Who gave our government permission to try to westernize the Mideast?

[Iamme]

I have been hearing more and more how Bush in particular has this long range goal of totally transforming that part of the world to be like us. Who says he can do this? Doesn't he know that these countries want us to bud-out, and for us to live our type of democracy, while they live theirs? That they would actually RATHER live under a regime and be taken care of, rather than have to live with the fear of trying to sink or swim on their own?

I am really angry actually over our involvent in the world and the mess our politicians have created, sending us down some road of Armeggedon...just because we think we can go into THEIR part of the world and try to reshape it the way WE want.

[Rob Lister]

Who gave our government permission to try to westernize the Mideast?

They did, when they started to islamofiy us with threats, terror and attacks.

[a_unique_person]

That leaves out the history of imperialism that goes back many years. Islam extremism was born, to a large extent, out of the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of the Shah, who was actively backed by the US. Then, when the Shah was gone, and more moderate Iranians were in power, the US continued to sulk over that event, and not normalise relations. It even helped back Saddam in his murderous war with Iran.

[Tony]

They did, when they started to islamofiy us with threats, terror and attacks.


So that explains why the right-wingers are anti-gay marriage, anti-personal freedom and pro-religious government; you’re being islamofied. A perfectly good argument why the repubs should not be in power.

Personally, I think the middle east needs to be westernized/modernized (whatever that means, is east Asia westernized?). At this point however, I don't think it is worth the cost in American lives or dollars.

[Apollyon]

That leaves out the history of imperialism that goes back many years. Islam extremism was born, to a large extent, out of the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of the Shah, who was actively backed by the US. Then, when the Shah was gone, and more moderate Iranians were in power, the US continued to sulk over that event, and not normalise relations. It even helped back Saddam in his murderous war with Iran.
If Islamic extremism was born in Iran, how do you explain the Muslim Brotherhood? What about Wahhabism?

[Tony]

That leaves out the history of imperialism that goes back many years. Islam extremism was born, to a large extent, out of the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of the Shah, who was actively backed by the US. Then, when the Shah was gone, and more moderate Iranians were in power, the US continued to sulk over that event, and not normalise relations. It even helped back Saddam in his murderous war with Iran.


Although you make a good point, Islamic extremism pre-dates the Shah.

[a_unique_person]

Without a doubt it did. It was made a much more powerful force with the overthrow of the Shah. People came to see it as a way to face up to Western dominance.

[Ziggurat]

I have been hearing more and more how Bush in particular has this long range goal of totally transforming that part of the world to be like us.

Well, you might hear people say all sorts of things. But you won't hear Bush making any such statements. He has made statements suggesting he wants to democratize the middle east, but that's not the same thing as making them like us.

Who says he can do this? Doesn't he know that these countries want us to bud-out, and for us to live our type of democracy, while they live theirs?

You've got to be kidding me. Their "type of democracy"? What type would that be? Would it be the mullahcracy of Iran? The Stalinist one-part dictatorship of Syria? Or maybe a powerful monarchy like Saudi Arabia?

That they would actually RATHER live under a regime and be taken care of, rather than have to live with the fear of trying to sink or swim on their own?

Well, how would you know what they want in that regard? For the most part they're not even free to say what they want, let alone actually do anything to determine that.

I am really angry actually over our involvent in the world and the mess our politicians have created, sending us down some road of Armeggedon...just because we think we can go into THEIR part of the world and try to reshape it the way WE want.

Yeah. I'm still pissed that we went into Japan and forced them to become a constitutional republic rather than a militant empire. Same goes for Germany: what right did we have to kick out the National Socialists? :rolleyes:

The world is interdependent, we cannot afford to leave problems fester, and even if we decided to leave them alone they aren't about to leave us alone.

[TheChadd]

Doesn't he know that these countries want us to bud-out, and for us to live our type of democracy, while they live theirs?

I think you'll find alot of them have aspirations beyond just their own lands.

[a_unique_person]

Yeah. I'm still pissed that we went into Japan and forced them to become a constitutional republic rather than a militant empire. Same goes for Germany: what right did we have to kick out the National Socialists? :rolleyes:


Nice diversion into a situation that is not comparable.

