Muslims Jailed, Suspect Arrested: Terrorism and Australia's Bushfires Burn On

Bushfires in Australia are still burning, radical Muslims are facing jail time, a greenly left publication is complaining that free speech has been criminalized, and Australians who weren't burned to death in Victoria's inferno would like to get their hands on a man who was arrested a couple days ago.

Forest Jihad? Firebug? Another Conservation Blunder?

It looks like the fires that hit Marysville and Churchill were deliberately set. (AP) If so, someone is definitely to blame for the fires, the destruction, and the deaths. And, there's been an arrest.

Judging from what I've read in the Australian news, people down under are taking a rather serious look at creating an effective emergency warning system for Victoria. And, one article from New Zealand mentioned that Australia's conservation philosophy is similar to California's: let tinder build up until it explodes. Until a big burn, there is a sort of visceral satisfaction to preventing brushfires: but I hope that approach may be re-examined now. ("Conservation, Crispy Koalas, and Common Sense" (February 14, 2009))

The Herald Sun wrote that the man who's been arrested in connection with the Churchill fire is a 39-year-old who's liked by his mother - but nobody else. Apparently, he likes to set fires in his back yard, and ignites the occasional tire: creating quite a stink. Literally and figuratively.

We probably won't know his name for some time: the court's forbidden that sort of detail from being published.

Probably just as well, considering the crowd of enthusiastic death-wishers who gathered around the police van that was transporting him at one point. I get the impression that he's even less popular than Stewart Parnell, the American who decided that it was okay to put salmonella-laced peanut paste in the country's food supply.

Even though it's beginning to look like the Victoria bushfires are a combination of natural disaster and old-fashioned firebug fling, it's still possible that "forest jihad" was involved.

Muslims Arrested! Free Speech Trammeled! Islamic Extremists in Australia!

I'm not so sure about the "free speech trammeled" business. Green Left ("Terror sentences: criminalising talk" (Green Left (February 7, 2009)) might have a point: except that in this case, the people who were jailed really weren't at all nice. In fact, they might be considered dangerous.

They were convicted of belonging to, and financially supporting, a terrorist organization. And "possessing material in preparation for a terrorist act."

In theory, I'm all for freedom of expression. But, I draw the line when it comes to 'expressions' like the attack on New York City's World Trade Center.

An analogy might be useful: Say there's a shopping mall. A fellow, wearing black body armor and carrying enough munitions for a Schwarzenegger movie, comes in the door. He's carrying a sign that says "death to shoppers."

Does it really make sense to let him walk around the mall until he opens fire?

Is it a serious attack on free speech to stop him before somebody gets killed?

I could, in a strictly theoretical and academic way, argue 'yes' to both questions. But, I live in the real world: so I'll say 'no.'

Abdul Nacer Benbrika and Company: Sincere, Dedicated, and Dangerous

Abdul Nacer Benbrika's name came up in the comments of an earlier post.

I also ran into Benbrika in Australian news, about a week before the Victoria fires. He, and six of his followers, have been sentenced because of their religious beliefs.

That sounds awful, but in this case the religious beliefs involved killing lots of people at a sporting event. That may not sound nice: but, according to Benbrika, it's okay. They weren't Muslims, and anyway Australia is a 'land of war.'

I don't think that's so much an indictment against Islam, as another example of how people can, given a running start, justify just about any disgusting, destructive, lethal act - and make it sound virtuous. It's not just religion that's used as a justification. Think about terms like 'enemy of the state.'

The Herald Sun had a rather detailed article on Abdul Nacer Benbrika's trial and sentencing. Here's an excerpt:

"...Benbrika, a fan of Osama bin Laden, regarded the destruction of the 'kuffar' — Arabic for 'unbelievers' — as an essential aspect of the Islamic religion, said the judge.

" 'The jemaah would achieve this by acts of terrible violence in this country, or perhaps elsewhere,' Justice Bongiorno said.

" 'In Australia, such terrorism would be directed towards coercing the Australian Government into withdrawing Australian forces from Iraq, as the presence of such troops in that country was seen as oppressive to Muslims and the Islamic religion.'

"In his Supreme Court sentence the judge said it appeared none of the men had denounced their violent jihadi views despite large amounts of character evidence on their behalf...."
(Herald Sun)

Sounds to me like Benbrika and his followers were quite eager to be victims of oppressive non-Muslims.

What, if Anything, does Abdul Nacer Benbrika have to do with the Victoria Bushfires?

Aside from demonstrating that Islamic terrorists do exist in Australia, I don't see much of a connection. Something may come out as time passes, of course.

The Benbrika trial, with sentencing just a week before the Victoria bushfires, does help explain why there was so much speculation about Islamic terrorists being responsible. Given the circumstances, it would be very easy to fall into the 'after that, therefore because of that' error in reasoning.

And, that 39-year-old suspect may turn out to be a Muslim. He may even have been part of Benbrika's outfit.

At this point, we just don't know.

