Does the war in Iraq cause more terrorism?

[shecky]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2157116,00.html

THREE years after its invasion of Iraq the US Administration acknowledged yesterday that the war has become “a cause” for Islamic extremists worldwide and there is a risk of the country becoming a safe haven for terrorists hoping to launch fresh attacks on America.

According to CIA data released yesterday, there were 11,111 terrorist incidents last year, killing more than 14,600 non-combatants, including 8,300 in Iraq. Of the 56 American civilians killed by terrorists in 2005, some 47 of them were in Iraq.


News or not? It was always a fear of mine that going after the wrong bad guy could inspire some terrorism. Was this a real worry?

[Rob Lister]

Does it help in their recruitment? Short term yes. But even before we were there, there was 9/11 and about a dozen other incidents that we barely responded to.

This culture declared war on the US (and western world as a whole) long before Iraq.

The US has now officially 'engaged' them. I think the location of the battlefield is important. Taking the fight to them is very important. In hindsight, Iran might have been a better battleground, but probably not as stratigically profitable. Look at a map of US control, presence, and influence. Color them red, pink and ...lighter than pink.

Iran is in a sea of red.

[Mycroft]

I think if the war in Iraq does cause more terrorism, then an important question to answer would be why and how.

For example, if militant Muslims are inherently offended and inspired to terrorism by the presence of mostly non-Muslim troops in a mostly Muslim nation, then how/if/why should we change our policies in response to this form of Islamist bigotry?

[Rob Lister]

I kind of view it as the Pope declaring war on the eastern world. Sadly, this pope is Bin Laden, et al. It isn't 'country' specific, it's 'religion' specific.

How do you fight that?

One square mile, one zeolot at a time.

[bob_kark]

The US has now officially 'engaged' them. I think the location of the battlefield is important. Taking the fight to them is very important.

I think this is the important part. We didn't really take the fight to "them." We took the fight to a country that, while not a friend of the US, was not a terrorist haven. We were already in Afghanistan, where we could have taken the fight to "them." Instead, we sent in a token force, scattered a government of hooligans, and allowed the real threat to live to fight another day. However, I suppose this point is moot now as we've already wasted our chance.

The war in Iraq will continue to cause more terrorism in the short term. However, if we are somehow able to keep a civil war from erupting and are able to leave Iraq somewhat stable, we may stand a chance of curbing this trend.

[Rob Lister]

I've got no major disagreement with your analysis. I just think there is a bigger picture they are going for. The colored map of the middle east is/was a powerful decider for me that we are going about it in a ...thoughtful... way.

It's risky.

[bob_kark]

We're fighting a war of perception. I think my fear about the current situation is that we've invaded two countries in the ME and are threatening a third. I hate to take the risk of leaving the wrong impression for the more moderate muslims when we have more viable alternatives. Or rather had.

[Rob Lister]

We're fighting a war of perception. I think my fear about the current situation is that we've invaded two countries in the ME and are threatening a third. I hate to take the risk of leaving the wrong impression for the more moderate muslims when we have more viable alternatives. Or rather had.

What would those more viable alternatives include?

[bob_kark]

What would those more viable alternatives include?

Well, again, this is past tense. I believe our war was in Afghanistan. However, I won't waste anymore time brooding on it as it is completely irrelevant to our current situation. For now, I believe we simply need to do our best to focus on regaining some control in Iraq.

[Rob Lister]

Well, again, this is past tense. I believe our war was in Afghanistan. However, I won't waste anymore time brooding on it as it is completely irrelevant to our current situation. For now, I believe we simply need to do our best to focus on regaining some control in Iraq.

Not disagreeing so much as wondering about the implied premise. It assumes we've lost control. I don't think we have. Our control, as it were, when plotted on a graph, seems to be fairly steady.

I'm guessing another two or three years before Iraqi troops can stand on their own without any help.

I'm guessing another 50 or 60 years before we finally leave.

[bob_kark]

Not disagreeing so much as wondering about the implied premise. It assumes we've lost control. I don't think we have. Our control, as it were, when plotted on a graph, seems to be fairly steady.

I'm guessing another two or three years before Iraqi troops can stand on their own without any help.

I'm guessing another 50 or 60 years before we finally leave.

My point is not that we have lost all control. It is that we do not have full and orderly control. We're still losing troops and civillians on a regular basis. I wouldn't consider Iraq a safe place to visit.