[gumboot]

I have been hearing more and more how Bush in particular has this long range goal of totally transforming that part of the world to be like us.


Care to cite sources? That's quite a claim to make.




Who says he can do this? Doesn't he know that these countries want us to bud-out, and for us to live our type of democracy, while they live theirs?


Um... you do know they want to destroy the west and Islamify the entire world, right? You do know that in Iran every prayer is begun with "Death to America"? You do know that the US is referred to as Satan? You surely know they teach that Islam once ruled the world, and that, Allah willing, they will rule it again?

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Nice diversion into a situation that is not comparable.


I think you'll find quite a lot of parallels between militant Islam and Nazi Germany. Have a quick comparison of their propaganda some time, for example.

Another similarity is the way the western world, pre-WW2, buried its head in the sand and denied there was a threat. Just like we are now.

-Andrew

[Darat]

I think you'll find quite a lot of parallels between militant Islam and Nazi Germany. Have a quick comparison of their propaganda some time, for example.

Another similarity is the way the western world, pre-WW2, buried its head in the sand and denied there was a threat. Just like we are now.

-Andrew

The Nazis were in today's terms a "militant group"; you can compare any militant group and find at least some similarities with another militant group, after all they are militant groups!

[gumboot]

The Nazis were in today's terms a "militant group"; you can compare any militant group and find at least some similarities with another militant group, after all they are militant groups!


The similarities are far more significant than that.

1) They wish to exterminate the Jews
2) They wish to dominate the entire world and convert it to their ideology
3) They use a propaganda of demonising their enemy and presenting it as a threat to the world (such as cartoons of a "Jewish Spider" or "Jewish Octopus" covering the globe, or stories of Jews using a child's blood to make Matza)
4) They indoctrinate their young into a culture of blind hatred using a state-controlled system of propaganda which features in schools and teaching, in public announcements, and in media broadcasts

More importantly there is a DIRECT LINK and DIRECT PROGRESSION from Nazi ideology to Islamic Militant ideology. (For example the Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2).

-Andrew

[Darat]

First of all there isn't "a" millitant Islamic group - there are many, and many of them don't agree with one another and many fight amongst each other (for example the majority of the violence in Iran today is between differnet millitant Islamic groups).

The similarities are far more significant than that.

1) They wish to exterminate the Jews



I don't know enough about the ideology of all the different Islamic militant groups to know if this is a correct statement.


2) They wish to dominate the entire world and convert it to their ideology


I'd say a common trait of all militant groups (as we use the term today) and again I know some of the groups do not claim to be fighting for a complete world domination.

However again wanting other people to "convert" to your beliefs is a common characteristic of all militant groups.


3) They use a propaganda of demonising their enemy and presenting it as a threat to the world (such as cartoons of a "Jewish Spider" or "Jewish Octopus" covering the globe, or stories of Jews using a child's blood to make Matza)


Again something that I'd say (as we use the term today) all militant groups have in common. Indeed I would say it is one of the defining characteristics of a group we would label "militant".


4) They indoctrinate their young into a culture of blind hatred using a state-controlled system of propaganda which features in schools and teaching, in public announcements, and in media broadcasts


Well since many of these militant Islamic groups originated in states that they are hostile to them it seems contradictory to claim that the state brainwashed them. And this is in fact something that didn't happen in Germany - by the time the Nazis can be said to represent the state of Germany they only had what around ten years to exist and most of that time was on an all out war footing and if you then want to include the German war propaganda as a defining characteristic of a militant group then the British state was also a "militant" state during many, many wars and I don't believe this is how the term is commonly used.


More importantly there is a DIRECT LINK and DIRECT PROGRESSION from Nazi ideology to Islamic Militant ideology. (For example the Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2).

-Andrew

I've seen people argue this but I've not seen anything that convinces me that this is the case, obviously it may be but the evidence so far is less then convincing.

Another major difference that you seem to miss is that there was only one militant Nazi ideology - there are however many different militant Islamic groups who even fight among themselves, it's a generalisation too far to state that there is an Islamic Militant ideology.

[Bikewer]

Back when I read Micheal Scheuer's above-listed Imperial Hubris, he listed the publically-published reasoning of Osama Bin Laden, and the "mission statement" of Al Qaeda in conducting their activities.

