August 22nd: The recriminations begin
posted at 4:58 pm on August 22, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s after midnight in Tehran. The apocalypse turned out to be four soldiers getting froggy with some Romanian laborers.
I won’t name names, but my feelings about the people who were pimping this are the same as my feelings about Amir Taheri after the yellow-badges fiasco: I’ll still read them, but never again with quite the same credulity. That’s how it works, boys. If you’re going to roll the dice on the end times, even with the standard disclaimers, you’ve got to come up with something. And blitzing an oil rig doesn’t quite cut it. Now we look like cranks and the poor morons who clicked that Drudge link yesterday and don’t know any better will be forgiven for thinking Ahmadinejad’s not quite as dangerous as the crazy neocons think he is.
Totten and Point Five are having loads of snarky fun with this idiocy, as they should. And here’s Bob Wright goofing appropriately at Bloggerheads.tv. Richly deserved, alas.
Dean Barnett told me he was going to write something about it today at Hewitt’s blog but I think he pussed out. Alas again.
Update: Captain Ed beat me to the punch:
Seriously, the fact that this tabloidy speculation gained such breathless coverage should embarrass the Western media and blogosphere. Ahmadinejad will spend today laughing up his sleeve at the shakes some commentators appeared to have over this propaganda — and he will know that the West still has something to learn about resolve.
Update: It’s after midnight in Jerusalem now, too. Totten’s still laughing.
Update: Barnett un-pussed!
You’ll note this post is devoid of links. Among the bloggers who peddled this rubbish are people that I respect – I have no desire to add to their embarrassment. (Well maybe a little, but I am occasionally a petty man and try to rise above such ignoble urges.)
But, as Allah has pointed out, these people did our country no favors this week. There are a lot of people desperate to believe all is well and that we’re perfectly safe. These are the people, like highly respected Time Magazine columnist Andrew Sullivan, who think the terror bust in London was a Karl Rove-orchestrated P.R. stunt. Until these people get a grip on reality, we’ll struggle to fight this war successfully, being such a divided society.
We have to win the hearts and minds of our countrymen, too. Today, August 22, was not a positive step in that direction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
When the Aug. 22 for the Russellites didn’t happen, they went into hiding and reconsituted themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses for the express purpose of annoying everyone early on weekend mornings.
pjcomix on August 22, 2006 at 5:14 PM
I felt the same way whenever David Blaine completes a week long stunt. “Uh, that was it? Whats up with all the hype?”
BelchSpeak on August 22, 2006 at 5:16 PM
From Laika the Space Dog
NTWR on August 22, 2006 at 5:21 PM
Maybe they need to forbid people from taking calendars on planes.
Mark Jaquith on August 22, 2006 at 5:27 PM
I’m sure that there is a hadith that specifies that the apocalypse takes place within the constraints of “business” hours. Should it still be missing, then we should look to exegetical traditions that cite French labor union hours.
If all else fails, just assert that the Mahdi did appear, but he returned to occultation after seeing his shadow, signifying six more centuries of Jewish occupation.
rw on August 22, 2006 at 5:32 PM
It’s always August 22nd somewhere.
Pablo on August 22, 2006 at 5:36 PM
I think you’re blowing this out of proportion. It’s not like those bloggers had a big counter on their blog, or doomsday-is-nigh-parties or something.
You know, like MSM stations did with the 2000-grim-milestone-in-Iraq, and accompanying Democratic Party
festivitiespress meetings overthe death of 2000 American soldiersBushCo’s impending impeachment.I’m sure we can cut them some slack. (The bloggers, I mean.)
… Come to think of it, the only doomsday watchers I’m able to recollect at the moment were those who said it wouldn’t happen anyway, to start with.
Niko on August 22, 2006 at 5:38 PM
Bernard Lewis published an op-ed about it in the Wall Street Journal. Robert Spencer wrote a few weeks ago on Human Events Online that we might want to consider acting against Iran before the 22nd lest it be too late.
Allahpundit on August 22, 2006 at 5:40 PM
Well, that’s it. I’ll never read Bernard Lewis’ blog again. In fact I’ll take him off my blogroll. Guy never links me anyway, and this was just a big traffic-whore stunt.
I guess that means I need to turn to Juan Cole for honest, big-picture analysis of Iran and the Middle East instead. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to worry about him giving me a false positive on Iran.
see-dubya on August 22, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Why would you stop reading him?
Keep reading him. And start taking all his dire predictions with a healthy sprinkling of salt.
Allahpundit on August 22, 2006 at 5:49 PM
Let’s try this again:
Dang, I guess I’ll never read Bernard Lewis’ blog again after this traffic-whore stunt again. Which is okay, because he never linked me anyway.
