« Dreaming About Class | Main | Posts I've Been Meaning to Write »
May 08, 2007
Radicalizing the Kids
Matt brings us some seriously unsettling Jihad indoctrination videos 4 Kidz.
Disturbing stuff. But it's more than a little reminiscent of the triumphalist rhetoric, imperialist undertones, and militaristic aesthetic of many of the scenes in Jesus Camp, which I finally caught last weekend.
As a general note, I'm a bit more sanguine than most about this stuff. What looks liek a very successful indoctrination of a nine-year-old isn't particularly indicative of a very successful indoctrination of a 15-year-old. I remember going to religious school when I was young and being rather devout, but I shed that credulity as the years went on, and so did most kids I knew. So I'm less worried about the children than I am unnerved by their parents and instructors, who seem utterly unconcerned with the sort of crazed spiritual bootcamp the kids are attending. In any case, it's all pretty unpleasant, and makes you quite a bit more sympathetic towards the Hitchens/Harris/Dawkins/Dennett view of the world.
May 8, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"how many of you want to be those who want to give up their lives for Jesus"
Wow, just wow.
Whether it is religion or just nationalist cant, indoctrination of the kids is scary stuff. The Hitler Youth were the last to yield in Berlin as the Red Army pushed for final victory, and the kid wars of Africa of today show that this is still possible and easy to set in motion.
Meanwhile our young adults are being fed into the grinder in Baghdad, without a clear sense of mission or how this will end.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 8, 2007 10:03:15 AM
many years ago, having had palestinian friends in the united states, when i visited israel, they wanted me to connect with their family in ramallah.
their family members worked in jerusalem and were so kind and wonderful to me.
although i am jewish, they insisted that i come to meet their mother and father in ramallah before i left.
.... in jerusalem, they put me under a coat in the back of their car to take me to visit their family in ramallah.
...when we arrived there,they made a celebration! we were met with warm welcomes by the whole family.
the mother had on a beautiful black dress with red embroidery and a linen headdress. her face was delicately tatooed.
the first thing she did as a gesture of exceeding graciousness, was to bring me into her home and put me in one of her dresses and headdresses, sharing her garments with me.
she took my hand and embraced me, as if i was her sister. and i was, and am.
...we then joined her family in a little garden by some fig trees. on the table, was a plate of figs. i went to take one, and they said no, and motioned for their little son to climb to the top of the tree and pluck off the ripest and sweetest ones for me.
....it was a beautiful day, filled with graciousness and friendship. i have never forgotten the serenity of that afternoon, or the subsequent visits in jerusalem with my other palestinian friends.
this visit is one of my fondest memories.
....how it is that civility and respect and accomodation between governments cannot be reached and that hatred replaces the wish for neighborliness and understanding is one of the tragedies in this lifetime.
....my dearest friends, to this day, are moslem, and no family has taught me more about love, caring and dignity than they have.
...if only others could have these wonderful experiences too, people could raise their children with understanding and open hearts.
...person to person,family to family, community to community.
small steps,
we must reach out however we can.
Posted by: jacqueline | May 8, 2007 10:06:52 AM
So, radical Islamic indoctrination is just the same as Jesus Camp?
This assertion comes as no surprise, but is part of the larger pattern of equivalency of bad things with known good things so that the bad things all-of-a-sudden don't seem so bad. This same technique has been tried with homo 'marriage' making the equivalency comparison to traditional marriage. It's also been used to excuse terrorism making the equivalency comparison to US troops or the bombing of Japan. It's a crock. Its used only to justify already reached conclusions (goals).
You're not foolin' anyone.
The proof is in the pudding and when young Christians regularly start wearing suicide vests and blowing up innocents, then we can talk some equivalency comparisons.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 11:36:35 AM
No, militant christianism is also a bad thing, Fred. People died at the Murrah Building in OK City, too. People die when family planning centers are bombed, or when Randall Terry preaches his weird-ass jihad.
The larger pattern here is dimwits like you denouncing all things alien as "bad," while claiming things you "understand" as good. (Wow, talk about setting the bar low.)
I guess you were clapping erasers for the teacher the day the dictat, "two wrongs don't make a right" was taught on the playground.