More-or-less related posts:

• "Conservation, Crispy Koalas, and Common Sense"
  (February 14, 2009)
• "Why Don't I Write About [insert website name here]? "
  (February 14, 2009)
• "Islamic Website Called for 'Forest Jihad' - But Still No Evidence in Victoria"
  (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria Fires: Mass-Murdering Muslims, a Media Hoax, or Something Else?"
  (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria Bushfire: Arson, Probably; Muslim Plot? Unlikely!"
  (February 8, 2009)
• "Murderous Muslims, Catholic Extermination Camps, and Common Sense"
  (February 8, 2009)
• "Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age"
  (January 30, 2009)
• "Another War-on-Terror Blog and Simplistic Views"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated"
  (January 3, 2009)

News and views:

• "Accused arsonist 'lit fires monthly'"
  Herald Sun (February 15, 2009)
• "Jihadists celebrating Victoria fires; taking joy in the scenes"
  The Australian (February 15, 2009)
• "Australian firefighters close to containing blazes"
  Reuters (February 14, 2009)
• "They died on their knees in prayer"
  TimesOnline (February 14, 2009)
• "Keep out: blunt message for fire 'tourists' "
  The Age (February 14, 2009)
• "Fires fuel the blame game"
  nzherald.co.nz (February 14, 2009)
• "Vigilante fears as man held"
  The Sydney Morning Herald (February 14, 2009)
• "Kiwi fire victim died trying to protect wife"
  stuff.co.nz (February 13, 2009)
• "Suspect arrested in deadly Australia fires"
  The Associated Press (February 12, 2009)
• "Benbrika case shows limits of current Australian counter-terrorism strategy"
  Jurist (February 9, 2009)
• "Terror sentences: criminalising talk"
  Green Left (February 7, 2009)
• "Abdul Nacer Benbrika and six followers jailed"
  Herald Sun (February 3, 2009)
• "Trial told of AFL grand final 'terror plot' "
  The Age (April 15, 2008)
• "Terrorism accused 'planned grand final attack' "
  ABC News (Australia) (April 15, 2008)

Islamic Website Called for 'Forest Jihad' - But Still No Evidence in Victoria

(Why do I use the phrase "Islamic website" in this post? Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network made it, and they clearly think they're Islamic.)

I think we may be seeing the phrase "forest jihad" for a while. The idea that Australia's bushfires in Victoria were the work of Muslim terrorists has been discussed in a few online news services, and the catchy phrase "forest jihad" has been used.

Australian Police still haven't mentioned evidence that Islamic terrorists torched Victoria. Yes, South Australian Premier Mike Rann said that whoever set the fire were "terrorists" - but he's a politico, and politicians have been known to make over-the-top statements in stressful times.

Forest Jihad and Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network

A European news resource, mina, discussed "forest jihad." Looks like there's more than just wild speculation behind the idea that Islamic terrorists torched Victoria.

American intelligence spotted a website that urged Muslims in Australia, America, Europe, and Russia to torch forests - and that scholars said it was okay.

"The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the 'eye for an eye' doctrine...." (mina)

I see that, according to Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network's view of things, if the fires in Australia's Victoria state prove to be the work of lions of Islam, it will be America's fault - as well as Australia's, Europe's, and Russia's. My guess is that, at least among the more 'intelligent, open-minded' Americans, it'll be mostly America's fault.

Torching brush and letting people fry doesn't seem to be quite Al Qaeda's style: or that of any other Islamic terror outfit. Approved by scholars or not, it's just not all that macho.

Or, as an Australian professor put it, "glorious." "...Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis...." (mina)

Islamic Terrorists in Victoria? Maybe - and Maybe Not

The handful of "forest jihad" articles, including mina's more detailed one, referring to a website which advocated fire as a terror weapon, make the idea of Muslim terrorists being responsible more plausible.

But I am still not convinced that it's the most likely explanation. I tend to agree with Dolnik on this point: a suicide bomber makes a much bigger splash than an arsonist.

Islamic terrorists do seem to prefer more hands-on death and destruction: whether flying airliners into skyscrapers, beheading someone with a sword, or blowing yourself up in a market. That sort of mayhem is 'glorious' in a way. Setting a fire and running: not so much.

Not Discussing the "Forest Jihad" Scenario: Conventional Wisdom vs Good Sense

I'm not surprised that the idea of Muslim terrorists being responsible for Australia's disastrous fires is being ignored in traditional news media: so far.

Old school American news media, like The New York Times and the old ABC-NBC-CBS triumvirate, have certain standards. One of these appears to be that the sensibilities of non-western cultures and beliefs should be taken into account.

So far, so good.

But, like most good ideas, it can get out of hand. It looks like open discussion of a possible connection between an Islamic website advocating 'forest jihad,' and massive bushfires in Australia, is being ignored.

Maybe 'forest jihad' isn't being ignored - but it's hard for me to believe that one man, here in a small central Minnesota town, can out-research and out-write The New York Times, and other traditional information gatekeepers.

If traditional news media knows about the possible Islamic terror connection with the Victoria fires, and isn't writing about it - they're either ignoring it, or maybe waiting until they know more.

My guess is, they're ignoring it.

There are 'good reasons' for doing so. Coming right out and saying that some Islamic group said to burn the forests, and then Victoria bushfires got set, might prejudice people against all Muslims. Never mind that it's one (relatively unknown) group, on one website: and that real terrorists who think they're defending Islam have a history of getting up close and personal with their victims (Palestinian rockets notwithstanding).

So: is it a good idea to ignore the idea of "forest jihad" because some people would go way beyond the facts?

Maybe. But those "some people" may have done so already (judging from search terms I've been seeing), I'd say that old fashioned news services ignoring an issue won't keep people from knowing about it.

Beware Unintended Consequences

Keeping carefully quiet about "forest jihad" could, however, make it look like there's a cover-up going on.

No, I don't think so.

This diffidence about discussing "forest jihad" is (I think) more likely the traditional gatekeepers' reluctance to seem critical of non-western values and cultures.

Unhappily, it creates an information vacuum (or low-pressure system, at any rate) that allows genuinely biased ideas to fly around - without resistance.