I guess now I’ll have to look elsewhere for in-depth scholarly commentary on the Middle East since Allah says Bernard Lewis is now a joke. Maybe I’ll turn to another academic like Juan Cole–at least we know he’ll never bother us with a false positive about Iran.
see-dubya on August 22, 2006 at 5:50 PM
Bernard Lewis put a clearly visible question mark after the headline, and concluded the essay by urging serious strategic planning on behalf of the West in the next few years. Actually, he was scourned exactly for that because most commenters interpreted it in a sense that Lewis did not believe the situation was apocalyptic at all.
And Spencer didn’t have a counter or watch, either. All he did today was to publish, uhm, roughly the same amount of posts on the matter as Hot Air did.
As for acting against Iran before August 22nd, I’ll go with Mark Steyn - there’s never a bad reason to topple a tyrannical regime right now.
Niko on August 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM
You can delete that second one, AP.
see-dubya on August 22, 2006 at 5:55 PM
I did? I said I’d never read him again with the same credulity. Tell me why I’m wrong.
Yeah, and various major media appearances, all keyed to the fact that this was in fact possible. They didn’t have him on to debunk it. They had him on to lend credence to it.
Please. If you’re going to inject end-times crap into foreign-policy, you need a better defense than this when it goes bust.
Allahpundit on August 22, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Okay:
WEATHERMAN 1: Tomorrow there is a fifty percent chance of thunderstorms in your city. Radar shows a large stormfront moving in. These could be really bad. I base this on a lifelong study of cloud formations and weather patterns. In the past, when things have looked like they do today, it rained the next day. I recommend you take an umbrella with you tomorrow.
WEATHERMAN 2: Dude, it’ll be great. Go snorkeling.
Tomorrow comes, and the sun shines.
Which is the better weatherman?
see-dubya on August 22, 2006 at 6:07 PM
Did you keep track of Spencer’s major media appearances and the density of apocalyptic visions? I didn’t, but I have a hard time believing that a scholar like Mr Spencer would build the whole segment on doomsday predictions. So are you implying that Spencer was milking the event, or rather that he was perused by MSMers to debunk the “Ahmadi-Nezad is a maniac” line? I’m not sure which way you’re going here.
As for Lewis, as far as I caught it the whole drift was that Ahmadi-Nezad is not a rational player (contrary to our enemies from the Cold War), and the Mahdi-cometh-on-22nd argument was simply there to corroborate that point.
Niko on August 22, 2006 at 6:08 PM
Weatherman 1. But a better analogy would be this.
WEATHERMAN 1: Tomorrow there’s a chance that a comet’s going to hit the earth, wiping out most species. We know, statistically speaking, that a comet will hit the earth eventually. And I’ve got a hunch that tomorrow’s the day.
WEATHERMAN 2: Dude, go snorkeling.
Who’s the better weatherman?
It all has to do with the odds and the magnitude of the predicted event, doesn’t it? Otherwise, those nutbar cult leaders who take their flock out to the fields to wait for the spaceship are just weathermen too.
Allahpundit on August 22, 2006 at 6:24 PM
I HATE those lousy traffic-whores!!!
pjcomix on August 22, 2006 at 6:31 PM
WEATHERMAN 1: …and on August 22nd, we’re passing very near Comet Mahdi. We should probably call up Ben Affleck and put him in a rocket for a likely-suicidal mission into space.
And then we should really do something about that comet, too. Because it’s not going away.
Look at it like this: barring changes in regime, the odds of Iran sponsoring a major terrorist attack against American interests within the next ten years approaches one.
The odds of a comet hitting the earth in the next ten million years approaches one.
Credible warnings about one concern me much more than the other.
see-dubya on August 22, 2006 at 6:37 PM
What about the thought that the terror plot that the British broke up earlier this month was intended to be carried out on August 22. According to reports, the downing of the airliners was ready to go and be carried out in the “immediate future.” Maybe that was what Ahma-wack-jad was hinting at when he made his “threat.” Perhaps they forgot to have a backup plan in case they got caught. In which case, there was nothing to go off today. Just an idle thought while I sit idle.
Mallard T. Drake on August 22, 2006 at 6:42 PM
But it wasn’t credible, that’s the point. It was an end-times shot in the dark that was taken seriously only because of the credibility of the scholars who peddled it. That credibility is an asset to us, and it’s been diminished now over apocalyptic kookery, of all things.
Listen: I know the comet’s there. But a lot of people aren’t sure yet. And they’re going to be harder to persuade now thanks to this nonsense.
Allahpundit on August 22, 2006 at 6:43 PM
The plot was scheduled for the 16th according to the best reports we have, and indications are that it was a Sunni plot, perhaps meant to commemorate 9/11, not a Shiite one.
Allahpundit on August 22, 2006 at 6:44 PM
John Kerry’s appearance on Sunday morning TV musta scared the crap outta them!!
gary on August 22, 2006 at 6:46 PM
According to Box Office Mojo the flick “The Day After Tomorrow” took in more than 540 million US-$ worldwide. Does that mean that post-2004 fewer people believe in the forceful destruction of civilization by nature?