They include:

The Israeli occupation of Islamic lands, and the West's unstinting support for that country.

The rule of Islamic lands by corrupt regimes that are themselves un-Islamic, and who suppress and repress Muslims. (Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt, etc.)

The money-oriented alliance of these regimes with the West, and the use of oil revenues to line their own pockets, rather than improve the lives of Muslims generally.

A few others.

Scheuer states that Bin Laden in no way wants to "destroy the West", convert anyone to Islam, "hates us because we're free", or any other such thing. He sees his group's struggle as a "defensive Jihad", conducted because Islam is under attack by the West.

Note that this applies only to Bin Laden, as one poster above points out, the numbers and purposes of militant groups are many. Still, it's become easy for us to make up an "us vs. them" mentality, where we are at war with Islam.

There are an estimated one billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of whom are quite content to live out their lives in much the same manner as anyone else.

[Mephisto]

They did, when they started to islamofiy us with threats, terror and attacks.

So, someone has actually made you consider converting to Islam by threatening you? So, you've actually been terrorized to the point that we'll soon see Ali Akbar Lister posting in here? As far as attacks go, I can only think of one group of fanatical Muslims that have ever attacked us - Al Qaeda and we dropped the ball as far as they go when we left Afghanistan for Iraq.

[Mephisto]

So that explains why the right-wingers are anti-gay marriage, anti-personal freedom and pro-religious government; you’re being islamofied. A perfectly good argument why the repubs should not be in power.

Don't you know that you can't effectively fight fanatical, religious fundies UNLESS you're a fanatical, religious fundie yourself? ;)

[TragicMonkey]

Now that Soviet communism is gone, we have to have something to spend our time on.

[Rob Lister]

So, someone has actually made you consider converting to Islam by threatening you?

Quite the obtuse statement, that. They made me consider that when they say I will either convert or die at their hand, that they mean it, and they are trying to accomplish just that.

They made me take them seriously in terms of a real, live threat to me and mine.

They mean to destroy us -- that is their stated goal...their repeatedly, unabashed, stated goal. They are doing everything they can to make that goal a reality.

Excuse me if I protest...and by protest I mean do everything possible to thwart their mission.

[Apollyon]

From bin Laden's Letter to America:

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

....

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]

....

If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

A crusade that "Bush began?" That's some wonderfully revisionist history, particularly considering OBL began planning 9/11 long before Bush became president.

[Darat]

From bin Laden's Letter to America:



A crusade that "Bush began?" That's some wonderfully revisionist history, particularly considering OBL began planning 9/11 long before Bush became president.

Remember Bin Laden is not the most rational person on the planet, I really don't think you should expect anything he says to stand up to scrutiny...

On the other hand don't forget Bush did drop a clanger just after 9/11 and said "This crusade, this war on terrorism." Crusade was probably not the best word to have picked.

[Major Billy]

Originally Posted by Iamme "I have been hearing more and more how Bush in particular has this long range goal of totally transforming that part of the world to be like us."

Care to cite sources? That's quite a claim to make.Well, one of the first things they actually did to Iraq was impose a flat tax (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50031-2003Nov1?language=printer) on that country:

"It's extremely good news," said Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and a Bush administration ally.

[Apollyon]

Remember Bin Laden is not the most rational person on the planet, I really don't think you should expect anything he says to stand up to scrutiny...
Considering he is actually attempting to make his vision reality and has many followers who subscribe to his beliefs, he's a little hard to ignore, rational or not.

On the other hand don't forget Bush did drop a clanger just after 9/11 and said "This crusade, this war on terrorism." Crusade was probably not the best word to have picked.
Why would he use such a word when we were attacked by Muslim miltants who want to destroy us?

[Ziggurat]

Nice diversion into a situation that is not comparable.

You missed the point: the idea that we never have the right to step in and force a change in the internal affairs of another country is not only ahistoric, it is dangerous.

[AWPrime]

For permission, they have plenty of it for Afghanistan but not enough for Iraq. But what’s done is done. The violent-expansionist form of islam must be destroyed as an ideology and as a force.


As for the nazi-islam link, I have met islamic nazis, very nasty people. So there is some basis for that.