[Moochie]

Seems to me that terrorism, whether state-sponsored or not, begats more terrorism.

M.

[Mycroft]

Seems to me that terrorism, whether state-sponsored or not, begats more terrorism.

M.

Which state do you see as sponsoring terrorism?

[Mycroft]

We're fighting a war of perception. I think my fear about the current situation is that we've invaded two countries in the ME and are threatening a third. I hate to take the risk of leaving the wrong impression for the more moderate muslims when we have more viable alternatives. Or rather had.


Why? Is it because moderate Muslims are stupid and can't imagine any reason other than Islamaphobia for these wars?

Seriously, what's your premise here?

[Chaos]

Why? Is it because moderate Muslims are stupid and can't imagine any reason other than Islamaphobia for these wars?

Seriously, what's your premise here?

The premise seems to be that, with all the lies that have gone into the Iraq war, and with all the emphasis this took away from the actual war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and all the cronyism and filling-my-buddies´-pockets that went with the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, coupled with the fact that some of the prime terrorism supporters in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are still your best buddies, no moderate Muslim is ever going to believe that the US actually has their best interests at heart.

[bob_kark]

Why? Is it because moderate Muslims are stupid and can't imagine any reason other than Islamaphobia for these wars?

Seriously, what's your premise here?
I don't know why you feel the need to create that straw man. Intelligence has nothing to do with this situation, this is simply ignorance. The unfortunate fact is that they're seeing muslims tortured. They're seeing civillians beaten and killed by soldiers. They know that we invaded a country with large oil reserves under pretenses that proved to be false. If you were to witness this, lived in a country where your access to media was limited, Al Jazeera was considered a balanced news source, and people from your local mosque continually reminded you every time you went to prayer that the US was an evil empire, what exactly would you think?

This is not an excuse as the jump from dissidence to violence is a clearly marked line. However, if you believed your country was under threat, you may find yourself doing the same.

[Rob Lister]

I don't know why you feel the need to create that straw man. Intelligence has nothing to do with this situation, this is simply ignorance. The unfortunate fact is that they're seeing muslims tortured. They're seeing civillians beaten and killed by soldiers. They know that we invaded a country with large oil reserves under pretenses that proved to be false. If you were to witness this, lived in a country where your access to media was limited, Al Jazeera was considered a balanced news source, and people from your local mosque continually reminded you every time you went to prayer that the US was an evil empire, what exactly would you think?

Bob, I admit that I might well think exactly what they think.

But what to do if you DON'T think that way?

Eventually you gotta respond, especially when a non-response makes matters worse.

My opinion is that if you must respond, respond big.

Go big or stay home, as the red necks would say.

[CapelDodger]

What would those more viable alternatives include?
Not invading Iraq. Carrying on as before, while ratcheting up resources in Afghanistan to whatever was necessary to come up smelling of roses. Meanwhile the Saddam regime eats its young, becomes less and less dangerous and implodes. Saddam had fallen back on party, on tribe, on clan, on family, and he was killing them arbitrarily. At some point, probably before now, he'd have turned on his sons which is why they'd have turned on him (and each other) first.

There was no good reason to invade Iraq. Ba'athism is a natural ally against Islamism. A post-Saddam Ba'athist regime, by another name, whatever, in Baghdad with continuity rather than chaos. What could have been a better outcome?

[Rob Lister]

Meanwhile the Saddam regime eats its young, becomes less and less dangerous and implodes. Saddam had fallen back on party, on tribe, on clan, on family, and he was killing them arbitrarily. At some point, probably before now, he'd have turned on his sons which is why they'd have turned on him (and each other) first.


Interesting perspective. Better to let them 'eat their young' than to act now while the acting is good.

P.S. How's the North Korean version of 'eat their young' going?

[CapelDodger]

Why? Is it because moderate Muslims are stupid and can't imagine any reason other than Islamaphobia for these wars?
The majority in the region see the Iraq War as imperialist. That's what they're used to. They see the flimsy, laughable even, attempt to link it to their religion as just more spin. Which they're also used to. This is a very civilised part of the world.

[bob_kark]

Bob, I admit that I might well think exactly what they think.

But what to do if you DON'T think that way?

Eventually you gotta respond, especially when a non-response makes matters worse.