More-or-less related posts:

• "Australia's Victoria Fires: Mass-Murdering Muslims, a Media Hoax, or Something Else?"
  (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria Bushfire: Arson, Probably; Muslim Plot? Unlikely!"
  (February 8, 2009)
• "Murderous Muslims, Catholic Extermination Camps, and Common Sense"
  (February 8, 2009)
• "Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age"
  (January 30, 2009)
• "Another War-on-Terror Blog and Simplistic Views"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated"
  (January 3, 2009)

In the news:

• "Australia's enemy within: The 'mass murderers' and 'terrorists' behind the wall of fire that killed up to 200 people"
  MailOnline (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia targeted for 'Forest Fire' jihad?"
  mina (Macedonian International News Agency) (February 9, 2009)

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Gitmo Prisoner Released to Saudi Arabia, Graduated from Jihad Rehab, Rejoined Al Qaeda: Success Story?

You've read about it: a Saudi man, Said Ali al-Shihri, had been held at "Gitmo," the Guantanamo (Guantánamo, if you insist) Bay prison for terrorists. Then, he was released, to Saudi Arabia.

As The New York Times put it this morning, "He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen." At least, he's back and with Al Qaeda - according to a website used by terrorists. They may be right.

Al-Shihri was in Gitmo, because he was probably involved in a lethal bombing of the American Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana. After he was released and went home to Saudi Arabia, he went through the desert kingdom's jihad rehab program. And released, as a successful graduate.

Well, more-or-less successful. Looks to me like Yemen is on the Arabian Peninsula, and graduates from Saudi Arabia's jihad rehabilitation program are supposed to lay off acts of terrorism - on the Arabian Peninsula. The rest of us, it seems, are fair game.

Yemen is setting up its own jihad rehab program, according to Arab News. Yemen is getting ready for the 100 or so Yemenis expected to be sprung from Gitmo, now that America has a new administration.

As Arab News put it, "The move triggered outrage among rights activists who said the government’s plan to keep the returnees in a rehabilitation center in their home country only means re-jailing them."

Judging from the Saudi example, I'd say that the 'rights activists' don't have much to worry about. Not about the Gitmo prisoners being re-jailed.

The case of al-Shihri, the jihad rehab programs, and the prisoners at Gitmo brings up an interesting point: Isn't it customary to wait until after a war is over, to release prisoners of war?

As Clive Davis said in the Spectator: "Well, let's hope this has all been thought through."

Related posts:

• "Indonesian Deradicalization Program Working: In Indonesia, at Least"
  (January 15, 2008)
• "Saudi Breakthrough! Jihadists Reformed!! Al Qaeda Members Promise No More Jihad*!!!"
  (November 27, 2007)
  *on the Arabian Peninsula, that is.
• "Jihad Rehab"
  (August 22, 2007)

News and views:

• "Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen"
  The Associated Press (January 23, 2009)
• "Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen"
  (January 23, 2009)
• "Yemen sets up rehab center for Guantanamo returnees"
  Arab News (January 23, 2009)
• "Guantanamo & rendition"
  Spectator.co.uk (January 23, 2009)
• "Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief "
  The New York Times (January 23, 2009)

Why I Call "Knights in Support of the Invasion" Islamic

A few minutes ago I wrote a post about the Facebook group, "Knights in Support of the Invasion." I called it an Islamic group.

A Muslim, whose word I have no reason to disbelieve, said, "...that's the whole truth, we are a part of a peaceful religion...."

If I believe the 'peaceful religion' person, why would I call "Knights in Support of the Invasion" Islamic?

I Let People Define Themselves

In general, I prefer to let people define themselves. For example, if someone says, "I am a Democrat," or "I'm a Christian," or "I'm a vegetarian," I'm not likely to say "no, you're not."

If I've got fact-based reasons for thinking that the person isn't acting the way a Democrat, Christian, or vegetarian, might be expected to behave, I might point that out. I might even, if - say - the vegetarian was chowing down on a 16-ounce porterhouse steak at the time - come right out and say that there's specific reason to believe that the person isn't what he or she claims to be.

But, I don't know enough about Islam to say that Facebook's "Knights in Support of the Invasion" isn't Islamic. They claim to support Islam, and the group is (or was) focused on that support, so I think it's reasonable to say that it's Islamic.

Besides, the membership of Muslim clerics, prominent ones, who are subjects of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, seem to affirm that "Knights in Support of the Invasion" is an Islamic group.

With so many flavors of Islam around, I'm not going to be the one to say 'this is Islamic,' and 'this is not Islamic.' Besides, the closest thing that Islam seems to have to an authority, clerics under the ruler of the House of Saud, seem to think that the "Knights in Support of the Invasion" version is the real McCoy.

Related posts:

• "Islamic 'Knights in Support of the Invasion' Group on Facebook Shut Down: Censorship, or Common Sense?"
  (December 20, 2008)
• "'Will the Real Islam, Please Stand Up?' "
  (February 6, 2008)

Osama bin Laden: Something Old, Something New

Excerpts from Osama bin Laden's latest audio tape played on Al-Jazeera television yesterday: along with a still photo of the Islamic philosopher and apparent spiritual leader of Al Qaeda.

There was a surprise in the excerpts, and something that wasn't so surprising.

First, the non-surprise.

"It is the duty of the people of Islam in the Sudan and its environs, especially the Arabian Peninsula, to perform jihad against the Crusader invaders and wage armed rebellion to remove those who let them in," a translation and transcript provided by IntelCenter. (Hats off to the Boston Herald for telling where they got the information. IntelCenter monitors extremist Web sites.)

Bin Laden is talking about U.N. 'peacekeepers' in Darfur, trying to slow down the genocide there. This 'death to the peacekeepers' thing is hardly news. Bin Laden deputy, Ayman al-Zawhiri, did a jihad cal for Darfur in a September 20 video. Bin Laden
did about the same thing back in 2006, telling his followers to fight a proposed U.N. force in Sudan.

Another tape, another jihad: Not really news.

