NYT‘s Friedman
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman doesn’t understand how on earth the Boston bombers could rationalize their act of violence–and believes that some aspects of Muslim culture must answer for it.
According to reports of the interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the brothers were motivated in part by the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And this has the Times columnist scratching his head about the problem with Muslims:
This is a popular meme among radical Muslim groups, and, to be sure, some Muslim youths were deeply angered by the U.S. interventions in the Middle East. The brothers Tsarnaev may have been among them.
But what in God’s name does that have to do with planting a bomb at the Boston Marathon and blowing up innocent people? It is amazing to me how we’ve come to accept this non sequitur and how easily we’ve allowed radical Muslim groups and their apologists to get away with it.
A simple question: If you were upset with U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, why didn’t you go out and build a school in Afghanistan to strengthen that community or get an advanced degree to strengthen yourself or become a math teacher in the Muslim world to help its people be less vulnerable to foreign powers? Dzhokhar claims the Tsarnaev brothers were so upset by something America did in a third country that they just had to go to Boylston Street and blow up people who had nothing to do with it (some of whom could have been Muslims), and too often we just nod our heads rather than asking: What kind of sick madness is this?
Friedman goes on to claim that we “must ask a question only Muslims can answer,” which is: “What is going on in your community that a critical number of your youth believes that every American military action in the Middle East is intolerable and justifies a violent response?”
It is worth asking questions about how different communities or societies react to violence. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States bombed and occupied Afghanistan, based on the argument that the government of that country had tolerated the presence of Al-Qaeda and thus must bear the retribution. As a result, many thousands of people who had nothing to do with terrorism were killed.
Or on to the invasion of Iraq, which was sold as part of a “Global War on Terror” following the 9/11 attacks as well, even though there was never a connection between Iraq and the terrorist attacks. So why did the United States invade Iraq? Tom Friedman explained it to Charlie Rose on May 30, 2003.
To Friedman, there was a “terrorist bubble” in that part of the world, and “we needed to go over there and take out a very big stick…and there was only one way to do it.” He added:
What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand? You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This.” That, Charlie, is what this war is about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia; it was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.
What kind of sick madness is this?
Friedman similarly urged violent attacks on civilians during the Kosovo War: https://fair.org/extra-online-articles/legitimate-targets/
Why does anyone listen this this overrated corporate newsmedia hack?
Friedman understands the reasons behind such an act all too well
Which is why he’s intent on decoupling cause from effect.
His may be a sick madness
But it’s also a calculating one, as well.
Friedman’s tribalist blinders are showing. When Friedman writes,
“A simple question: If you were upset with U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, why didn’t you go out and build a school in Afghanistan to strengthen that community or get an advanced degree to strengthen yourself or become a math teacher in the Muslim world to help its people be less vulnerable to foreign powers.”
One simply responds, “Mr. Friedman, when Saudis and others brought down the Twin Towers, why didn’t you think to go build better schools in Harlem or somewhere in the poverty stricken swamp areas outside of New Orleans to help its people be less vulnerable to foreign powers?
Wasn’t that preferable to tripping over yourself to inflame the national revenge impulse against Iraq?”
One understands irresponsible jingoism from the backward sections of the republic, but from a columnist for a major metro daily, this is sheer madness. I suspect that someone mighty powerful must be sponsoring Friedman’s ravings.
I am perpetually baffled that this buffoon not only writes for a major newspaper but has also penned sdvdral books and has won a Pulitzer prize. He is a moron, a simpleminded hack, a semiliterate apologist for colonialist policies overseas, an arrogant demogogue who should trade jobs with the janitor who cleans his office.
Typo. That should be “several.”
Hey, Tom, why “from Basra to Baghdad”? That’s only half the country. Is it just because they both begin with ‘B’, or don’t you own a map? And, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?” I’m guessing most of them probably wouldn’t understand any part of it, unless they speak English.
“a critical number of your youth believes that every American military action in the Middle East is intolerable ”
Every American military action in the Middle East (or anywhere else, for that metter) is intolerable, fool.
So then we couldn’t have hit Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
All one needs to do is ask Mr Friedman a very simple question. What would you do if your country was invaded by a foreign power?
I can’t read Friedman – I haven’t been able to for years.
I think we need to be clear that US terrorism in this century is not motivated by “revenge”, but merely a continuation of the violence perpetrated upon other peoples in previous centuries for the same purposes as those in the present
Power and treasure.
You don’t have to condone terrorism against American civilians to acknowledge that its core rationale *is* revenge for the death and destruction wrought by empire, and an attempt to end it.
That motivation may be manipulated by those with another agenda, but there’s no denying that causational link, is there?
Anyone committed to ending terror from all sources must understand that distinction.
