Suppose I were to reply to this cartoon that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and that it is unfair to stigmatize an entire religion for its violent fringe. Presumable the authors of the cartoon would say that they weren't referring to all Muslims, just the terrorist minority.
The rejoinder is so obvious it scarcely needs saying.
Two things can both be true (1) the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and (2) Islam nonetheless had (and perhaps still has) a terrorism problem.
How so? Well, let's take a point of comparison. Islam is not the only religion that has a few terrorist fringes. The difference is in separating the fringes from the mainstream.
For instance, in 1995 a bizarre Buddhist doomsday cult in Japan named Aum Shrinrikyo (Supreme Truth) launched a Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subways. Naturally this led to a general crackdown on the group, and the ringleaders were sentenced to death. But no one saw this as an attack on mainstream Buddhism. In 1984 Bhagwan Shree Rahneesh, leader of a Hindu cult that were unwelcome visitors in Antelope Oregon, conspired with his followers to cause a deliberate food poisoning outbreak. The plan was to incapacitate voters in Antelope so his followers could sweep the elections. This led to the deportation of Rasjneesh and the arrest and prosecution of many of his followers. But no one saw it as an attack on mainstream Hinduism. In 1993 the Branch Davidians, a splinter group from the Seventh Day Adventists, were stockpiling a large arsenal to fight the battle of Armegeddon against the federal government. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) moved in to seize their weapons, leading to a shootout and (ultimately) the whole compound went up in flames, killing 76 people, including 25 children. This conflagration played a major role in launching the militia movement of the 1990's. But ("Is your church ATF approved" bumper stickers notwithstanding) no one saw it as an attack on mainstream Christianity.
By contrast, in 2001, fanatical Muslim hijackers crashed two planes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. This was the culmination of many terrorist attacks. Calls immediately went out for revenge. And these were widely seen as at least potentially an attack on mainstream Islam, from both within and outside Islam.
Why the difference, since all these were the work of fringe groups? Well, for one thing, it probably means the violent fringes of Islam were a lot larger than the violent fringes of Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism. For another, the fringes were harder the separate from the mainstream. It has not always been easy to draw a clear line between mainstream Islam and Wahabi, or between general Wahabism and its terrorist fringes.
As for the Republican Party in general and Trump supporters in particular, this has been around for a while. In 2012, under the Obama Administration, the FBI issued a report warning of the dangers of right-wing terrorism. Republicans reacted with outrage, treating the report as an attack on them personally, and denying that right wing terrorism existed at all.
To which I reply, of course right wing terrorism exists. Haven't you ever heard of the Ku Klux Klan? And if Republicans dismiss that as ancient history and all Democrats anyhow, all right then, what about Timothy McVeigh? Or Shawna Forde and her cohorts? Or Anders Breivik? Or Dylan Roof? Or Brenton Harrison Tarrant?
To which Republicans would presumably say, what does that have to do with us? And I would answer, I never said it had anything to do with you. I said these were rightwing terrorist and should offer ample proof that rightwing terrorism exists, or that it can be deadly. If you choose to see that as an attack on mainstream conservatism, well, that's on you.
As for Trump supporters, the Capitol Hill insurrection should make amply clear that a fringe of Trump supporters have a potential for violence. So should Kyle Ritterhouse, not to mention his mainstream (or semi-mainstream) defenders. Or the Trump train that surrounded and menaced the Biden bus, and their numerous mainstream supporters.
Trump supporters have a terrorism problem similar to the one in Islam. The vast majority are peaceful and only a fringe minority are violent.. But Trumpism has rather large fringes. Moreover, the line between mainstream Trump supporters and Proud Boys/III Percent/Oath Keeper militia types is not as clear as one might wish. And the line between militia groups and outright terrorists is even less clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment