From the Berkshire Eagle
Thursday September 22, 2011
Now that the 10th anniversary of the horror of 9/11 has passed, without thank God, a major terror strike within the borders of the U.S., I am both relieved and worried. The worry comes from the fact that our Berkshire Eagle, the New York Times and most media almost never identify the terrorists as being Muslim.
In reviewing the actual 9/11 press coverage, no media re-reported the thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets in many Arab cities, celebrating with joy the success of the suicide bombers against the "Great Satan."
Terror will never end if its root causes are not opposed. To be politically correct, the media and our government are extra cautious not to upset moderate Muslims living among us. However, I rarely hear a moderate Muslim voice loudly castigating Islamic terrorists. Until Muslims self-reform themselves from the inside, the terror threat will continue to grow. The killing of bin Laden and the weakening of al-Qaida are important achievements in the war against terror. Nevertheless, the threat continues.
Our country, and Western civilization, must face up to and fight against the underlying cause of terror in these perilous times.
MARTIN SILVER
Lenox
I think there is an attempt at an argument here, but what it is exactly is fairly hazy. Two propositions jump out at me:
P1: Radical Muslims are the source of terror.
P2: Killing Bin Laden and weakening Al-Qaida have eliminated terrorism.
The final sentence suggests the conclusion of fighting the underlying cause of terror, but that cause is never fully articulated. One possible formulation of the conclusion is:
C1: Western civilization must continue to fight radical Muslims.
But the an alternate conclusion is also availible by adding a third proposition from the letter:
P3: Moderate Muslims are not attempting to reform radical Muslims.
C2: Western civilization must fight all Muslims to eliminate terrorism.
Which formulation do you think the author intended? P1 + P2 = C1 or P1 + P2 + P3 = C2?
I think that you haven't quite gotten a hold on P2. I think they were saying that the killing of Bin Laden and the weakening of Al-Qaida are progress, but not elimination of terrorism. I think that P1 + P3 = C2 might be the best form if you had to label it but I'm having trouble even seeing this argument. What is the author trying to say with "fight against the underlying cause of terror"? He hasn't listed some underlying cause, he's just stated that terrorists are Muslim. Also notice that you had to put the word "radical" in your P1 because the author didn't do it himself. I think that any hopes of an argument here are corrupted by emotion and racism on the author's part. He is very vague in his word choice of "root cause" and "underlying cause" and he never really gets at anything. All I can see is that he implies that all Muslims are responsible for terrorism. I think this article is absolutely ridiculous. It's like saying every German promotes the Aryan race and the extermination of Jews.
ReplyDeleteI would say it's possible he meant P1+P2+ [implied P3] = C1. I just say this because I doubt he was advocating repression of all muslims. I think he meant that simply because moderate muslims are doing nothing to help subdue their radical counterparts, that this is cause for continued western civilization. I also do agree with Will and you on the fact that his argument does seem hazy, and I would also agree with Will when I sense some emotive content and possible racism towards the muslim peoples.
ReplyDelete