I don’t know why anyway should be surprised by Friedman. He is nothing but the male counterpart to Ann Coulter, both of whom are merely Cheerleaders for Fascists of America. Without people like them, the Huber right sheeple wouldn’t know who to hate with “Blinding Passion”.
If his corporate leash holders wanted their dogs to eat crap; he would be the first to Laud mooseturd pie as healthy, invigorating and delicious.
Obama likes him.
I read the Friedman article quoted here. I think your review and the comments so far are too one-sided. I am a new reader of Fair.org, and I wonder if it preaches to choir in tones the choir likes to hear?
You’re just a troll, “Ted,” but maybe you can give a few examples of the “one-sidedness” you find so disturbing.
“But what in God’s name does that have to do with planting a bomb at the Boston Marathon and blowing up innocent people? Dzhokhar claims the Tsarnaev brothers were so upset by something America did in a third country that they just had to go to Boylston Street and blow up people who had nothing to do with it (some of whom could have been Muslims), and too often we just nod our heads rather than asking: What kind of sick madness is this?”
Well, let’ see, perhaps it is because the U.S. is regularly blowing up innocent people who, like the Bostonians at the marathon, are just trying to live their lives. I guess innocent Bostonians (substitute any American city) are different from innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Pakistanis…..the list is, sadly, too long for this post. Is Friedman really that naive? Or does he think we are?
I agree with Snowshoe. I would add David Brooks to the group as well.
What is is about Christian culture that convinces Americans it is okay to shoot missiles at groups of people in countries not at war in the hope that an enemy is there?
One reason which might have contributed to the turn of young U.S. Moslems towards alienation from or hostility to this culture and even its people, in addition to the wars mentioned, is the anti-Islamism rife in this culture, including the smooth kind as represented by Friedman’s article. Thus the extremists reinforce each other. (If a reader believes that thought requires that I say that this partial explanation of hostility doesn’t justify anyone’s violence, please consider it said).
Opinions: I would like to deal with terrorism, without trying to connect it with religion. The Koran was written a long time ago, and not in English. Can we assume that the translations into English are relevant to current events? I would like to use scientific expertise (criminology) to deal with terrorism, not “Koran-thumping” or “Bible-thumping”. Thank you.
A civilised America would phase out its armaments industry and its overseas occupations, and concentrate on building civil society at home and abroad. Also: stop treating corporations like individuals and make them accountable for their deeds. That wouldn’t stop other cultures from idiotic, religious based violence, but it would be a start.
You must be really desperate for readers to characterize Friedman’s remarks as “sick madness.” The piling on by your readers in comments sounds more like O’Reilly and Limbaugh than anything. I don’t need crap on the Left to counter crap on the Right. I doubt that you are bothered, but I’m out of here.
Of course when the IDF or Haganah or The Stern Gang commits acts of terrorism that is a flaw in Muslim culture as well?
I was going to thank my lucky stars that the inimitable Michael E hadn’t dropped one of his usual turds of wisdom on this post. Then I saw the observations from Ted and Wayne, and I caught myself wondering whether I was better off. So let’s see: over on the post about Joe Klein’s fit of Sensible Centrist both-sides-do-it-ism, we have Michael E being a right-wing shill, and on this post about Fried Man’s right-wing shilling for a Final Solution to the Arab Question, we get Party On Wayne and Most Excellent Ted congratulating each other on their Sensible Centrism. In the words of a great American poet, I want off this island of living puke!
Talk amongst yourselves. I’m not tracking this post, but next time I’m feeling masochistic, I may come back and see what the Waynes and Teds of your planet have contributed against the discussion. Then again, I may do something less painful and more useful, like shaving my own scrotum with a cheese grater.
See ya, Ted and Wayne. Glad you’re seeking enlightenment and “balance” elsewhere.
A most excellent post, aberranteyes–there seems to be an awful lot of “fair and balanced’ types blathering on at FAIR blog lately.
Am I the only one that sees the easy answer as to WHY they did it?Just look at dear old mom.A bona fide nut bag.It is like asking why that tool who named his kids Adolf and Himmler….why these kids hate Jews.The only question is why do they(these radicalized muslims)always use bombs in crowds.Lack of imagination?I don’t know.Same reason that James Bond used a walther ppk and the lone ranger used a silver bullet.Its like their ‘tag”.They think it is what they do.Wanna end it?Strap a bomb to that little bastards shorts and detonate him in Boston commons on live TV.Chuck that shiek out over ground zero from a heliocopter.Right after DWTS.Ok you say Im over doing it?Maybe …maybe,but its not like they dont deserve it
Friedman has his own view of the world that rarely intersects with out own.
Crime, justice en de broertjes divine vengeance
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Pierre-Paul_Prud%27hon_-_Justice_and_Divine_Vengeance_Pursuing_Crime.JPG