Posted by: jimmmm | May 8, 2007 11:58:08 AM
People died at the Murrah Building in OK City, too.
??? How was that religiously motivated??
Jimmmmm is either very, very stupid, or he's just a fucking liar. I'm voting stupid.
"I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation. I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.)"
I don't doubt there are some crazies out there. How many here actually bomb anything? Muslims embrace this, believe this is the path to world change (by the grace of Allah), send their children to madrassas, and bomb innocents regularly. So much so that in modern countries, it's become one of the hallmarks of Islam.
The equivalency attempt, again, fails close scrutiny.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 12:26:30 PM
Fred, calm down a second and read what Ezra wrote. Here is is again: "it's more than a little reminiscent of the triumphalist rhetoric, imperialist undertones, and militaristic aesthetic of many of the scenes in Jesus Camp."
Explain to me, please, how the triumphalist rhetoric of the Muslim video is different from the Christian video. Or the imperialist undertones. Or the militaristic aesthetic.
Ezra didn't say anything about the prevalence of suicide bombing among different religious and ethnic groups. He's talking about the quality and nature of the propaganda put out by religious extremists. Explain the difference to me, and please don't feel like you need to go out of your way to gay-bash on my account -- I can pick up your prejudices just fine.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | May 8, 2007 1:01:39 PM
The indoctrination is the same. What is different is the kids' circumstances. Middle Eastern youths living in poor towns with no foreseable hope for change can be persuaded to commit violence quite easily - it may look like the only option. While the rest of the world looks shiny and rich, their own world looks pretty bleak.
Middle America kids like the ones seen in Jesus Camp live in relative affluence. They can be persuaded to get pretty pissed off about libruls and stuff, but at the end of the day they are going home to watch hours of TV in a comfortable home and eat several fat-packed meals a day without any concern. They all very much assume that one day they will grow up and work jobs like daddy and have their own comfortable middle America homes. It's hard to get worked up enough to do anything drastic.
Posted by: sprocket | May 8, 2007 1:11:42 PM
What kind of 5-year-old "wants more out of life"?
So, radical Islamic indoctrination is just the same as Jesus Camp?
This assertion comes as no surprise, but is part of the larger pattern of equivalency of bad things with known good things so that the bad things all-of-a-sudden don't seem so bad.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The comparison was not equating a bad thing with a good thing, because nobody in their right mind thinks that sending kids to this kind of Jesus Camp is a good thing.
However, Jesus Camp is obviously not as bad or dangerous as Jihad Camp. So the comparison is of a bad thing with a really, really bad thing - the idea being (I think, anyway) that Jesus Camp will end up looking more and more like Crusade Camp. Or, that the motivation and psychology behind Jesus Camp and Jihad Camp are strikingly similar.
Whether any of this is true or not can be debated, but I don't think that the mere comparison necessarily entails any kind of strict moral equivalence.
Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2007 1:34:33 PM
So, radical Islamic indoctrination is just the same as Jesus Camp?
No, Fred. As other have pointed out, Ezra said, "it's more than a little reminiscent of the triumphalist rhetoric, imperialist undertones, and militaristic aesthetic of many of the scenes in Jesus Camp." You disagree with that, or would you prefer to ignore it in favor of your straw man?
Concerning your red herrings, which are noteworthy:
homo 'marriage' making the equivalency comparison to traditional marriage.
"Homo marriage," Fred? Can't you speak proper English? Or is that you just can't pass up a chance to show your unchristian feelings towards gays? (Don't bother claiming otherwise; it's obvious to everyone else.) Same-sex marriage is obviously comparable to heterosexual marriage. You've never been able to give a rational justification for your feelings on this that could stand even a bit of scrutiny. But that doesn't bother you in the least.
the equivalency comparison to US troops or the bombing of Japan
You mean the firebombing of civilian centers in Japan, which killed mostly civilians? The more usual example is Dresden, which was an obvious case of intentional indiscriminate mass murder of civilians for a very thin military purpose. If you can slaughter men, women and children by the tens of thousands for those reasons, terrorism of other kinds seems quite reasonable and certainly far more modest in comparison.
