05 PM on February 11, 2005

(So that's two types of groups, and somewhat more than "ten" incidents. Want me to give you the details on other types of domestic terrorists? How about evidence of the massive amounts of money and links to people in power some of these groups have? I'm doing this with simple google searches - it's not hard.)
posted by kyrademon at 1:08 PM on February 11, 2005

Not to defend anti-choice extremists, but you're kidding yourselves if you think that their efforts, even combined with the wrongdoings of McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, have anything on the human and economic cost of September 11th and the previous WTC bombing.

I'll reiterate that your original contention, before I let myself get drawn into an argument over number of attacks regardless of scope was:

I simply don't understand why these comparisons are facile, when the evidence shows that, at least within the US, right-wing extremists are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists.

You still haven't shown that and you can't.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:16 PM on February 11, 2005

Rather than debating angels dancing on heads of pins and whether Operation Rescue is potentially more sucky than the Lackawanna Six, can we drag this thread back 'round to the situation in the Netherlands, please? Because preciously dismissing the deteriorating situation in the Netherlands--and much of Western Europe--as some sort of witchunt against "magical brown people" or "bad" terrorists is idiotic. It shoots right past "naive" and lands in the "willfully ignorant" camp.

For one thing, it overlooks the glaring fact that the common thread among the extremists is not always race or skin color or nationality or quasi-underclass economic status, but religion and ideology. Look at the case of teenager Jason Walters, now winding its way through Dutch courts. Or look at Abdul-Jabbar van de Ven, an Iman, another ethnically-Dutch Muslim convert. He went on Dutch TV last year openly calling for MP Geert Wilders' death and referring to Osama bin Laden as "brother". Van de Ven is 25, and converted at age 13.

For another thing, the "witchhunt" theory proponents don't seem to to notice how many "magical brown people" themselves have become victims of violence, intimidation, and death threats by their jihadist countrymen. Somali-born MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most famous example, and has been the target of many murder plots. Things got so bad after Van Gogh's murder, the Dutch goverment sent her to Brunswick Air Force Base in Maine for her protection. She has been living in hiding and heavily guarded for months now. Oh, and she's being sued, too, to stop production on the sequel to Van Gogh's film "Submission", which she co-wrote.

Rachid Ben Ali is a Dutch-Moroccan artist who uses his art to express his anger at fundamentalist Islam, its intolerance, it's violent fanatics, and specifically its homophobia. Ben Ali had to go into hiding last month after numerous death threats after his art show was deemed offensive.

Ahmed Aboutaleb is the deputy mayor of Amsterdam and a Dutchman of Moroccan heritage. He was one of a small number of prominent Dutch Muslims to publically condemn Van Gogh's murder, and he even attacked the Dutch government's "non-response" to Van Gogh's death and to Islamic Terrorism more generally. For his troubles he, too, is receiving death threats and has round-the-clock protection.

Meanwhile, the frequency and the scale of attacks and attempted attacks are being ratched up. Things are getting worse, not better. It's no longer "just" credible death threats against MP's like Geert Wilders (who wants restrictions on immigration) or Hirsi Ali. It's credible, organized threats against the Dutch Prime Minister, against the head of NATO. It's no longer "just" a few churches having been burned down; it's plots uncovered against Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam and the Borssele nuclear power plant.

Look at this page from Expatica.com of recent Dutch news and feature articles. (Expatica is a website aimed at the Expat community living in various EU states. It is not, as far as I know, partisan.) I would estimate that 1/4 of the stories listed there directly or indirectly have to do with the problems of violence among Dutch and immigrant Muslims towards Dutch non-Muslims, or the problems of (non-)integration of immigrants, or mentioning that the native Dutch population growth is the lowest since 1920, or the development of a Dutch Muslim political party, or terrorism, or a dispute over the size of a local mosque, or mentioning that Dutch kids are going to private schools in record numbers, and on and on, all these related issues just floating there in the canals.

By the way, the Dutch banned their own flag from their own public schools last month. The stated reasoning was that it would be seen as offensive to Muslim students.
posted by Asparagirl at 1:26 PM on February 11, 2005

You still haven't shown that and you can't.

You asked for evidence and you got it, from me and from others. You choose not to ignore it, and that's your problem, not mine. Troll away, asshat.

Not to defend anti-choice extremists, but you're kidding yourselves if you think that their efforts, even combined with the wrongdoings of McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, have anything on the human and economic cost of September 11th and the previous WTC bombing.

Sorry, but as much impact as 9/11 and the previous WTC boming has as single media events on the average American's psyche -- let's not forget most people in the country live nowhere near NYC or Washington -- the fact remains that domestic terrorism is a homegrown entity, as has been pointed out a number of times in this thread, whether you like it or not. We're much more of a threat to ourselves than OBL, however much fun it is to watch "24" and simplistically root for the "good guys".