My opinion is that if you must respond, respond big.

Go big or stay home, as the red necks would say.

I agree, I'm still waiting for that response. Unfortunately, its been oddly quiet.

[Rob Lister]

I did not understand that post Capel. I read it five times. The last sentence confused me.

[Mycroft]

The premise seems to be that, with all the lies that have gone into the Iraq war, and with all the emphasis this took away from the actual war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and all the cronyism and filling-my-buddies´-pockets that went with the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, coupled with the fact that some of the prime terrorism supporters in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are still your best buddies, no moderate Muslim is ever going to believe that the US actually has their best interests at heart.

That would depend on how you define "best interests", wouldn't it? If you think it means the US is going to put your interests above its own out of pure altruism, then that's not going to happen. On the other hand, if it means the US will spend it's own lives and treasure to instal a democracy in Iraq in place of the brutal dictatorship that was in the hope it will bring stability to the region, then it doesn't really matter if there are WMD's or not, does it?

I don't know why you feel the need to create that straw man. Intelligence has nothing to do with this situation, this is simply ignorance. The unfortunate fact is that they're seeing muslims tortured. They're seeing civillians beaten and killed by soldiers. They know that we invaded a country with large oil reserves under pretenses that proved to be false. If you were to witness this, lived in a country where your access to media was limited, Al Jazeera was considered a balanced news source, and people from your local mosque continually reminded you every time you went to prayer that the US was an evil empire, what exactly would you think?

This is not an excuse as the jump from dissidence to violence is a clearly marked line. However, if you believed your country was under threat, you may find yourself doing the same.

If your premise is ignorance fed by Al Jazeera propaganda, then what we actually do or do not do doesn't really matter, does it?

[Mycroft]

The majority in the region see the Iraq War as imperialist.

Which means they're sadly misinformed of the definition of "imperialist".

Hmmm, I wonder how that could happen? Could it be all the knee-jerk rabid fundy leftist moonbats shouting "Imperialist!" every time West meets East?


That's what they're used to. They see the flimsy, laughable even, attempt to link it to their religion as just more spin. Which they're also used to.

So you're saying they're highly skeptical of Al Zakarwi and Bin Laden?


This is a very civilised part of the world.

I can think of many ways the Middle East is civilized, but I can think of no way that does not also apply to the rest of the world. What ways do you have in mind?

[Rob Lister]

I agree, I'm still waiting for that response. Unfortunately, its been oddly quiet.

Okay, well, what is your plan.

You're the pres.

Not a king, not a dictator.

You have vast, yet limited resorces (tank, armies, yada)

How would YOU approach it?

I must admit that the manner in which Bush approched is a bit aggressive, a bit risky, but the cost saving (in terms of total lives, not just U.S. Soldier lives), if successful, is grand.

Well it work? I donno. The plan seems clear to me though.

[CapelDodger]

Interesting perspective. Better to let them 'eat their young' than to act now while the acting is good.
What good resulted from the acting? If the opposition is "eating its young" it's getting weaker by the day. If you can wait the opposition out, why act?

P.S. How's the North Korean version of 'eat their young' going?
That situation I just can't get a handle on. 1984 made real. An experiment uniquely isolated and uninterrupted since Stalin and Hitler's days. It should be preserved as a Site of Special Sociological Significance.

China will have to sort that out. It was gross ineptitude on their part to let North Korea go nuclear.

[Rob Lister]

have you considered the young being eaten?

ETA: Your whole reponse seem to be based on 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'

So, we're damned. Which hell is best.

[CapelDodger]

Which means they're sadly misinformed of the definition of "imperialist".
The people of the region really don't need to have "imperialist" defined for them. The Ottoman Empire ruled from Iran westwards from Suleiman the Magnificent's days (mid-16thCE). Prior to that the imperialism was mostly split between the Mediterranean power and the Persians.

After the Ottomans British and French imperialism took on the role, just as the British had promised they wouldn't. Not that many people had believed it. Most of them preferred the devil they knew, the ineffectual Ottomans, to the far more efficient European imperial model.

[Mycroft]

The people of the region really don't need to have "imperialist" defined for them. The Ottoman Empire ruled from Iran westwards from Suleiman the Magnificent's days (mid-16thCE). Prior to that the imperialism was mostly split between the Mediterranean power and the Persians.