[Polaris]

Without a doubt it did. It was made a much more powerful force with the overthrow of the Shah. People came to see it as a way to face up to Western dominance.

Most Iranians today are under 30, they barely remember the Shah, if they do at all. And they see on TV and over the internet what life is like in the West. Trust me, Iranians know that it's no contest which life is better. Maybe the rest of the Middle East which is frothing at the mouth for an Islamic state would do well to listen to them.

[Polaris]

Nice diversion into a situation that is not comparable.

The biggest difference is the Islam's Mein Kampf was written 1400 years ago.

[Polaris]

First of all there isn't "a" millitant Islamic group - there are many, and many of them don't agree with one another and many fight amongst each other (for example the majority of the violence in Iran today is between differnet millitant Islamic groups).

I think you meant Iraq.

[Darat]

Considering he is actually attempting to make his vision reality and has many followers who subscribe to his beliefs, he's a little hard to ignore, rational or not.


Since he's been trying for decades and doesn't seem to any nearer achieving his stated objectives for literally decades I put his chances of achieving those objectives somewhere near zero. That is not to say of course he hasn't been responsible for much terror and many murders, and we can ignore him. But lets keep what he was and is capable of in perspective in terms of him affecting the USA or the UK.



Why would he use such a word when we were attacked by Muslim miltants who want to destroy us?

I don't know - has he ever been reported as using it again?

[Darat]

I think you meant Iraq.

Yep I did.

[Apollyon]

Since he's been trying for decades and doesn't seem to any nearer achieving his stated objectives for literally decades I put his chances of achieving those objectives somewhere near zero. That is not to say of course he hasn't been responsible for much terror and many murders, and we can ignore him. But lets keep what he was and is capable of in perspective in terms of him affecting the USA or the UK.
imo, his objective is nothing more than assuaging his own personal ego. OBL had little problem with the West and the US until he was rejected by the defense minister of Saudi Arabia (twice) as a means to remove Saddam from Kuwait (by using the muj from Afghanistan) in favor of having the US military do the job instead.

His entire jihad against the US is based on having his poor widdle feewings hurt. But if he wraps up his personal egotistical vendetta as a religious crusade against Western imperialism, all kinds of useful idiots fall right in line (I like to think of them as the Chumpsky-ites), including many in the West and the US who sympathize with him and then write books like Imperial Hubris.

I don't know - has he ever been reported as using it again?
iirc, Bush made it clear that the war on terror is really a war against militant Islam.

[Iamme]

They did, when they started to islamofiy us with threats, terror and attacks.

Aren't you perhaps putting the egg before the chicken?...or the cart before the horse?

[Iamme]

Personally, I think the middle east needs to be westernized/modernized ...(

Maybe Bush will give you a job. :)

[Iamme]

I think you'll find alot of them have aspirations beyond just their own lands.

I have 'aspirations' about the married woman down the street. But I don't act out.

How is it that we, some country thousands of miles away, fear such aspirations more than what some of the other westernized countries, much closer to them do? THAT has always puzzled me. Why is it that WE are the ones who are policing that part of the world?

Actually...it's not that big of a puzzle. It is because of our alREADY established 'interests' there in THEIR part of the world, that can become threated. Where actualy, we should never have had interests there to beGIN with. Didn't we have the foresight to know that these governments are unstable and that ultimately, it boils down to our relations with the citizenry of those countries (Muslims...not Christians), and not of Shahs, Moulas, Ayottolahs, Princes, Kings, or whatever?

[Iamme]

You missed the point: the idea that we never have the right to step in and force a change in the internal affairs of another country is not only ahistoric, it is dangerous.

Go on. I'll listen. Threads like this, one can learn from, sometimes.

[Eos of the Eons]

If democracy is "western", while propoganda pushing opressive dictatorships is "Mideast", then give me the western version.

The thing about dictators is that they need scapegoats. The west and Jews are the current scapegoats.

Nobody wants to "westernise" the middle east. They want to stop the fall out or side effects of dicatorships.

[Ziggurat]

Go on. I'll listen. Threads like this, one can learn from, sometimes.