I understand your point, though. Baseless fearmongering might lessen the currency in those who’re undecided. But who exactly is undecided in the case of Iran, still?
I suppose you’re working from the assumption that a sizable portion of the population haven’t made up their mind about the actual threat Iran poses. Like Scrappleface once satired, we should’ve no use for those who’re undecided about Ahmadi-Nezad given the actual facts we acquired so far.
Niko on August 22, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Aug. 22 isn’t over until the fat lady sings taps at midnight at the International Date Line.
pjcomix on August 22, 2006 at 7:08 PM
I guess the Shiite-bomb ain’t ready after all…
Yeah, I’ve had enough of that end-times pimp Bernard Lewis myself. He can send that so-called scholarship of his and the rest of his B.S. right up the flagpole where it belongs.
On a serious note: an EMP over Jerusalem does not qualify as ‘end times’, nor does a subtle heads-up to this effect (in the Robert Spencer fashion) qualify as pimping. The comments on which the warnings were based - about the night sky over Jerusalem - were real TTBOMK.
On the other hand Hannity & Beckel were laying on the hype pretty heavy, and I’ll never watch them again w/the same credulity. Oh wait a min. - I’m already not very credulous where they are concerned.
RD on August 22, 2006 at 7:30 PM
I lost a little respect for Spencer over this. He is one of the most vocal, most effective spokesman out there arguing that people do not understand nor fully appreciate the threat from Islamism, and for him to put his name on this kind of thing really undermines his credibility.
God forbid Im in a position someday trying to defend this guy and trying to urge unswayed third parties to pay attention to what he has to say, only to have someone rub my face in the fact that he got caught playing Nostradamus. I don’t even know if he really believed this much himself, maybe he just liked getting the short-term media attention? The whole thing was counter-productive for him personally.
kaltes on August 22, 2006 at 7:42 PM
I guess what I am saying is: I appreciate your point that too many heads-ups (unfortunately, inflated to outright predictions that have now “failed”) to the wrong audience diminishes credibility with that audience.
But I don’t agree that *I* must count myself among that audience. It’s possible, and it’s right IMO, to judge with different criteria. Light over Jerusalem was not a prediction based on empirical evidence of a planned attack, but rather an inference based on a date with a special significance to Shiites (which no one denies) - and thus should not carry the same stigma for the bearer of that information (at least in my eyes).
RD on August 22, 2006 at 7:49 PM
In fairness, it was Amhadenijad (or however the hell its spelled) who injected end-times crap into the foreign-policy discussion. It can therefore be forgiven, to some degree, when other people raise the possibility that he is serious.
DaveS on August 22, 2006 at 8:06 PM
I really like Bernard Lewis. He has major credentials as a scholar of islam.
Because of his language skills (arabic, aramaic, latin, greek, persian, turkish, hebrew) he also has access to the other side of the story many people cant see.
Numerology seems to figure a lot in many of these islamic terror groups. Apparently 911, 711 were chosen for some such reason. Lewis did notice the danger of Osama:
Here is a Humanities Bio
Lewis is hated by the leftist anti Bushies
He is also hated by (don’t click on this if you cant handle larouchian speak) Lyndon LaRouche
He got a good ref from Slate
Personally, I take him seriously if only for his ability to read islamist publications directly. I am more careful on sept 11, too, because of the symbology of the numbers.
entagor on August 22, 2006 at 8:19 PM
FWIW kaltes I disagree strongly that Spencer & Lewis were practicing Nostradamism at all, for the reasons just (inartfully) presented. It was the mullahs who picked the night of Rajab 27 to announce their response (convenient date close to August 31, perhaps) and Farid Ghadry who insisted that Ahmadinejad would illuiminate Jerusalem’s night sky.
The most I’d accuse Spencer of is rumor-mongering, and attempting to argue that mullahs’ deeds may indeed be motivated and timed by special dates (of all kinds) on the Islamic calendar, “more than you think.” (As if we needed reminding after al Qaeda’s “commemoration” of September 11, 1683.)
RD on August 22, 2006 at 8:22 PM
Oh well. So the Iranians have a problem with nukus interruptous, maybe they can commiserate with the North Koreans on thier problems.
I kind of hope that an internal accident is being arranged for them.
Death to Islam, and
their mediot stooges!
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on August 22, 2006 at 8:37 PM
That’s the third strike, Rowane. Auf wiedersehen.
Allahpundit on August 22, 2006 at 8:37 PM
Amen DaveS and entagor.
One small negative w/Bernard Lewis is the degree to which his rosy view of the achievements of, and treatment of non-Mulsim minorities in, medieval Islamic culture may be overshadowed and superseded by more recent - and more revealing - studies of dhimmi (raya) status and jihad slavery over 12+ centuries of Muslim rule (10-20 million Africans, 1-2 million Europeans, …).