An article in the Sudan Tribune pointed out something unusual in the latest audio recording released by bin Laden. "In the sections of the message broadcast Monday, bin Laden took the highly uncharacteristic step of acknowledging that al-Qaida had made mistakes and chiding followers for not uniting their ranks — a reference to the squabbles among various insurgent groups in Iraq.

" 'Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes,' " he said. "Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahideen have to correct their mistakes."

Osama bin Laden's very unusual criticism of his followers may be more than "the squabbles among various insurgent groups in Iraq." It could be that Al Qaeda and company in Iraq did such an effective job bombing and beheading their way out of the hearts and minds of Iraqis, that bin Laden believed that a public reprimand was called for.

It's not good news for Al Qaeda, when an AP article says, "October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists."

Major General Rick Lynch pointed out that Shiites and Sunnis have joined Americans in defending Iraq: 20,000 "Concerned Citizens" in the past four months.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

"Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Canada

17 young Muslims had bought explosives, and planned to blow up the stock exchange, another building, and parliament. They also planned to behead at least one of the members of parliament, if I caught it right.

They were arrested. They were members of the Saladin Mosque in Toronto, run by Ali Hindi.

A talk show host, Tarek Fatah, said that blowing up parliament wasn't a good idea. So, now he's been identified as an "enemy of Islam," and accused of besmirching The Prophet and Islam.

Tarek Fatah has been physically attacked for his views: understandable, since he claims that sharia law is more of a cultural creation than something in the Quran.

For this, he's called an extremist.

Ali Hindi says that jihad is Muslims defending Muslims - in expanding circles around the original 'attack' - and that armed force is quite justified.

Ali Hindi also doesn't like the idea of women being independent. Tarek Fatah thinks women are people, and can make decisions. So, Fatah is an extremist.

I'm no expert, but Tarek doesn't sound all that far off-base.

Posts about "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:"

• "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics" - This blogger's introduction (last section of "Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and 'Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics'")

1. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Denmark
2. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Canada
3. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Canada - Women
4. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Chicago
5. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Michigan
6. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Arizona
7. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" France

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics"

I keep telling myself that, as the current president of the United States said, "Islam is a peaceful religion." Several times:

• "President's Ramadan Message " (October 24, 2003)
• "BACKGROUNDER: THE PRESIDENT'S QUOTES ON ISLAM / In the President’s Words: Respecting Islam " (2001-2002)

"Peaceful" and "Islam" are words that don't seem to fit well together, with the daily car bomb scores echoing on the news, Iran's leaders commending Chancellor Hitler's Jewish policy and talking about obliterating Israel, and a high probability that Bhutto's convoy was bombed by at least one suicide bomber from a nut-case Islamic group.

I'll admit I'm biased. I want to believe that

• Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are not the best that Islam has to offer
• Islam is not a bizarre, dangerous remnant from the days of the Frankish Kingdom, Beowulf, Prince Shôtoku and the Tang Dynasty.

I found three more outfits, and a film, that let me keep believing that Islam and the Information Age can get along.

Three Outfits

The Free Muslims Coalition has a statement about terrorism which is refreshingly straightforward: "The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism." (from "Issues / Terrorism") They also have a remarkably perceptive view of the place of democracy in the Middle East: "The Free Muslims Coalition strongly supports the promotion of democracy in the Middle East. However, the Coalition cautions that imposing democracy on the Middle East without first promoting secularism and destroying terrorism may lead to the creation of Islamic extremist states that will ultimately reject the democracy that brings them to power." (from "Issues / Democracy")

Muslims Against Terrorism (M-A-T) claims to be the "First Anti-Terrorism NGO in the World for Global Peace and Justice / (Founded in Calgary on January 11, 1998) puts its Mission Statement right under the home page titles: "To be the leading Muslim organization in the world for creating awareness about the dangers of terrorism and it's various causes such as oppression, exploitation and injustice, and unite people to stop terrorism."

Sounds good. And, since M-A-T says "We Muslims strongly condemn the American aggression and cruelty in Iraq and elsewhere...." I'm a little surprised that we haven't heard more about this very socially-conscious organization.

M-A-T also should do its homework, though, when it makes statements about other religions. On the same FAQ page cited above, they say: "The difference between Islam and other religions is that the Islam provides complete and specific guidance to its followers in all possible aspects of life, while the other religions provide guidelines only in a few aspects of life."

start digression

I'm a devout Catholic, and have some familiarity with Church teachings. The Church doesn't cover details like how often to floss your teeth or whether cars are moral or not. On the other hand, there are rules for how to run your business and how to be an employer or an employee (2426-2436, a husband (1610, 1615, 1659), a wife (1605, 1659), a parent (2221-26), a child (2214-20). We're even told how to get ready for death (1014). The Catechism (official English edition) is a good starting point. Those four-digit numbers are paragraph references in the Catechism. Here are some more aspects of life that the Church spells out:

• Government of nations and other communities (1877-1927, 2213)
• Marriage (1601-1666)
• Family (1655-58, 1625-1666, 1914, 2201-2233, 2436, 2685)
• Education 1906, 2221-24, 2228-30

In each case, those references are just a start.

end digression

Islam for Today's "Muslims against Terrorism" makes the position of Islam for Today very clear.

Islam for Today uses quotes from the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed ("By God, he is not a true believer, from whose mischief his neighbors do not feel secure" and "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds.") and a link to "Insights from Imam Tamman Adi of the Islamic Cultural Center of Eugene, Oregon."