My point in bringing up those examples is that there have been previous times in our history when we have interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, and forced changes in how their societies operate. In both the case of Japan and Germany, not only was this necessary for our own interests, both countries are now glad we did. So such interference has happened in the past AND been widely accepted as having been the right thing to do. Now it's a different question if you want to ask whether or not we are justified in doing so in any particular instance (and I'm not claiming we are in every possible scenario), but the idea that we shouldn't because either we can never succeed or because it is never right to interfere just doesn't have any basis.

So, when are we justified in interfering? Well, the rule of thumb I'd use is that we're justified in interfering in another country/region when their problems become our problems, and they cannot (or will not) solve their problems themselves. And broadly speaking, that's very much the case with the middle east. The region supports international terrorists who strike at us, our interests, and our allies, and who cannot be appeased by retreating from the region or not interfering with it. The leaders of the middle east have been spectacularly unsuccessful at stopping terrorism, if they aren't actively engaged in promoting it (Iran, for example). Their problems have become our problems.

[Ziggurat]

How is it that we, some country thousands of miles away, fear such aspirations more than what some of the other westernized countries, much closer to them do? THAT has always puzzled me. Why is it that WE are the ones who are policing that part of the world?

Actually...it's not that big of a puzzle. It is because of our alREADY established 'interests' there in THEIR part of the world, that can become threated.

That's only part of it. Another part is the flip side of the old saying "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail": if you don't have a hammer, nothing looks like a nail. Europe is militarily weak, and so every problem looks to them like it has a non-military solution. It may not seem like it's weak, and in one sense it isn't: they have high-tech weapons, and they can still defend themselves from an invasion by an army. But they cannot project more than a tiny fraction of their military strength outside their borders. This is part of the legacy of the cold war: Europe armed itself for possible Soviet invasion, and that involved getting ready to fight a defensive war. The United States, on the other hand, had to prepare to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers halfway around the world. We aren't just stronger than everyone else, we're also FAR more mobile. And that matters, because if you cannot project your power, then it might as well not exist. So Europe is militarily weak, and they try to solve problems by non-military means because they do not have the option of solving them by military means. Hell, they couldn't even handle the military requirements of action in the former Yugoslavia without American help.

[Darth Rotor]

My point in bringing up those examples is that there have been previous times in our history when we have interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, and forced changes in how their societies operate.
Hi

FDR, as assistant Secretary of the Navy, was kind enough to draft the Haitian constituiton in about 1919, which was then implemented at the point of US Marine bayonets until about 1933ish, when FDR, now president, adopted the good neighbor policy toward Central America in general.

A fat lot of good an American crafted constitution did for Haiti. They are still a basket case.

Implementing democracy in Iraq at the point of a bayonet may or may not have worked, had the current Bush done a far better job of building a multinational coalition to support the post "Saddam yer outta here" operations.

He failed to do that, and missed what ever opportunity there was (for dozens of reasons) to fill the post Saddam power vacuum with something useful to the average Iraqi on the street.

I was once told that Democracy works best if it is grown from within. That makes sense to me, but the trick is to be able to protect the garden from predators while Democracy is in its nascent stages.

DR

[Ziggurat]

A fat lot of good an American crafted constitution did for Haiti. They are still a basket case.

Sure. That there are cases where we can and should interfere doesn't mean that we always should or that we're guaranteed success.

Implementing democracy in Iraq at the point of a bayonet may or may not have worked, had the current Bush done a far better job of building a multinational coalition to support the post "Saddam yer outta here" operations.

I've seen this argument quite often, but what I never really hear is any other countries actually named whose presence we should have had AND which would have made much difference. I have no doubt that we made mistakes, but we really had pretty much as many non-US troops helping out as we could have. For example, even if they aquiesced to supporting the invasion in the UNSC, there was never any hope that France, Germany, Russia, or China would have contributed. And India, frankly, wouldn't have been much help. Who else was there? The only real missed opportunity in terms of getting other countries on board was not getting Turkey to let our armored divisions invade from the north, but that was a hard sell, and I'm not sure we could have gotten agreement.

I was once told that Democracy works best if it is grown from within. That makes sense to me, but the trick is to be able to protect the garden from predators while Democracy is in its nascent stages.