To somehow get back on topic, I wonder how much of the "culture clash" is a media-inspired or racial backlash against Islam, and how much is actually active attempts of Islamic culture to invade and take over the Netherlands. Are the attacks by Muslims a response to racial tensions in NL/Europe, or the root cause? I'd like to hear a less partial voice on either side. So far, the media coverage foments extremist views on either end.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:35 PM on February 11, 2005

Blah: "You chose to ignore it..."
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:37 PM on February 11, 2005

"I ain't afraid of Al-Qaeda but I sure as shit am afraid of Al-Cracker."*




*Being of cracker descent I am aware that poor white bashing is much more tolerated among American progressives than bashing of other cultures/classes/races, but that sums up half the points in this thread for me and it's funny.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:53 PM on February 11, 2005

Sorry, but as much impact as 9/11 and the previous WTC boming has as single media events on the average American's psyche -- let's not forget most people in the country live nowhere near NYC or Washington -- the fact remains that domestic terrorism is a homegrown entity, as has been pointed out a number of times in this thread, whether you like it or not. We're much more of a threat to ourselves than OBL, however much fun it is to watch "24" and simplistically root for the "good guys".

Can you tell me how that translates into more people hurt/killed and infrastructure destroyed by born/naturalized American fascists? Why did you quote me if you weren't going to actually respond?

We're much more of a threat to ourselves than OBL, however much fun it is to watch "24" and simplistically root for the "good guys".

Assuming you work for an abortion provider. And I resent your implication that I've watched even a minute of "24." You accuse me of trolling and then insinuate that I get my world view from tv dramas?

And to get back on topic, whether they are less dangerous that the insurgents you spawn in your own borders or not, letting muslim extremists into your country is knowingly ingesting a parasite that tries to kill its host. And erecting barriers to removing them is even more suicidal.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:18 PM on February 11, 2005

Assuming you work for an abortion provider.

Or you're gay. Or black. Or Muslim. Or you work in an animal facility. Or you're Jewish and attend a synagogue. Or you work as a genuinely harmless civil servant for the government. Or, by some chance, a few of these together. Notwithstanding other plentiful categories of people that terrorists like to go after to make one point or another.

You accuse me of trolling and then insinuate that I get my world view from tv dramas?

Either the picture clears up for you, or you're going to keep willfully ignoring the evidence that's been presented, pick up your remote control and keep trolling. Good luck to you.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:42 PM on February 11, 2005

(Once again, no agenda to my posts; simply attempting to correct a misapprehension some people here seemed to have.)
posted by kyrademon at 3:46 PM on February 11, 2005

AlexReynolds seems so quick to jump to the defense of SOME religious nuts, who, of course, hate him and everything he stands for, and yet he has no problem criticizing these other religious nuts, who are "taking over the country."
posted by JeffL at 4:21 PM on February 11, 2005

Mayor, Alex you actually both have some points if you'd just listen to eachother rather than go WWF on our collective asses.
posted by jonmc at 4:33 PM on February 11, 2005

Either the picture clears up for you, or you're going to keep willfully ignoring the evidence that's been presented, pick up your remote control and keep trolling. Good luck to you.

You refuse to substantiate claims AND you're condescending. Way to throw sand in my eyes. Good thing I'm no drama queen or I'd make a big show of acting all wounded.

JeffL, great point. But expect him to ignore it. Or suggest that it's not really a double-standard, but you'd have to be as smart as AlexReynolds is to see it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to watch some tv.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:47 PM on February 11, 2005

I'm, um, still trying to figure out how southern white supremacists have been a threat to the Netherlands.small>
posted by koeselitz at 5:41 PM on February 11, 2005

[see, the "small" tag at the end there has a little hat!]
posted by koeselitz at 5:42 PM on February 11, 2005

I'm, um, still trying to figure out how southern white supremacists have been a threat to the Netherlands

Well, if the KKK takes over, we'll all be in dutch.

I'll see myself out....
posted by jonmc at 5:44 PM on February 11, 2005

gsh wrote: Perhaps you could address the recent Frontline episode in which a number of interviewees made it clear that conversion to jihadism usually begins when young Middle Eastern and/or Muslim men have been abroad (particularly to Europe, mostly for advanced university study). By and large, these are intelligent, well-educated men, not Muslim slackers.

chaz wrote: The point I was making was not about the slackerism but the unintergated-ism. Most of these men are unmarried, unpopular, and studying to advance themselves in countries where they may be intellectually equal, but socially they are not understood or even cared for.

An addendum to this part of the thread, which to my mind is the most salient part:

Historically, poverty in and of itself has usually been a conservative force. It is poverty plus social dislocation that breeds radical/revolutionary movements. In previous eras, this dislocation usually involved the rural, agrarian poor being forced to go to cities looking for work, where they often encountered hostility, prejudice and isolation, and were the most willing converts to radical (usually Marxist and/or nationalist) ideas. Often as not, these folks would then return to the countryside as the vanguard of full-blown revolutionary movements.

Today, it would seem, we have two mutually reinforcing tracks of radicalization. The first, happening faster than ever throughout the Third World, is rural-to-urban migration. The second, happening simultaneously, is Third to First World. It's the latter that seems to be breeding the vanguard, owing perhaps to the fact that the isolation, dislocation and prejudice they face is even deeper than a rural-to-urban migrant within his own society would face.