There's more on that page, but what jumped out at me was a "memo to Usama bin Laden:" "'I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any "Islamic state" established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best.'" ("A thought-provoking, controversial, pre-war article by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., February 12, 2003")

One Film

Finally, "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics," "follows moderate Muslims who have challenged the "Islamists" who espouse a more radical view of their religion. The film shows the Islamists advocating, among other things, the imposition of Sharia law on Muslims in the West, the stoning of women who commit adultery, and even violence and terrorism."

The Public Broadcasting System bankrolled the film. When they viewed it, it was taken out of their "America at a Crossroads" series. The PBS chiefs running "America at a Crossroads" told the filmmakers that the film, called "Islam vs. Islamists" at that point, was "alarmist" and "overreaching." PBS wouldn't run it.

I do see PBS's point. The film's producers, Martyn Burke, Frank Gaffney, and Islamism expert Alex Alexiev, tracked moderate Muslims in key positions:

• Denmark - Politician Naser Khader
• France - Filmmaker Mohammed Sifaoui
• Canada - Talk-show host Tarek Fatah
• Chicago, Illinois - Former Nation of Islam member Edmond Abdul Hafeez
• Flint, Michigan - Sheikh Kabbani, the imam
  who warned State Department officials of Osama bin Laden's terrorism influence three years before the Sept. 11 attacks

I suppose the Flint imam was "alarming:" he was trying to raise the alarm in Washington.

A Wisconsin-born Muslim living in Arizona, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, says, "The cancer that is within our community is I don't believe the majority," in the film "I think it's a minority, it's a minor, minor, minor, minority that are radicalized or violent but the majority I believe look at the lens of politics through an Islamist lens.

"If we give them and let them handle the mantle of religion that they seek to exploit for their own geo-political issues all over the globe, then we are really going to lose this war."

Maybe the film is alarmist, after all. But there are times and places for alarm, and one of them is now.

I'm going to be watching "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics" in a little less than two hours. It's airing at 9 p.m. ET today, on the FOX News Channel.

A DVD of the complete "Islam v. Islamist" DVD is available at www.islamdocumentary.com.Posts about "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:"

• "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics" - This blogger's introduction (last section of "Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and 'Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics'")

1. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Denmark
2. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Canada
3. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Canada - Women
4. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Chicago
5. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Michigan
6. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" Arizona
7. "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics:" France

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

It's What You're Biased About That Counts

Time for an admission. I'm biased.

I'm not a Muslim. Given my beliefs, I can't become a Muslim. Although I've learned to enjoy breathing in my half-century-plus of life, If I were forced to choose between an outward acceptance of Islam and death, I would have to choose death. I'm not being brave, just consistent. I've been Christian all my life, and, God willing, that's not going to change.

I won't kill my children because they "bring shame" on my family. My understanding is that honor killing may not be an integral part of Islam. It seems to be part of the flavor of Islam that outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda want to impose on the rest of us.

Then there's my wife. I won't beat her, I even let her drive around town without a male relative. In fact, she and my daughter are out, driving, shopping, and visiting my father-in-law, without a male escort: except for my father-in-law, of course. In Riyadh, that would at best cause remark. Here in Minnesota, it's just the way we live.

"Let her drive around town?" Americans will understand how bizarre that statement is. Or, maybe not.

Given my stubborn refusal to embrace the beliefs of some crazed imam, my insistence on viewing rape victims as victims, and my libertine attitude toward letting my wife get the groceries on her own, my next expression of bias may be understandable.

I don't want Al Qaeda to win. I don't want the Taliban to take over management of Minnesota. I don't want any of these jihadist crazies to make America a caliphate.

I don't care how anti-multicultural or intolerant it sounds: I want America to win the war on terror. Losing this conflict would be a disaster: take a look at what the Taliban's Afghanistan was like, for a preview of a sufficiently Islamic America and Europe.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

Diplomacy: A Noble Ideal

It would be nice, if a series of letters, and meetings, and conferences, and declarations, and solemn agreements, would convince Al-Qaeda, and all people on jihad against the west, to give up their beliefs. Who knows? Osama bin Laden might even apologize for the 9/11 attack.

There's reason why I seem unconvinced that there is a purely diplomatic solution to the war on terror. I've been watching relations between Israel and every other country in the Arab world, off and on, for almost a half-century.

At first, I had some sympathy for the Palestinians. For some reason, they couldn't move to other nations in the region, and seemed to be forced to live in restricted areas in and around Israel.

Then I noticed a difference between how the two groups acted in warfare.

The Israeli military killed Palestinian civilians: because Palestinian military leaders, sniper positions, and rocket launchers were placed among or behind civilians.

Heroic Palestinians launched attacks on strategic buses and shopping malls, and destroyed tactical restaurants, hotels, a disco and a pizzeria. In one daring attack, two teenage boys were beaten, stoned, dismembered, and tucked away in a cave.

And that's just highlights of victories over the Israeli oppressors, since the Oslo Accords, signed September 13, 1993.

The defenders of Palestine forced the Israeli occupiers (as they've been described) out of the Gaza Strip two years ago. My understanding was that there was an agreement that Palestinians there would stop firing rockets at Israelis.

To their credit, the Palestinians didn't kill Israelis in rocket attacks as often for quite a while. Then, recently, they stepped up the bombardment of Israel. Israel declared the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity."

Predictably, Hamas criticized the Jews. "This Israeli step is a clear indication of military escalation against Gaza," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said.

There's a lesson here.

Many people in the Middle East are upstanding citizens, interested in their families and livelihood, and willing to be sensible.

On the other hand, quite a few people and organizations there have worked long and hard to establish a reputation for bloodshed and destruction, and for treating cease-fires, truces, and peace agreements as opportunities to re-group and re-arm.