Then...we're back to stupid? As in they can't tell the difference between the US and the Ottoman Empire?

Would you say the Ottoman Empire is still within living memory?

[CapelDodger]

Then...we're back to stupid? As in they can't tell the difference between the US and the Ottoman Empire?
They can tell the difference. The Ottomans weren't so hypocritical.

Would you say the Ottoman Empire is still within living memory?
There are still men alive that fought in the Great War, so I'd say yes to that.

[Gravy]

I remember sitting around with friends when the first rumblings of the possibility of invading Iraq were heard, ans saying, "What would you do if you were running the U.S. and wanted to cause the most possible terrorism in the shortest time?" The answer was simple: start a war in a middle-eastern country that didn't attack us. Best target: Iraq, a country torn by internal strife that we have little understanding of, hammered by sanctions that we imposed, and armed to the teeth with weapons and explosives that we have no way of securing. Three years later, Baghdad is still the most dangerous place in the world. Chaos accomplished.

[Mycroft]

They can tell the difference. The Ottomans weren't so hypocritical.

Clever, but without meaning.


There are still men alive that fought in the Great War, so I'd say yes to that.

Do you think their memories shape the opinions of the masses?

[peptoabysmal]

The article is bogus. It never shows that the war in Iraq is a causal factor in anything and it includes data from war zones. You can't throw data from a war zone in the mix and claim it as evidence that domestic terrorism is on the rise due to the war.

[bob_kark]

Okay, well, what is your plan.

You're the pres.

Not a king, not a dictator.

You have vast, yet limited resorces (tank, armies, yada)

How would YOU approach it?

I must admit that the manner in which Bush approched is a bit aggressive, a bit risky, but the cost saving (in terms of total lives, not just U.S. Soldier lives), if successful, is grand.

Well it work? I donno. The plan seems clear to me though.

I'm assuming you're asking how I would approach it today, when we're already set in this quagmire. Personally, I'd ship or get off the port. I would do my best to see if my objectives in Iraq could be met. Could I leave Iraq as a stable or nearly stable democracy given the time and resouces I could deliver? If the answer is no, I'd say its nearly time to cut my losses and not make a bad situation even worse. If yes, I'd make it my #1 priority. Of course there is no easy answer to the question. I don't believe that I could pull the troops from the area unless I was certain our objective could not be met.

[bob_kark]

If your premise is ignorance fed by Al Jazeera propaganda, then what we actually do or do not do doesn't really matter, does it?

My point is that their impression of our country is based upon their limited access to balanced media and their existing social climate. The problem with your assertion is that our own actions are set to reinforce these beliefs, however misguided they may be. Al Jazeera can make all of the claims they want to. If they don't have any evidence to show, it becomes harder to make a strong case to the public. I'm certain there would still be tension in the ME, whether or not we were even there. Our support of Israel and the ravings of OBL ensure this. However, I don't believe the tension would be at its current level.

[Dr Adequate]

Hmmm, I wonder how that could happen? Could it be all the knee-jerk rabid fundy leftist moonbats shouting "Imperialist!" every time West meets East? I knew they'd been brainwashed by someone ...

You are a funny little man.

[Mike B.]

I can think of many ways the Middle East is civilized, but I can think of no way that does not also apply to the rest of the world. What ways do you have in mind?

Indeed.

[Giz]

The people of the region really don't need to have "imperialist" defined for them. The Ottoman Empire ruled from Iran westwards from Suleiman the Magnificent's days (mid-16thCE). Prior to that the imperialism was mostly split between the Mediterranean power and the Persians.



Oh please. Is this some kind of appeal to Volk Memory (copyright Adolf H)? This is like saying that Europeans are much better at diplomacy than yanks because they've been doing it for several centuries more... (if there were no such things as books, and diplomats were hundreds of years old, then I might be less sceptical).

And I doubt that the average 20 something in Tehran has their views materially shaped by the rambling of duffers from the great war. (Far more likely they have been shaped by the SAVAK regime and Khomeneis flag burning rhetoric).

[Dr Adequate]

On the contrary. The peoples of the Middle East can remember, and resent, an event in history for hundreds and hundreds of years.

In fact, my own solution to all the problems of the Middle East is to develop a powerful amnesigen and administer it to all parties.