RD on August 22, 2006 at 8:43 PM
Two corrections before I let someone else get a word in:
1. [RD] Light over Jerusalem was … an inference based on a date … and thus should not carry the same stigma for the bearer of that information …
Contradiction alert: I should have said “a supposition” and “conjecture”, i.e., someone presenting a conjecture as a conjecture and sharing information that demonstrates plausibility should not be stigmatized as if they were the source of a prediction based on “insider information” that turns out to be bogus (unless they themselves blur the line).
2. I used a Western date to make a point about the Islamic calendar. (doh!) Our foes evidently keep an eye on both calendars, as they’ve used dates from both in the past to make [different] symbolic points.
RD on August 22, 2006 at 9:37 PM
Well being out in HI where it’s still a little over 8 hours till midnight I guess anything can happen. I will tell this little tale though, last night in my yoga class this woman was in tears about this. She just knew we would all be dead this time tomorrow and of course it was all George W Bush’s fault. I started to laugh at her and told her to get off the kool aid train. Others were laughing at her too but they all seemed to think if we did die it would be W’s fault. I hope she’s there tonight for an aerobics class (as she usually is) and I can ask her if she spent her final day at Baskin Robbins like she said she would.
Catie96706 on August 22, 2006 at 9:58 PM
“…But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven…” and “…For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them…”. Lets think for a minute. Really, could it POSSIBLY be more plain and obvious?
Picking dates is foolish. Not that I’m surprised there were kooks (on BOTH sides, as some noted) who just “knew” today was the day the world was going to end. Because as foolish as it is we STILL do it anyway. You’d think that with all the groups and ideologies and “prophets” who tried to pick a date before we would have learned by now that they simply are NOT going to get it right. Pity that we haven’t. Not that I wouldn’t be surprised if someday in RETROSPECT people look back and say “wow we should have seen that coming a million miles off”. But I think it’s pretty obvious nobody will really see it coming — certainly at least not the exact date.
RH
RobertHuntingdon on August 22, 2006 at 10:34 PM
Well, there WAS that attack on the Romanian oil platform.
They (Iran) said today, “We’re willing to talk about nukes until we get a nuke.”
Oh, and don’t forget the Rampaging Racoons in Olympia, Washington!
gmoonster on August 22, 2006 at 11:04 PM
Yeah I didnt mean spencer was literally doing it, it wasnt like he was telling people to stock up on bottled water in preparation for the apocalypse and stuff like that, but still. I remember watching an interview he gave about this, I think allah had it linked here in a hotair post. Spencer was talking about how something big was going to probably happen or something like that. There might be a year where this date has significance, but it wasnt going to be 2006.
I dont think the muslims will ever nuke Jerusalem, because so many muslims live there and so many Islamic holy sites are there. Tel Aviv is a different story.
kaltes on August 23, 2006 at 1:06 AM
I am SO disappointed!
I was looking forward to a good apocalypse; all those breathless TV anchors, excitedly reporting the bright light in the sky over Jerusalem, the mass casualties, ‘oh the humanity of it’.
Now my life returns to boredom.
Dare I point out that all of you are laughing after the fact?
Dare I remind you, ‘it ain’t over yet’?
You (all) seem to recognize that at some point in time someone, somewhere will actually have to do something to fix the problem.
(Good thing my Google toolbar has spell check. Otherwise my comments would be easily dismissed.)
rockhauler on August 23, 2006 at 12:00 PM
This sort of reminds me of the chinese cult that moved into Garland, TX a few years ago proclaiming a spaceship would come soon and the end times would occur. Turns out they moved to Garland because they thought it was “Godland”… how much does that suck that your end times prophecies get screwed up because you can’t pronounce the letter “L”?
Unberievable!
TexasRainmaker on August 23, 2006 at 2:26 PM
Damn, I was hoping we’d finally get the Apocalypse behind us, so we could move on.
Kralizec on August 23, 2006 at 4:27 PM
Hi kaltes - enjoyed the Spencer link from here too & agree he needed to stay vigilant on this storyline to keep it from spinning out of control. And though a minority-Muslim city, I agree the Muslim presence in & (belated) claim to Jerusalem may have some deterrent value yet.
RD on August 23, 2006 at 9:47 PM
As a fan of Mr. Show I’m reminded of one of my faves: Nostradamus and his Constant Chum [High School]. Incidentally I didn’t see it on YouTube
RD on August 23, 2006 at 10:23 PM
Finally, the link to Nostradamus and his Constant Chum (content warning).
RD on December 28, 2006 at 7:24 PM
C’mon. I’ll bet you guys host Robert Spencer on HA bunches more times in the future.
jaime on October 1, 2007 at 3:20 AM