With a track record like that, it's hard to put a great deal of confidence in

• Iran's assurances over their nuclear program
• Syria's assurance that they don't have a nuclear program
• The International Atomic Energy Agency's ability to inspect and negotiate the truth out of the mess

Or, for that matter, any of the 'death to Israel, death to the great Satan America' outfits' good will.

Just What's Going On With "Jihad Watch?" Censorship?

This is getting interesting.

About censorship: "Jihad Watch banned again" (September 4, 2007).

Taking a look around Jihad Watch, I think I'm beginning to understand the problem. Jihad Watch doesn't approve of Islam, and therefore is a hate group. At least, by the standards of some segments of American society.

Jihad Watch's post, "Iraq: Misunderstanders of Islam continue with creation of "Islamic Cabinet"" (September 4, 2007), makes it very clear that they do not agree with the mainstream view that Islam has been hijacked by terrorists.

Jihad Watch rejects the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the jihadists are the Islamic equivalent of one of, say, the KKK with its cross-burnings.

For those without a knowledge of American culture in the 20th century, the KKK said they were Christians who were protecting their faith (and racial purity). Quite a few Christians, particularly Catholics, didn't agree: at all.

Back to Jihad Watch: I doubt that their identification of all Islam with the jihadist faction is accurate; but so far, there's been a remarkable lack of fuss raised by Muslims, regarding what is supposed to be a hijacking of their faith.

The matter certainly can be debated, and I am very concerned that a point of view is being banned.

I will admit that I have a personal stake in this. I express views in this blog that probably do not meet with the approval of

• The likes of Jihad Watch
  ("If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!")
• Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud
  ("Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten")
• Keith Ellison
  ("Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks")

One way or another, somebody's going to get around to wanting me banned from the blogosphere, because I have an unapproved viewpoint.

I lived with political correctness in academia. I'd rather not see the same sort of censorship become common in the blogosphere.

It's Not Both Sides: It's All Sides

In a week, it will be September 11: six years after airliners crashed into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

I may come up with something reflective and thoughtful when that date comes around, but for now I'll just take a quick run through today's headlines.

"Chinese military hacked into Pentagon" Financial Times (September 3, 2007). The Pentagon had to shut down part of its network recently. Apparently the data that was compromised wasn't particularly important. And, the attack came from computers in China. "Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the People’s Liberation Army," the London news outfit reported. "These hacking attacks go on everyday but this was a more complicated attack with more sophisticated technology that broke through the current firewalls," another news service reported. The Chinese government denies having anything to do with the Pentagon attack, and on a hack attack on German government computers earlier.

China isn't involved in the jihad against the west: or if it is, it's showing it in a very strange way. The Online Times reports that "Beijing’s 'war on terror' hides brutal crackdown on Muslims" (July 22, 2007). The article focused on the late Ismail Semed, "a Muslim and a political activist." He confessed to "attempting to split the motherland," after being encouraged with torture.

China's western holdings include Uighur Muslims, a Turkic people who would just as soon not be part of China's regime. Chinese authorities were quiet about killing unruly Uighurs until 9/11 and the "war on terror" gave them an excuse for their anti-Muslim actions.

Please note: 9/11 didn't make the Chinese government start killing Muslims. It gave them a polite excuse for doing what they'd been doing for years.

The conflicts of the early 21st century are not a simple, two-sided confrontation.

• Fanatic Muslims are killing westerners, Muslims who aren't Islamic their way, and anyone else they don't approve of
• China is killing Muslims who don't want to be Chinese on the Chinese government's terms
• Russia is flying long-range bomber patrols over the Atlantic, and, according to President Putin, putting money into their aircraft industry, because "Russia ... faces the task of maintaining supremacy in producing military aircraft," according to CNN.com / World, which quoted Reuters
• America and a coalition of other nations have attacked nations which harbor the Islamic fanatics

Whatever else can be said about today's world: it's not boring. There are at least three, probably more, major powers at work.

"Budget Cut Will Delay Anti-Missile Laser" Yahoo! Finance (September 4, 2007). A flight test of the airliner-based Airborne Laser (ABL) system last week went very well. ABL system development is running behind schedule and over budget.

A big reason for the delay and expense is that "jitter," vibration that's part of a 747's normal flight, interferes with the precision aiming needed: and is harder to deal with than expected.

The Senate and House Armed Services committees, acting with the responsibility and wisdom that we've come to expect, cut the president's proposed fiscal 2008 ABL budget of $549 million. So far, the House Armed Services committee wants to cut the budget by $250 million. The Senate Armed Services Committee wants to cut $200 million from the ABL program.

With any luck, nobody will try to shoot down an American airliner until the system is finally ready. What astonishes me about the congressional decision is that those people often use civilian airliners themselves. You'd think that they'd be more concerned about airplanes blowing up with people inside, when they could be some of the people.

"Peace For Our Time," or Peace?

The unclassified part of the National Intelligence Estimate released today is coming out in bits and pieces in the news.

The Jerusalem Post concentrated mostly on what the report had to say about Iran, in "US reports bleak political situation in Iran" (August 23, 2007).

The Associated Press article says that:

• Iran will keep developing its nuclear program, which may or may not be producing nuclear weapons
• Iran will continue to "cause problems" in Iraq
• Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, will still be backed by Iranian money and weapons
• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will continue to be Iran's Supreme Leader

I haven't been keeping score, but at least four Iranian-Americans have been arrested by Iran for alleged espionage. The U.S. government has warned American citizens against traveling in Iran.

"Intelligence Assessment Suggests Now Is Not Time to Change Mission in Iraq," on FoxNews.com, paid more attention to what the report had to say about Iraq.