Initial results are promising, but the drug has side effects. Lab trials show that when Histogon (TM) is administered to Jews, they forget Jerusalem as required, but this is accompanied by loss of cunning in the right hand and cleaving of the tongue to the palate.

Research continues. When the formula is perfected, we'll introduce it to the water supply. During the ensuing chaos, my shock troops of winged monkeys will infiltrate the libraries and destroy all the history books.

As George Santayana so very nearly said : Those who can remember history are doomed to repeat it.

[epepke]

I dunno. A lot of people tell me that the invasion of Iraq causes more terrorism, and that they knew it all along. Funny thing is that I remember many of the same people just after 9/11 when they said that it was the chickens coming home to roost, and why was Bush fixated on Afghanistan and not looking at Saddam Hussein? Of course, they don't remember this, but then again, they seldom remember yesterday.

On the other hand, a lot of other people tell me that the US has become perfectly secure after the Patriot Act, which fixes everything. Or at least they did up until a couple of months ago. They don't remember that, either.

[casebro]

" Does the war in Iraq cause more terrorism?"

Answer in two parts:

1) Not in America.

2) But now those idiot extremists are bombing everybody else, including Islamic countries: England, Holland, France, Spain, Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt...

Someday soon the rest of the world will get serious about fighting terrorism, and put a stop to it. Iran, Syria, and Palestine need as little attention, and Palestine just got hit in the pocketbook...

Do you think there will be another Spain, anymore?

[Mike B.]

On the contrary. The peoples of the Middle East can remember, and resent, an event in history for hundreds and hundreds of years.

In fact, my own solution to all the problems of the Middle East is to develop a powerful amnesigen and administer it to all parties.

Initial results are promising, but the drug has side effects. Lab trials show that when Histogon (TM) is administered to Jews, they forget Jerusalem as required, but this is accompanied by loss of cunning in the right hand and cleaving of the tongue to the palate.

Research continues. When the formula is perfected, we'll introduce it to the water supply. During the ensuing chaos, my shock troops of winged monkeys will infiltrate the libraries and destroy all the history books.

As George Santayana so very nearly said : Those who can remember history are doomed to repeat it.


It is not so much as that people remember history is that it is selectively remembered. Not that the Middle East is the only place this happens, but it seems peculiarly acute there.

Remember Islam is ALWAYS and has ALWAYS BEEN the victim. No aggressive actions from those that profess the religion has ever occurred.

I suppose it wasn't until the 1960s (not that long ago) before much of the US could be geniunely self-critical about its history, but I really think that a little of that would do wonders in the Middle East.

[Mycroft]

It is not so much as that people remember history is that it is selectively remembered. Not that the Middle East is the only place this happens, but it seems peculiarly acute there.

Remember Islam is ALWAYS and has ALWAYS BEEN the victim. No aggressive actions from those that profess the religion has ever occurred.

I suppose it wasn't until the 1960s (not that long ago) before much of the US could be geniunely self-critical about its history, but I really think that a little of that would do wonders in the Middle East.

Excellent.

[CapelDodger]

Do you think their memories shape the opinions of the masses?
What the f*** do you think culture is if it's not transmitted memories?

[CapelDodger]

I did not understand that post Capel. I read it five times. The last sentence confused me.
That the Middle East is a very civilised part of the world? It's one of the places where civilisation started. That means organised states with rulers, and that means spin. Stuff like "he's King because he's a God". "The Ottoman Empire's only motivation is the defense of Islam." "The US overthrew a secular, brutally anti-Islamist Ba'ath regime to further the Long War on Islamism. Oh, and bring democracy to an oppressed people, did I mention that?"

The locals don't buy it. They're a cynical bunch, for good reason. By and large they don't buy the "it's about Islam" argument from either side. They think it's about oil and strategic positioning, just as it was when Sykes and Picot were negotiating the Eastern Ottoman Empire's future, and when the details were settled in Paris.

[Dr Adequate]

I would agree with Mycroft that this is well said --- because it is almost what I was saying. However ...

It is not so much as that people remember history is that it is selectively remembered. Yes. To take a particular example, I was thinking of the Shia remembering how the Sunni killed their Imams.

I mean, it was a long time ago.

Not that the Middle East is the only place this happens, but it seems peculiarly acute there. Northern Ireland. Give 'em Histogon.

Remember Islam is ALWAYS and has ALWAYS BEEN the victim. No aggressive actions from those that profess the religion has ever occurred. This is not true.

