2015-01-19 – Are moderate Muslims responsible for jihadi terrorism? Rupert Murdoch seems to think so. The Daily Show (and other liberals) don’t. Who’s right?

I have believed for a long time that societies carry nasty elements who cause murder and mayhem in their name that the societies as a whole find creepy or even abhorrent. Muslims have jihadi terrorists. We have armies and drones and cops.

If that last paragraph made you think, “wait a minute, these are not equivalent!” I think I might be onto something. Every society gives their own warriors the benefit of the doubt. The bias, of course, runs the opposite for the warriors of the enemy. This happens whether or not some “impartial” judge thinks one side or the other has the moral edge. People simply prefer their own maniacs. But maniacs they are. They like to hurt. They like to punish. They like to kill.

And they like to feel supported by their tribe.

My question is this. Why do the ordinary people consider “their” warriors as part of the tribe? It seems to me that all the people-of-the-gun have more in common with each other than they do with me.

And I probably have more in common with the dad in the enemy’s country who is sending his kids off to be adults for the first time.

So, when Rupert Murdoch tweets that all Muslims are responsible for terror committed in the name of Islam, I have a certain sympathy for his point . . . but only if I am responsible for violence committed in the name of my tribe. (Beyond that, of course, when you get down to details, it becomes absurd in exactly the way shown in the Daily Show video.)

It’s all how you define your tribe.

“I pledge allegiance to the idea of getting along.”

Doesn’t sound right, does it? It totally makes sense that Miss Lebanon should be outraged to be included in a selfie with Miss Israel. It seems that Miss Israel snuck up on Miss Lebanon and snapped a selfie of the two together. With malice aforethought? Who knows? Lebanese citizens can be imprisoned for contact with Israelis. Are they both nuts or both totally sane?

We build webs that tie us to the wars that our warriors fight. But is it possible (or wise) to destroy the web on one side of a conflict without doing the same on the other?