It's not all bad news, but it's not all good, either:

• Iraqi military forces are okay, but they still need coalition support for major operations
• Political and security troubles in Iraq are driven by
• Shia insecurity about keeping the political power they have
• A general Sunni unwillingness to accept the post-Saddam Iraq where they aren't the top power
• Fighting between groups within sectarian communities
• Extremists trying to make the fighting worse
• Civilians are still getting hurt
• Sunni Arab groups and individuals are getting fed up with al Qaeda in Iraq, and are resisting or working against AQI

There's more, of course. Fox News put a .pdf copy of the report online.

The report's authors say that stopping Coalition forces from focusing on fighting terrorists and stabilizing Iraq, and making them a combat support service for the Iraqi forces, "would erode security gains achieved thus far."

I would love to have "peace for our time." The violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else that al Qaeda and other Islamic fanatics are at work, is terrible. I wish that it would stop.

But wishing doesn't make it so.

Like it or not, there are people who earnestly believe that their god is telling them to conduct a jihad against the people their leaders don't approve of.

And, it's been going on for at least 30 years. The Ayatollahs who run Iran are the same bunch that took over the U.S. Embassy, back in the seventies.

There's no reason to believe that Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, or any of the other people who think they're on a sacred mission, will stop because America and other coalition troops stop trying so hard in Iraq.

"We make war that we may live in peace."

To people who grew up in the sixties, or who are still living then, that sounds crazy. But Aristotle was no lunatic, and leaders who don't let terrorists do what they will may not be, either.

---

Reality Check: Religion Counts

After more than a decade's experience inside academia, I'm not really surprised when highly educated experts fail to grasp the obvious.

Everybody (everybody who counts, anyway) knows that complex socio-economic factors, interacting with psychological manifestations of diverse cultural norms, are what make people do what they do: and that religion is dumb.

Except for some really cool religions from exotic places, of course.

Unfair? I hope so. But it's hard not to think that secular psychobabble and refried Marxism, with a dash of multicultural activism, is what passes for thought in the halls of ivy these days.

Especially when something titled "Princeton Economist Says Lack of Civil Liberties, Not Poverty, Breeds Terrorism" shows up in the Wall Street Journal (July 5, 2007).

I'm not making this up. The title says it all. It's become obvious that there isn't a link between terrorism and poverty. Something else must be the cause of all these Muslims (not all Muslims!) coming after western interests. I give the professor credit, that far, for remarkably incisive thinking.

Then, he says that lack of civil liberties causes terrorism. An opposing view is "Princeton economist: Poverty doesn't cause terror, so it must be...er...denial of civil liberties! Yeah, that's it!" (July 6, 2007). I recommend reading it.

If jihadist terrorism isn't caused by poverty, or by insufficient civil liberties, what could possibly be the reason for people committing mass murder with explosive vests, car bombs, and, on occasion, airliners, and getting themselves killed in the process?

• Dysfunctional, codependent familial support systems?
• Insufficient empowerment?
• Porsche Envy?
  (wanting to be more well-to-do than one already is)
• Racial profiling?
• Suboptimal toilet training?

I don't think any of these factor significantly into terrorist ideology.

The reason to rise up against the west is both simple and profound. These jihadists are trying to kill those who don't agree with their leaders because they are convinced that Allah told them to.

These terrorists are doing what they do, out of a deeply and sincerely held religious conviction. No wonder most academics don't get it: religious beliefs as a basis for action is an alien concept: at best, understood as the motivation of some funny-sounding, poor, uneducated, and easily-led folks who vote the wrong way.

The Islamic Republic News Agency ran an article recently, "President: Rule of Islam only way for salvation of mankind" (August 14, 2007), in which the President of Iran, no doubt under the wise guidance of the ayatollahs, spelled out what good Muslims should do. At least, according to his masters.

Quoting from the article, "President Ahmadinejad said nations are today distancing themselves from culture of materialism and selfishness and look for a new way for their prosperity, that is the path of Islam.

"He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama (1) at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is.

"'Nations today have no haven but religion,' the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots.

"He said, 'All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks.'

"He said that the Iranian nation today feels more than ever the need to stand beside the Afghan nation.

"'The Islamic Republic of Iran has kindly received their Afghan brothers and will continue to do so in future. Minor issues will cannot affect Iran's policies on Afghanistan,' he added.

"The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam."

Not all Muslims are terrorists these days, but there's a reason why practically all terrorists are Muslims.

Religion counts. Outside of a few cultural enclaves here, and in Europe, religion is an openly important aspect of civic life.

And, this is important. The people who are running America and other western countries will not be able to make sensible decisions, unless they understand this simple fact.

Posts on this general topic:

• Muslims Are Not All Alike (August 19, 2007)
• More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us" (August 9, 2007)
• Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten (August 9, 2007)
• Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News (August 7, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks July 17, 2007
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2 (July 15, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" (July 6, 2007)

(1) ulama (علماء), the legal scholars of Islam and the Sharia, the learned and knowledgeable people in Islam.

New York City Counterterrorism Report: Profiling, Stereotyping, or Common Sense

The New York City (NYC) Police Department report on terrorism, mentioned in a Washington Post article yesterday (August 16, 2007), is the sort of long, detailed, official document that generally doesn't make the news. In fact, the paper only said enough about the report to give readers a general impression of its contents:

"The 90-page report, compiled by two police counterterrorism analysts, argues that the danger posed by homegrown radical Islamists is growing, fueled by Internet communications and the growing global popularity of jihadist ideology.

"But the report also concedes that "there is no useful profile . . . to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization" because those who end up being radicalized begin as 'unremarkable' individuals 'from various walks of life.'

"...The report by analysts Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt outlines a four-step process, from 'pre-radicalization' to 'jihadization,' that it says is undergone by most terrorists before participating in an attack. The transformation is often triggered by a personal crisis and includes common elements, such as a withdrawal from attending a mosque as the person's isolation increases, the report says."

