Seed

[poliphilo]

Fanatics like to be persecuted. It confirms them in their sense of their own importance, gives them publicity and draws disciples. And it proves what they were saying all along about the state being unjust and wicked.

The early Christians- who were fanatics of Al-Qaida-like intensity (the accusation that they were behind the burning of Rome in AD 64 is entirely plausible) courted persecution. Tertullian, who was as keen on martyrdom as any Islamicist, spelled out the logic, "The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed."

He was right.

The Blair government is responding to the current terror campaign by curtailing the human rights of Muslim extremists. It's a populist move, guaranteed to win the favour of the right-wing papers. As a liberal I'm against it. I think our respect for human rights is what makes us better than our enemy. But more than that, I think it's dumb.

Comments

A view from the "right"...

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

I would respectfully disagree with your assessment "curtailing the human rights of Muslim extremists." I don't think the course of action is dumb; I think it's salutary and I would argue with the characterization of the behaviors being targeted as "human rights". Inciting the violent and purposeful destruction of innocent civilians does not strike me as a fundamental human right.

Re: A view from the "right"...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

My argument is that silencing them is counterproductive. Censoring the public expression of certain views doesn't stop them being expressed. It just drives the subversives underground, where it's harder for the security services to monitor them.

Re: A view from the "right"...

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

I take your point, although I'm not certain I agree with it.

Re: A view from the "right"...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. :)

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

I'm divided on Blair's tactics. On the one hand it could be an effective way to disperse any organizational structure that had been created over the last decade or so by Muslim extremists, often refugees fleeing "political persecution." On the other hand, there seems to be an advantage in not forcing them underground: the British government knows who to watch. After all, the tactic could work to disperse public figures and a handful of terrorists, but it could also cut off avenues for monitoring the actual (I hate to call it this) work-a-day bombers via their communication with better known figures.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

Forcing the preachers of hatred underground is only going to make the work of the security services even harder than it already is.

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

Right, but at the same time I see the need to move against the largest risks and that doing so might have moved operations deeper underground anyhow. It may be a toss up where it is impossible to know what the best plan of action is. I see both as being viable and I think you can make the argument on either side that it is the most "cautious" strategy.

It also depends on what they know about the network... after all, everytime a major raid happens, the terrorism networks could start talking and revealing their identities. But I have no idea whatsoever.