But you will be unable to see any comparisons in such matters, and will substitute instead your outrage that anyone should suggest such things. Isn't outrage a wonderful tool of avoidance of reality? A big part of the Fox News approach to life.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 8, 2007 1:47:29 PM
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Christians+bomb+abortion+clinics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
McVeigh was in league with Christianists, Fred. And what of the family planning center bombers, the Randall Terry devotees? Interesting that you should chose to focus on the one point made that you could "refute" with a quick cut-and-paste.
And suicide bombing isn't a "hallmark" of Islam in "modern countries" any more than terror bombing is a staple of Christianity in "modern countries." You know this, and yet persist on demonizing one side for engaging in a tactic embraced by both sides. Do we allow for differentiation by degree? Your erstwhile hero said it best: You're either with us or against us.
Either you're a liar, Fred, or a fucking liar. I vote for the former, because somebody would have to be pretty desperate to fuck you.
Posted by: jimmmm | May 8, 2007 2:15:28 PM
Here is what jimmmm said: "No, militant christianism is also a bad thing, Fred. People died at the Murrah Building in OK City, too." linking the bombing of the Murrah Bldg with "militant Christianism."
I gave quotes in his own words why Timothy McVeigh set off the bomb, and he claimed lots of reasons, but religions was not one of them.
jimmmmmm has been reading Salon or commondreams too much and believe their propaganda more than the bomber himself so he then states that "McVeigh was in league with Christianists", I would like to know where he got this hare-brained idea.
What the hell is a "christianist" anyway? And how does one "get into league" with them? Do they have meetings every Thursday night around kitchen tables and discuss "Christianist" where only certain people that will do their bidding and take the rap for them are permitted to be "in their league"?
He.....heheheh.....heheheheheheheheheheeeheeeheeeheee...
"CHRISTINISTS" are coming!!!!! heheheheh!!
As for your claim of Randall Terry, I haven't seen any bombings linked to Mr. Terry. He was an adulterer, thief and a few other things, but if exercising free speech on a controversial subject and working within the system to effect change makes one guilty, then you're a bigger idiot than I first thought.
If you have some evidence that he is responsible for bombings, please come forward and share this with us this elusive evidence or shut your piehole.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 3:51:23 PM
jimmmmmm has been reading Salon or commondreams too much and believe their propaganda more than the bomber himself
I wonder, though, if you put similar stock in what Osama bin Laden has to say about his own motivations, which diverges significantly from what many on the right insist are his true motivations.
Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2007 4:17:43 PM
Great!
Don't take Tim McVeigh's word for it. Use other opinions that have studied this case such as the FBI.
Anyone, that is, that uses evidence as a basis for judgement.
Perhaps you know something that we don't Jason about Mr. McVeigh's motives. I am open for correction.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 4:27:09 PM
[McVeigh] claimed lots of reasons, but religions was not one of them.
From his own words:
(including, but not limited to, Waco)
What happened at Waco, Fred? Nothing related to religion at all, was it?
Posted by: Thlayli | May 8, 2007 4:57:29 PM
Hehehehe...."Waco" is not a religion. I don't think McVeigh even went to church! Nice strawman, though.
Say did you know that everyone is only seven steps away from Kevin Bacon? Maybe that works with Christians as well, if you're a good li'l librul.
Let's face it, jimmmmmmmm got called on his bullshit. It just wasn't true. His statements about Mcveigh weren't true and his claim that Terry Randal caused clinic bombings were totally unfounded.
He is the bullshit artist that hurt your causes.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 5:10:34 PM
Perhaps you know something that we don't Jason about Mr. McVeigh's motives. I am open for correction.
No, I actually agree that usually the best place to look for a terrorist's motives is what he himself has to say about them. Terrorists (as opposed to people who are just insane, like maybe the Virginia Tech kid) are usually pretty up front about the nature of their grievances - it would kind of defeat the purpose otherwise.
I was just wondering if you applied this consistently, though. Maybe you do, I don't know. But many, if not most, right-wingers tend to spout off about the motives of Islamic terrorists without paying much if any attention to what they actually have to say about why they do what they do. There are certainly exceptions, but usually bin Laden's own words are rarely taken at face value.
Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2007 6:04:20 PM
David Koresh and the Branch Davidians certainly had alot to do with religion, Fred, and they believed that they were very much a part of a new Christian movement. You can argue that what they were up to was decidedly un-Christian, but you can't deny that they were fueled by their own religious fervor.