I found more about the Silber-Bhatt report in the New York Post - "THE ROAD TO LOCAL JIHAD" (August 16, 2007). "Excerpted from "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," a report prepared by senior NYPD intelligence analysts Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt for Police Commissioner Ray Kelly." There's quite a bit more about the report here.

Briefly:

The Silber-Bhatt report identifies four stages on the road to "jihadization," or being a terrorist. I'm going to boil it down even more: I suggest that you read the article, since I'm leaving out quite a bit of detail.

1. Pre-Radicalization
2. Self-Identification
3. Indoctrination
4. Jihadization

Expanding on that list,

1. Pre-Radicalization: This is when the terrorist-to-be is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill person, with an ordinary life and job. There's usually no criminal history.
2. Self-Identification: The person starts moving toward Salafi Islam (1), and away from their old identity. They start associating themselves with people with the same mind-set, and adopt this ideology as their own. What sets this "religious seeking" off is is a cognitive opening, or crisis, which shakes the person's certainty about what they believed before. The person is open to new world-views.
   The trigger can be: losing a job; alienation, discrimination, or racism (real or imagined, as long as the person feels it); political, like "international conflicts involving Muslims" (my own guess is that politics on the regional or local level could be a trigger, too); death in the family, or another personal crisis. Self-identification is basically an individual act. However, being part of a group with similar beliefs is important, especially as the next step gets closer.
3. Indoctrination: The person "progressively intensifies his (2) beliefs," swallows jihadi-Salafi, ideology and an all, and concludes, no questions asked, that it's time for action. Specifically, militant jihad. The person is helped (and pushed) through this phase by a "spiritual sanctioner." Being with people who are in a similar frame of mind, and with similar beliefs, gets more important: particularly as the person sinks deeper into the group's beliefs. "By the indoctrination phase this self-selecting group becomes increasingly important as radical views are encouraged and reinforced."
4. Jihadization: This is where members of the little band accept being part of jihad as their individual duty. They call themselves as holy warriors, or mujahedeen. Sooner or later, they get practical and get into "acts in furtherance." These acts include planning, preparation and execution: of people; or the plans; or both. The earlier parts of getting radical can be gradual, covering two or three years or more. Jihadization can happen fast, anywhere from a few months to a few weeks.

A Washington Post article mentioned that this process "includes common elements, such as a withdrawal from attending a mosque as the person's isolation increases." Although dropping out of a mosque is a common part of the jihadization process, the report includes mosques, as well as cafes, cabdriver hangouts, prisons, student associations, nongovernmental organizations and hookah bars, in its list of places where radicals can be hatched.

The Washington Post's "Terror Threat Grows Quietly, Report Warns" article wraps up its description of the NYC Police report with a quote, "'The subtle and non-criminal nature of the behaviors involved in the process of radicalization makes it difficult to identify or even monitor from a law enforcement standpoint,' the report concludes."

That's the report. Here are some reactions to it.

"Making all Muslims suspects is ethnic profiling, and it's unconstitutional," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. (from the Washington Post) (NYCLU is the (New York State affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union)

"So while labeling almost every American Muslim as a potential terrorist, the report's authors admit that their findings offer no useful way to identify real terror suspects." (from a Council of Council on American-Islamic Relations press release, "CAIR: NYPD Terror Report Casts Suspicion on All U.S. Muslims," August 15, 2007)

The NYPD report was "unfortunate stereotyping" and at odds with federal law enforcement findings that the threat from homegrown terrorists was minimal, according to an Arab-American civil rights group.. "It [the report] is completely un-American; it goes against everything we stand for," said Kareem Shora, executive director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "We do not want to alienate any segment of any community, and by using that language you are actually aiding the extremists in their recruiting efforts."

Under the circumstances, I'd say the reaction to this report is fairly mild. Two days after the excitement started, news coverage I've seen has been subdued or non-existent.

It's early days, though.

Major players in the civil-rights game, like CAIR and the ACLU, through its New York State affiliate, as well as relatively unknown groups like the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee started with the predictable accusations of profiling, and stereotyping.

My guess is that, if New York City law enforcement starts acting on this report, there will be more-or-less wild accusations of civil rights violations, profiling, and, of course, racism.

What got relatively little attention in coverage of the NYC Police report was that Muslims in America haven't gotten radicalized the way that Muslims in Europe have. I think that this reflects something that the civil-rights community in general has a great deal of difficulty understanding about this country.

Every identifiable group of immigrants have been viewed by suspicion by some, and occasionally subjected to discrimination (real discrimination: not I-was-arrested because-I'm-Yougarian thing (3)) on an official level, in America. Just the same, this country is much more comfortable about having one more ethnic group living here than European countries seem to be.

I think it's because by now we're accustomed to having corned beef and cabbage, enchiladas, potato curry, and stir-fried bean curd on menus downtown, and the people who eat these dishes at home, living within a few blocks.

Footnotes:

(1) Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam. Adherents more often refer to teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab as Salafi, that is, "following the forefathers of Islam." "Wahhabi" is a common term for the same group, although Salafi Muslims do not generally use it. People who belong to this type of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun (that is, "Unitarians," or "unifiers of Islamic practice"). Wahhabism is one a particular set of beliefs within Salafism. Most Islamic "puritanical" groups are Salafi, but not necessarily Wahhabi.
(2) Although I found no news report which mentioned this gaffe, the NYC Police report seems to be sexist, too. At least, by PC standards.
(3) Yougarian: Of or relating to Yougaria, a fictional country of uncertain location. I use it sometimes, as a generic term: mostly because it's somewhat more adaptable, and much cooler, than "foreigner."