They won for so long. And gloried in it. And we won the second siege of Vienna 'cos of the weather.

And also you are confusing Islam as a political entity with the Arabs. Don't.

There is so much history behind all this. You haven't read much of it, have you?

I suppose it wasn't until the 1960s (not that long ago) before much of the US could be geniunely self-critical about its history, but I really think that a little of that would do wonders in the Middle East. Well, I remember a real change I saw. There was an earthquake in Turkey a few years back, and the Greeks laid aside their old hatred and gave all the help they could. And the Turks and the Greeks put aside their old quarrel, and made speeches about how the old feud was over now ... which dated back to the days of the Ottoman Empire, the sophistries of Giz to the contrary.

It seems to be working out OK.

If humans could leave aside paranoid lunacy and believe that other humans are humans, we might achieve great things.

[CapelDodger]

It is not so much as that people remember history is that it is selectively remembered. Not that the Middle East is the only place this happens, but it seems peculiarly acute there.
Perhaps it seems that way because you're fixated on the place. Look at Europe. Look at Japan. Look at the US.

Remember Islam is ALWAYS and has ALWAYS BEEN the victim. No aggressive actions from those that profess the religion has ever occurred.
One of those things you can't catch anybody saying so you have to say it yourself. If you have some litany of aggressive Muslim offenses (and given the prominence of jihad in the religion it's necessarily a long one) before the current situation in Iraq can be raised, please consider it read.

The local reaction to the US invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq is that it's no different from the British Empire's invasion, conquest and occupation in 1941. That was in response to a republican coup against the Hashemite monarchy installed by the British under the Mandate.

When the Great War Allies tried to incite the natives of the Eastern Ottoman Empire they had a less than lukewarm response. The locals were well aware of European imperialism's career over the previous century. They'd be replacing an Ottoman rule, which they understood and could work around, for an unknown European imperial rule.

Those that did respond, Lawrence's converts generally, were promised that this would not happen. They were lied to. As was Lawrence.

I suppose it wasn't until the 1960s (not that long ago) before much of the US could be geniunely self-critical about its history, but I really think that a little of that would do wonders in the Middle East.
What is it that the people of Iraq should be concentrating, self-critically, on in your view? The failure of the mosque-based opposition to topple Saddam themselves? The weakness of the Communist opposition because of their atheism? What is it that you, not living in a very active war-zone with a wrecked economy and little effective policing, think they should be shriving themselves of?

[Dr Adequate]

The local reaction to the US invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq is that it's no different from the British Empire's invasion, conquest and occupation in 1941. That was in response to a republican coup against the Hashemite monarchy installed by the British under the Mandate.

When the Great War Allies tried to incite the natives of the Eastern Ottoman Empire they had a less than lukewarm response. The locals were well aware of European imperialism's career over the previous century. They'd be replacing an Ottoman rule, which they understood and could work around, for an unknown European imperial rule.

Those that did respond, Lawrence's converts generally, were promised that this would not happen. They were lied to. As was Lawrence. And could I point out that if the British had behaved decently we wouldn't be in this mess?

Now let me tell you about the Treaty of Versailles ...

* sobs *

[CapelDodger]

IThey won for so long. And gloried in it. And we won the second siege of Vienna 'cos of the weather.
I sooo wouldn't have done that if I'd been in charge. It triggered the corruption of the Janissaries and the European discovery of coffee. A lethal combination.

Well, I remember a real change I saw. There was an earthquake in Turkey a few years back, and the Greeks laid aside their old hatred and gave all the help they could. And the Turks and the Greeks put aside their old quarrel, and made speeches about how the old feud was over now ... which dated back to the days of the Ottoman Empire, the sophistries of Giz to the contrary.

It seems to be working out OK.
Nobody mention Cyprus.

Oops.

If humans could leave aside paranoid lunacy and believe that other humans are humans, we might achieve great things.
Time was that Greeks, Jews and Muslims could co-exist in harmony because they all hated the Pope. I recommend Salonika : City of Ghosts.

[Dr Adequate]

Nobody mention Cyprus.

Oops. The ****wits there are at odds with the population, remember.

[CapelDodger]

And could I point out that if the British had behaved decently we wouldn't be in this mess?

Now let me tell you about the Treaty of Versailles ...

