Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Distance matters:In a mendacious essay over at the Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria extolls the virtues of immigration. Never mind that it depresses wages of everybody. In any event, one of his 'points' is this: One puzzle about post-Sept. 11 America is that it has not had a subsequent terror attack -- not even a small backpack bomb in a movie theater -- while there have been dozens in Europe. My own explanation is that American immigrant communities, even Arab and Muslim ones, are not very radicalized. (Even if such an attack does take place, the fact that 4 1/2 years have gone by without one provides some proof of this contention.) That's certainly open to debate. This blog considers al-Qaeda to be a motley group with limited resources (e.g. car bombs). That they don't pose a significant threat - at least not on the level of any state. And there is pretty convincing evidence of the terrorist's limited capabilities. Let's review major terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals since 9/11: (Israel/Palestinian and Iraq events excluded) | Date | Where | Nearest major
Islamic state | casualties | distance from
state (miles) | | May 8, 2002 | Karachi, Pakistan | Pakistan | 13 | 0 | | June 14, 2002 | Karachi, Pakistan | Pakistan | 12 | 0 | | Octeber 12, 2002 | Bali, Indonesia | Indonesia | 202 | 0 | | May 12, 2003 | Riyadh, Saudi Arabia | Saudi Arabia | 26 | 0 | | May 16, 2003 | Casablanca, Morocco | Morocco | 41 | 0 | | November 15, 2003 | Istanbul, Turkey | Turkey | 27 | 0 | | November 20, 2003 | Istanbul, Turkey | Turkey | 30 | 0 | | March 11, 2004 | Madrid, Spain | Morocco | 191 | 300 | | May 29, 2004 | Khobar, Saudi Arabia | Saudi Arabia | 22 | 0 | | July 7, 2005 | London, United Kingdom | North Africa region | 56 | 1000 | | July 23, 2005 | Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt | Egypt | 88 | 0 | | 2002-2006 | United States | North Africa region | 0 | 5000 | Graphically: (total attack deaths plotted against distance from major Islamic populations)  Has the U.S. escaped significant terrorist atacks because of its immigration policy (Zakaria) or simply because it's further away?
posted by Quiddity at 4/04/2006 06:33:00 AM
9 comments
You ought to back up "mendacious", which doesn't mean "wrong", if you're confused.
"Never mind that it depresses wages of everybody" [em added] of course is just question-begging, and transparently wrong without amplification.
You also ought to engage the rest of the essay, which I found excellent.
The most likely reason there hasn't been abother terrorist attack from foreigners (there have been several rightwing/Christian terrorist stashes captured, including chemical bombs, although these were pretty much by accident, since these groups are not a priority for the present administration)... anyway, the most likely reason is that Bush has given them all they could have wished for and more -- destruction of US civil liberties, destruction of our economy, and a huge PR campaign for terrorist recruiting over in Iraq... plus letting the guy who did the deed get away.
rikefan: here is the dictionary entry:
men·da·cious (mn-dshs)
adj.
1. Lying; untruthful: a mendacious child.
2. False; untrue: a mendacious statement.
Zakaria's claim that we haven't had terrorist attacks, because of U.S. immigration policy, is, I argue, untrue.
As to the 'everybody' line, that was not strictly accurate. It was intended to refer to the non-poor (i.e. middle class and college educated) for whome immigrantion reduces their economic power (see post below).
"As to the 'everybody' line, that was not strictly accurate."
Ok, so it was "mendacious".
Look, the word is straight from a Latin root meaning liar, and it's just a slightly stuffy euphemism for "lying".
"Untrue" means "Disloyal" by your procedure - you're saying Zakaria is disloyal by advancing this argument?
The dictionary (actually?) says
1. Lying; untruthful: a mendacious child.
2. False; untrue: a mendacious statement. See synonyms at dishonest. [em added]
I'd address the rest of your argument, but really you have to get straight on the above first.
You're saying that the "oceans protect us"?
Or perhaps it's the President's strong stand on terror that keeps the immigrant hordes from rising up?
I haven't really thought it through but immigration and geographic location seem connected to me. I just have a hazy sense that the issues are more intertwined than how you've described it - like our immigration policy is a function of our geographic location as well. Seems kind of obvious I guess but I just can't tease things apart.
Me again - the confused poster - just wanted to add that another reason there maybe hasn't been an attack is that they don't want to carry out "little" cafe bombings here and want to save up and plan for a really big attack. Maybe we're just lucky they've got egos - I imagine that if the US was suddenly facing frequent, random nightclub/restaurant/movie bombings it would give in to martial law fairly quickly.
Fareed Zakaria wrote:
DO WE REALLY WANT TO JUNK THAT FOR THE FRENCH APPROACH?
In an essay about German immigration?
I'd call that mendacious.
The French approach to immigration is not too different from the American approach.
WTF? on several levels.
Sad to see you haven't fixed your mistake. See here and above if you still don't believe me.
|