The 9/11 hijackers, of course, found belonging only in the mosques of radical clerics in cities like Hamburg. And who knows how many of their brethren returned to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Egypt to carry their message to the lonely, superfluous young migrants from the countryside? It's a powderkeg with two fuses, sitting smack in the middle of the biggest demographic bubble of young, restless men these societies have ever seen. And if we don't figure out a better way to make the case for Enlightenment ideals, the jihad rhetoric will go on winning the hearts-and-minds battle, which in the end is the only battle that will matter.
posted by gompa at 6:05 PM on February 11, 2005

JeffL, great point. But expect him to ignore it. Or suggest that it's not really a double-standard, but you'd have to be as smart as AlexReynolds is to see it.

What point is JeffL making? That I'm coming to the defense of Islam? Nice try, liars.

Your trolls are pathetic, the mutual back-patting is sad, and when you can't back up your dispute with facts, you resort to unfounded lies.

Go back to your tv-fueled fantasy land, Curley.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:23 AM on February 12, 2005

Go back to your tv-fueled fantasy land, Curley.

Don't be such a drama queen.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:53 PM on February 12, 2005

Don't be such a drama queen.

All you're doing is proving to everyone that you're the asshole. Keep up the excellent work!
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:38 PM on February 12, 2005

All you're doing is proving to everyone that you're the asshole. Keep up the excellent work!

You really are the most smug, self-centered person here. "You" doesn't equal "everyone". Especially since no one is now reading this except you and I to see what the other will fling.

And anyone else who read it would laugh at a reference to your previous over the top, look at me, more-sensitive-and-more-campus-liberal-than-you acts.

Remember when your mom told you that you were wonderful and the smartest boy in the world and that everyone who disagreed with you was wrong? Well, she lied. You're nothing special. Now stop being so smug.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:10 AM on February 13, 2005

All you're doing is proving to everyone that you're the asshole. I was going to suggest you put your foot back in your mouth, but keep up the excellent work!
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:17 AM on February 13, 2005

Alex, Mayor...you're both pretty!

/jonmc
posted by dash_slot- at 10:36 AM on February 13, 2005

You're hurting Metafilter. Please stop it.
posted by dodgygeezer at 10:38 AM on February 13, 2005

I think I will address him as Mayor Surly from now on, as befitting someone of his high-and-mighty status.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:44 PM on February 13, 2005

I think I will address him as Mayor Surly from now on, as befitting someone of his high-and-mighty status.

You can't just assign your negative traits to me. You're the arrogant know-it-all and I'm the one who admits to owning a television, remember?
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:57 PM on February 13, 2005

I'm the one who admits to owning a television, remember?

Don't forget a liar. I'm not letting you off the hook for that one.

You're just making it worse for yourself, you know, but keep going, Surly.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:27 PM on February 13, 2005

Don't forget a liar. I'm not letting you off the hook for that one.

I don't get it. But you operate on a higher plane, remember? You're fixing injustice and reading inaccessible novels while I'm asking stangers if I have drool on my pants. But you knew that already because I disagreed with you.

sincerely,
Mayor Surly
(OMG! you're a poet, too? Of course you are! A sensitive one that I'd never understand!)
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:58 PM on February 13, 2005

And I'd like to steal a play from you and add this:

"Oh, I am making you look so dumb! Please continue to post because I am a shining star and everyone knows it and you look so dumb! No one thinks that I am arrogant and self-righteous, despite a MeTa thread where about 200 people said that I was. They respect their intellectual betters and you are dumb!"
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:02 PM on February 13, 2005

I don't get it.

Oh, now you don't get it. I see.

You don't get the answers you wanted because of the chip on your shoulder, so you change the question.

Oh, and so you can no longer say that you "don't get it": You and JeffL invent your "great point". Turns out JeffL's "great point" was refuted by everyone, myself included, in the link I provided. But you kept repeating your assertion as a truth.

Now you don't get it, but you "got it" over here.

You're dishonest. But that's okay, 'cause you're such a big shot here that you get to say who's right and who's wrong.

Keep digging a hole for yourself, 'Surly.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:42 PM on February 13, 2005

Mayor, alex, as someone who's brawled with both of you and come to respect both of you, I offer some advice:

Put a sock in it. This ceased to about the topic at hand a long time ago and now it's just a "whose-is-bigger," contest, which is fun in pornography, but boring as hell on MeFi.
posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on February 13, 2005

I can't believe anyone else is still reading this thread-- I'd have to read it again to figure out what it was about at this point. I just thought it was me and some other kid I don't like having a poop fight in an abandoned building.

And inexplicably, the other kid is just as covered as I am but he's claiming victory. So i'm obligated to keep winding him up because he thinks that someone can win a match like this and it would matter if he did-- I've apparently dug some sort of figurative hole for myself and I want to see where it leads. I'm assuming the terminus is a melodramatic pronouncement that I'm stupid and dishonest, but maybe it's something cooler than that.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2005

some other kid I don't like

Well, at least you're finally being honest about the reason why you started this shitfest.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:05 PM on February 13, 2005

I thought you started it, Alex.
posted by trharlan at 1:15 PM on March 3, 2005