You might think that someone who has been to a war zone, especially somewhere like Vietnam, might understand what being a pawn in a geopolitical game feels like and be interested to expose those who thought fit to sacrifice the young of the US, thoroughly radicalised to hate people who they had never met and who met them no harm. You might think that they might have twigged to the modes of persuasion that their government used to draw young men into a pointless conflict.
But, Paul Mooney has given us an insight into how thorough his radicalisation truly was, demonstrating that he is quite unable to either detect how he is being manipulated nor able to recognise the true danger of terrorism.
Brenton Tarrant was radicalised by a group of right-wing terror advocates. They cultivated in him the sense of the ‘other’ and a sincere belief in ‘replacement theory’. His manifesto is not the rant of a lunatic, but a measured rationale for the genocide of Muslims.
Just for Paul Mooney’s edification, so that he really does understand what terrorism looks like, despite my disgust, I share with him a pixelated image of part of Tarrant’s triumphal service for his cause. For his information, the segment of live stream shows a group of people cowering in the corner as Tarrant shoots them with an automatic weapon in cold blood. 52 people died.
I fear that there are people in the world for whom such images do not evoke disgust and a determination to never allow it to happen again. There are people, who in their enthusiasm to prove their credentials as anti-China heroes, do not seem to mind playing semantic games with terror.
Let’s examine Paul Mooney’s recent altercation with Daniel Dumbrill.
Mooney begins his Twitter stream with an attempt to bait Li Jingjing.
Of course, Mooney believes this is terribly clever and edgy. The sign, which supposedly refers to illegal religious activities, is his point. Much as I despise Sam Harris and his right-wing politics, one of his most brilliant pieces asks the question, “If a particular religion asks for you to pluck the eyes out of your firstborn, should you do it?” The obvious answer to Mooney’s infantile ‘meme’ is “If there are activities that are considered ‘religious practice’ that are harmful to people and could lead to illegal actions, such as stabbing someone, then regular people ought to expect the state to protect them.”
What is Mooney suggesting? Should Tarrant have been allowed his ‘holy war’ against Muslims, because it could be construed as religious?
Jingjing , who, quite rightly, defends her country against the multitude of vacuous accusation and is ever the patient teacher, provides Mooney with a video where she interviews an imam. The imam simply debunks the narrative from the West that China’s deradicalisation program is anything more than an effective way to prevent the Tarrants of the world.
It is such a calm, Chinese way of dealing with imbecilic western types, that it almost makes me laugh. The child waves a meme and the adult says calmly, “Not now, dear.”
Of course, Mooney plays the ‘CCP’ card. The imam is not real! He’s a puppet! And out trots the terror-apologia. Clearly, the imam cannot be considered to be independently intelligent and articulate and, plainly, had a ‘gutful’ of his people and his religion being manipulated by US interests. After all, Uighur people are museum artefacts in a human zoo, quaint relics who must be preserved exactly as we found them? How can they have agency?
I am amazed that, in what follows, Tweeters are so patient with Mooney. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but at this point, I would have said bluntly to Mooney, “Fuck off, you moron.” But I’m old, cranky and impatient with fools.
Mooney forms an alliance with a clown @JRsChinaBlog1, clearly another of the experts on China who peddle smear.
Apparently, according to Mooney, there’s an age limit on radicalisation. I suspect Mooney imagines himself as a psychologist of some repute, able to divine the motives of his ‘friend’. Of course, no young, impressionable young person, wavering in their cultural identity and religious allegiance could be swayed in their thinking by an 85 year old, who they respect and listen to as a cultural practice.
No need of vocational education? If your vocation is as an elder in your community and you spout extremism, education may be fruitless, but it is probably deserved. Hopefully, Mooney’s friend was so pissed off by the experience that she thought twice about being a terror apologist.
Of course, mate JR trots out the requisite propaganda set from the ‘authoritative’ NY Times. Maybe JR has lived in the upper reaches of Boganland, where no information except QAnon conspiracies penetrate. Maybe he would like to nominate the country, besides New Zealand (which failed abysmally) that didn’t take terror seriously. Let’s check them off. Indonesia (Muslim majority) shoots and kills a terror cell. Australian terrorist is shot by security guard. US bombs several countries, Israel bombs Gaza. France and German shoot them dead.
So JR pretty much proves them-self to be a western media hack, with little of any substance to add.
Methodically, @cinahistory takes the infants through an understanding of the history of terror. But our terror apologising CIA operative constructs his terror rationale. “The folk were pissed off. They were justified to engage in terror. If China had not been so hard on radicalisation, nothing would have happened!”
This delusionary perspective aside, there’s something just as sinister at play here. In line with the racist trope of “everyone who is yellow looks the same”, Mooney espouses a view that Xinjiang Uyghurs universally subscribe to the bullying, fascist extremism that the likes of Arslan Hidayat and his ETIM ilk attempt to sell as Islam. Uyghurs who dissent from this, well, they are the CCP agents and those extremists are the true heroes.
Whether it’s wanton ignorance or simple deceit, Mooney’s terror apologia seems unable to come to grips with the reality of ‘East Turkistan’ involvement with ISIS. Despite the patient education from @cinahistory, Mooney has his heart set on terror denial.
I guess Mooney’s derisive response was an open invitation for Daniel Dumbrill to bring some hard evidence to Mooney (futile as that turns out to be).
Mooney’s open denial of terror, ETIM, extremism, radicalisation of youth is probably all part of the terror apologia script. Still, you wonder at his nerve to actually put it up on Twitter.
Mooney is well out of his depth in encountering Daniel. Daniel is a seasoned veteran of terror-denialists and the evidence he needs is at hand, with no hesitation. Things don’t end well for Mooney.
The last bomb dropped leaves Mooney recoiling. Yep, that’s HIS country explicitly articulating their policy on terror, in 2018.
I think I concur with those who, at the end of the interaction, feel a certain pity for Mooney. I would feel more sympathetic, except something about those cowering figures, those innocent Muslim women and children and old men, ignites an anger towards these denialists, these apologists, that I can no longer contain.
One day, someone who Mooney loves, someone who is dear to him, will be murdered at the hands of a terrorist, radicalised by someone’s ‘friend’. Maybe, in that moment, he will reflect that his touting for a job with the BBC by exhibiting his anti-China credentials was evil and moronic.