You also sometimes have to break down the walls that prevent any democratic impulses from showing in the first place. But yes, success in the long run does require the local population deciding that it wants democracy.

[schplurg]

Nice posts, Ziggurat.

At some point in our world's future there must be a showdown between the "Islamo-fundies" and the "Western world". The Islamo-fundies will never, ever give up until they, or we, are dead.

It is not a matter of deciding whether or not we, as a planet, should deal with this threat, it is merely a matter of determining when and how.

[Tony]

Maybe Bush will give you a job. :)

I'd turn it down. :) I learned long ago (you tend to learn this quick when living in Texas) never to be employed by white-trash.

[Elind]

I am really angry actually over our involvent in the world and the mess our politicians have created, sending us down some road of Armeggedon...just because we think we can go into THEIR part of the world and try to reshape it the way WE want.

But no anger about "their" vision for the world which, unknown to you apparently, has been proclaimed loudly by "them" long before and up to 9/11?

[TragicMonkey]

If democracy is "western", while propoganda pushing opressive dictatorships is "Mideast", then give me the western version.

The thing about dictators is that they need scapegoats. The west and Jews are the current scapegoats.

Nobody wants to "westernise" the middle east. They want to stop the fall out or side effects of dicatorships.

If this is the American principle, why do we support some dictatorships and not others? Some we attack, others we ignore, others we befriend, and some of them we prop up and give support to!

[Almo]

Still, it's become easy for us to make up an "us vs. them" mentality, where we are at war with Islam.


Us vs. Them is easy to propagandize, and use to keep people's minds off other problems. Gets old. Really tired of it.

[Elind]

If this is the American principle, why do we support some dictatorships and not others? Some we attack, others we ignore, others we befriend, and some of them we prop up and give support to!

What does "reality" mean to you?:(

[Elind]

Scheuer states that Bin Laden in no way wants to "destroy the West", convert anyone to Islam, "hates us because we're free", or any other such thing. He sees his group's struggle as a "defensive Jihad", conducted because Islam is under attack by the West.

It really doesn't matter what Bin Laden thinks, only what he does. I don't care about beliefs of 72 virgins, as long as they don't involve killing me.

Note that this applies only to Bin Laden, as one poster above points out, the numbers and purposes of militant groups are many.

Actualy they are not many, only the excuses are many versions of the same sorry story, including those who attempt to explain them.

Still, it's become easy for us to make up an "us vs. them" mentality, where we are at war with Islam.

I've been having these debates for 5 years, mainly just on this forum. You know what? It is us vesus them, and where I used to get flamed for suggesting so, I feel the tide is the other way today.



There are an estimated one billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of whom are quite content to live out their lives in much the same manner as anyone else.

Probably true, as long as they are not actually asked to do anything that could be considered opposed to a fellow "Muslim".

[TragicMonkey]

What does "reality" mean to you?:(

Are you disagreeing with my assertion that the US has several questionable friends and allies? Of the dictatorship persuasion?

[Elind]

Are you disagreeing with my assertion that the US has several questionable friends and allies? Of the dictatorship persuasion?

No I am not. If I used the words "real politik" instead would you see that I meant there are practical limits to idealism in reality?:(

[TragicMonkey]

No I am not. If I used the words "real politik" instead would you see that I meant there are practical limits to idealism in reality?:(

There is considerable ground between "idealism" and "looking the other way while 'death squads' terrorize the populace"!

[fuelair]

Nice posts, Ziggurat.

At some point in our world's future there must be a showdown between the "Islamo-fundies" and the "Western world". The Islamo-fundies will never, ever give up until they, or we, are dead.

It is not a matter of deciding whether or not we, as a planet, should deal with this threat, it is merely a matter of determining when and how.

There should be no surprise about the following by now, but those who wish to die at fundie terrorist hands, feel free anyway: Glass them. NOW.

[Iamme]

If democracy is "western", while propoganda pushing opressive dictatorships is "Mideast", then give me the western version.

Oh. *I'll* take the western version myself! But we are talking what the people over THERE want. Not what you or I want. That is how Bush thinks. He thinks within his own box. He probably can't figure for the life of him, how anyone couldn't possibly want the chance to live the American dream, where you can pull a few purse strings here and there and perhaps own part of an oil company or something.