Are you just not satisfied with the examples Jason provided, or do you need others? Because their are volumes written about these groups - white supremacists like Church of the World Creator, Christian Identity (Eric Rudolph's gang), and others all over the country, and they are very upfront about what religion they prefer. And they have perpetrated some of the most brutal hate crimes in recent history.
Posted by: sprocket | May 8, 2007 6:30:53 PM
I actually agree that usually the best place to look for a terrorist's motives is what he himself has to say about them.
OK, here it is:
"In the tape, Bin Laden said the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington had been inspired by his anger over the U.S. role in Israel's 1982 occupation of Lebanon."
McVeigh also had "reasons" and he wanted to get even, also. So, hy do you champion caving in to one vigilante, but not the other?
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 7:05:36 PM
The proof is in the pudding and when young Christians regularly start wearing suicide vests and blowing up innocents, then we can talk some equivalency comparisons.
Fred,
What Hamas is dealing with is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what the Christian Right is dealing with.
That is crystal clear. If the Blue States were occupying the Red States - and subjecting them to the same violence and oppression - maybe you'd be on to something.
But no, you're mixing two completely unrelated scenarios, and faulting one side for finding itself in the situation it's in.
Feel free to read this for some additional debunking of any assumptions you may have about this.
Posted by: Paul | May 8, 2007 7:23:19 PM
McVeigh also had "reasons" and he wanted to get even, also. So, hy do you champion caving in to one vigilante, but not the other?
Who, exactly, is advocating that?
It's worth noting, however, that just because McVeigh was a mass-murderer, it doesn't follow that he was wrong about Waco. I haven't looked at the Waco thing all that closely, but on the face of it it seems at least plausible that the government's actions were wrongful. So while I don't recommend caving in to McVeigh (who is now dead anyway), that doesn't mean that the feds should keep re-enacting Waco whenever they feel like it.
Likewise, the United States' complicity in the crimes committed by the Israeli government is wrong and ought to be condemned, regardless of the fact that Osama bin Laden says the same thing and he is a mass-murderer.
Posted by: Jason | May 8, 2007 9:43:41 PM
But no, you're mixing two completely unrelated scenarios, and faulting one side for finding itself in the situation it's in.
Your statement implies that there is no choice and that circumstances dictate whether a group will bomb innocents or not.
This is as bad as an abusive husband that complains that his wife make him do it by acting badly.
It's worth noting, however, that just because McVeigh was a mass-murderer, it doesn't follow that he was wrong about Waco.
It really doesn't matter whether he was right or wrong about Waco. He is still a mass-murderer and so is Bin Laden. Just as the actions of the FBI and ATF do not excuse Mr. McVeigh's actions, neither does Israel's occupation of Palistine or our support of it.
There just simply is no excuse.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 9:56:59 PM
Agreed.
Posted by: Jason | May 9, 2007 2:14:38 AM
fred either doesn't read the posts or more likely doesn't understand them. it doesn't matter anyway, he just wants to argue and get attention. I think he's an unloved 12 year old with no friends.
Posted by: merlallen | May 9, 2007 8:50:29 AM
Eric Rudolph. Christian terrorist.
Posted by: merlallen | May 9, 2007 9:01:24 AM
Eric Rudolph. Christian terrorist.
So, who's excusing Mr. Rudolph?
"I don't doubt there are some crazies out there. How many here actually bomb anything?" ---Posted by: Fred Jones | May 8, 2007 9:26:30 AM
Answer: Eric Rudolph, who bombed a clinic after hours which should tell you that his intentwas not to go into a crowded public place at rush hour to kill as many as possible, but to destroy the building and prevent more abortions.
Now, try and make the equivalency arguement with those who strap bombs on themselves and deliberately go into crowded cafes and marketplaces to take as many innocents with them as possible.
There have been other clinic bombings, but I know of none where the intent was to mass-murder those who frequent the establisment. Your assertion that they are the same as Muslim suicide bombers is a crock, plain and simple. The equivilancy attempt fails miserably again.
merlallen, and those like, him are self-loathing Americans who use equivalency arguements to hate America. It simply isn't true.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 9, 2007 9:32:15 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
