I read Friedman again.
I know, I know.
It's safe.
I was wondering how...Friedmans would react to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's statement to police that the bombing was motivated by U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My instant reaction was that Friedmans would say, "See! Those wars were immoral" & etc. & etc. However, I then thought, "Maybe Friedmans won't react that way. That is so preposterous a justification for bombing the Boston Marathon." There is something about this Muslim terrorist attack that threatens the soul of Friedmans. Here we have two American Muslim terrorists when the Friedman worldview is "The answer is not Islam: Islam is not bad, the way it is practiced and preached in America is not bad; the bad Islam is preached over there and bad Muslims may come here but American Muslims are not bad. American Muslims are not bad (though they should be watched). The Koran, however, is bad, and it is read in America by American Muslims. Friedman on Sunday did not admit that he was wrong; he repeats, in fact, that the answer is not Islam. However, there is a plaintive tone now, as if he is trying, a little, to convince himself; as if he has, a little, doubt now:
"We surely must not tar all of Islam in this. Having lived in the Muslim world, I know how unfair that would be."
Maybe I read too much into that; maybe I want to read into that what is not there but I have read Friedman for years and it strikes me as, slightly, different. It seems to me Thomas L. Friedman's soul is shaken, a little. Maybe that's too strong. Unsettled. Maybe a little "unsettled."
I am more sure that the tone of other passages in the article is different. There is more doubt here, there is frustration, and more pointed criticism of Muslims qua Muslims. On the Iraq/Afghanistan justification:
"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: We caution readers prone to wish to perform the Solnit Maneuver on Friedman that you have no idea what his simple question is."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?"
I know, I KNOW!
But then, look at this, which immediately follows:
"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?"
And then immediately following that:
"It’s a double non sequitur when it comes from Muslim youths who lived and studied in America, where, if you’re upset about something, you have many ways to express your opposition and have an impact — from organizing demonstrations to publishing articles to running for office."
I just had an orgasm.
No, that is different. There is less Friedman qua Fridman here. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-judgment-not-included.html?ref=thomaslfriedman
I know, I know.
It's safe.
I was wondering how...Friedmans would react to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's statement to police that the bombing was motivated by U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My instant reaction was that Friedmans would say, "See! Those wars were immoral" & etc. & etc. However, I then thought, "Maybe Friedmans won't react that way. That is so preposterous a justification for bombing the Boston Marathon." There is something about this Muslim terrorist attack that threatens the soul of Friedmans. Here we have two American Muslim terrorists when the Friedman worldview is "The answer is not Islam: Islam is not bad, the way it is practiced and preached in America is not bad; the bad Islam is preached over there and bad Muslims may come here but American Muslims are not bad. American Muslims are not bad (though they should be watched). The Koran, however, is bad, and it is read in America by American Muslims. Friedman on Sunday did not admit that he was wrong; he repeats, in fact, that the answer is not Islam. However, there is a plaintive tone now, as if he is trying, a little, to convince himself; as if he has, a little, doubt now:
"We surely must not tar all of Islam in this. Having lived in the Muslim world, I know how unfair that would be."
Maybe I read too much into that; maybe I want to read into that what is not there but I have read Friedman for years and it strikes me as, slightly, different. It seems to me Thomas L. Friedman's soul is shaken, a little. Maybe that's too strong. Unsettled. Maybe a little "unsettled."
I am more sure that the tone of other passages in the article is different. There is more doubt here, there is frustration, and more pointed criticism of Muslims qua Muslims. On the Iraq/Afghanistan justification:
"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: We caution readers prone to wish to perform the Solnit Maneuver on Friedman that you have no idea what his simple question is."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?"
I know, I KNOW!
But then, look at this, which immediately follows:
"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?"
And then immediately following that:
"It’s a double non sequitur when it comes from Muslim youths who lived and studied in America, where, if you’re upset about something, you have many ways to express your opposition and have an impact — from organizing demonstrations to publishing articles to running for office."
I just had an orgasm.
No, that is different. There is less Friedman qua Fridman here. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-judgment-not-included.html?ref=thomaslfriedman