* sobs *
I also recommend Clive Ponting's Thirteen Days : Diplomacy and Disaster, if you've missed it. Given the inanity that led to the Great War's outbreak, it's little wonder the outcome wasn't good. They had a war to have a war, victory was all, and the objective was dreamed up afterwards. The Iraq imbroglio ain't good, but it's not as egregious as that business.

[CapelDodger]

The ****wits there are at odds with the population, remember.
The problem is mostly at the Turkish national level. Cyprus is far less influential on Greek politics than it was a few decades ago, but not so much in Turkish politics.

The local problem is that property is involved, and more than a generation has passed. That means two families can regard the same house as their home.

But we're not here to talk about Cyprus, since hardly anybody's killing anybody over there.

[Mycroft]

What the f*** do you think culture is if it's not transmitted memories?

Music, literature, religion, other traditions. I think literature is most important, because its the stories we learn that form the values that shape our actions.

I personally only have a vague idea of what my family was doing during WWI, and that almost exclusively from my maternal grandmother, who was the only one who survived long enough to tell me. Nothing at all from Dad's side, though he did introduce me to "Grandma Skarsvog" a few weeks before she died. She, and I, are descended from Erik the Red. Just ask anyone from that side of the family, they will all swear it's true.

The culture that filled my head when I was young was only a tiny part family stories. Mostly it was the stories I read. The Bible, Aesop’s fables, Arthurian Legends, Canterbury tales, Tolkien, Robin Hood, and of course American classics from Jack London to Mark Twain.

So yeah, culture is a lot more than just transmitted memories. Further, of the transmitted memories, the more recent ones are the strongest. I would think your expectation that the Ottoman Empire still shapes Middle Eastern thinking to be comparable with thinking that the Spanish-American war shaped US thinking. They were both a long time ago, and we don’t think on them much anymore.

[Mike B.]

They won for so long. And gloried in it. And we won the second siege of Vienna 'cos of the weather.

And also you are confusing Islam as a political entity with the Arabs. Don't.

There is so much history behind all this. You haven't read much of it, have you?



You really missed my sarcasm, I guess.

I wasn't actually claiming that Islam has always been the victim, I was claiming that was sort of the mindset that allowed people to claim any possible slight as a "war against Islam."

BTW, pendant - the battle of Lepanto was the first real Turkish defeat, before the second siege of Vienna. Yes it was on the water, but it was still a defeat. And yes, I am quite aware that the Ottomans were not Arabs.

I believe your overall point about winning all the time and then losing all the time is valid. Bernard Lewis made it in "What Went Wrong?"

[Dr Adequate]

BTW, pendant - the battle of Lepanto was the first real Turkish defeat, before the second siege of Vienna. Did I say differently?

I did not.

Nor am I some sort of amulet.

[CapelDodger]

BTW, pendant - the battle of Lepanto was the first real Turkish defeat, before the second siege of Vienna.
Siege of Malta, 1565. (Battle of Lepanto, 1571.)

Tamurlane gave them a spanking in the Battle of Ankara back in 1402.

[CapelDodger]

Music, literature, religion, other traditions. I think literature is most important, because its the stories we learn that form the values that shape our actions.
What are traditions but transmitted memories? The fables that stand the test of time are remarkably similar across cultures - cheats never prosper, where there's a will there's a way, know your place, rich chicks are hot, brothers can't be trusted, stuff like that.

So yeah, culture is a lot more than just transmitted memories. Further, of the transmitted memories, the more recent ones are the strongest. I would think your expectation that the Ottoman Empire still shapes Middle Eastern thinking to be comparable with thinking that the Spanish-American war shaped US thinking. They were both a long time ago, and we don’t think on them much anymore.
The experience of the region was of one empire after another right down to the Ottomans and the Europeans that followed them. Some parts were, at times, imperial powers themselves. Ba'athist Iraq was essentially a Sunni empire. The Sunnis' and Kurds' primary concern is that it not become a Shiite one.

US thinking is shaped by the English Civil War and, further back, the Celtic and Germanic antipathy to dynasties with absolute power.

Current Middle East thinking is strongly influenced by the intrusion of Western imperialism: the Mandates, the Balfour Declaration, military interventions, colonisation in Palestine, the anti-Mossadeq coup in 1953. The Iraq War looks like more of the same from the local perspective.