The thing about dictators is that they need scapegoats. The west and Jews are the current scapegoats.

Yes, there are dictators around the world. They may be no good and they may be evil. But I have a feeling *WE* think they are more evil than the people that live in those countries. Or, if not, they feel it is better to be red than dead and go along to do as they are told and to get their government handout, which they probably feel isn't too bad. That way they don't have to think too hard for themselves. Obviously, they don't have the backbone to start their own revolution, like we did, to overthrow the government. Look at how the Iraqi soldiers turned tailcoat and ran at our presence, enabling us to so quickly move into Bagdad.

Why should WE be the policeman of the world, in such a far away place where there is no direct threat to us... to determine evil dictators and basically unilaterally try to depose these tyrants? What are the neighbors nearby thinking? What are the Europeans who are closer OUR ally than the dictators, thinking? Are all these other countries simply afraid? Or do they themselves have vested interests with the dictator whre they don't want to upset the applecart?


Nobody wants to "westernise" the middle east. They want to stop the fall out or side effects of dicatorships.

Um..I think we do. We really do. Haven't you repeatedly...REPEATEDLY...heard on radio or tv, or read articles that speak of "our interests" there? Do you listen to talk radio? I have heard at least one conservative leaning host say that if our interests become compromised regarding oil that comes from there, that we will have no choice, due to our economy, to go and take it, at all costs!

No. We DO want to westernize it. We want the entire world to be like us so that we can more or less deal with ourselves on our own western style level. We can have McDonald's, WalMarts and Haliburtons on every street corner. And if their governments are all favorable to ours?..look at all the military stuff we could manufacture here and sell them. Look at how easy also it be for us to schmooze them and set up military installations in these countries then. You don't think we have such motives to see every country on earth westernize? Come on!

[Elind]

There is considerable ground between "idealism" and "looking the other way while 'death squads' terrorize the populace"!

Now you have me confused. I thought this was a rational discussion. You are referring to looking the other way, presumably as opposed to looking the right way, where?

[TragicMonkey]

Now you have me confused. I thought this was a rational discussion. You are referring to looking the other way, presumably as opposed to looking the right way, where?

Central and South America, for starters. Uzbekistan. Hell, we're chummy with Libya now. Our good friends the Saudis. Funny how we're all about not judging other cultures when we want something we can get by playing nice, but when we can't, then it's all about principle. We hear a lot about principle before, during, and after invasions. I'm not saying invasions are always wrong, but it's certainly idiotic to pretend they're done out of highminded humanitarism.

[Beerina]

Who gave our government permission to try to westernize the Mideast?

Free people need no permission whatsoever to free those under oppression. They might choose not to for practical reasons, but freedom need not get the permission of oppressors. Do you think otherwise? If so, how did you get to be thinking that way?

I have been hearing more and more how Bush in particular has this long range goal of totally transforming that part of the world to be like us.

If, by "be like us", you mean, "be free", then yes. Sadly, though, I do not think he wants to go far enough and ban theocracy in its entirety such that religious leaders, though quaint, have no direct say in the law, though they are of course, free to sway voters, vote themselves, and be elected themselves, all subject to a constitution that has strict separation of church and state.

The only long-term peaceful future for this planet will be with Islam being turned into just another harmless lifestyle choice just as Christianity was. Unfortunately, that took well over 300 years to accomplish with Christianity. Democratization and freedom is the first step on this vitally important path.

Who says he can do this?

Who says he, as the de facto and de jure leader of the free world, can't? Name me one dictator of these countries whose wishes count one single miniscule bit on the morality of this issue.

Doesn't he know that these countries want us to bud-out,

No, they don't want us to butt out. The people want freedom. The people want their dictators dead and gone. It is the angry, power-hungry thugs in power that "don't want us there". And, as discusses, this matters not in the moral equation.

and for us to live our type of democracy, while they live theirs? That they would actually RATHER live under a regime and be taken care of, rather than have to live with the fear of trying to sink or swim on their own?

You and a hundred million of your buds do not have the right to force anyone to live under any regime except freedom. If some people choose to live under the iron fist of some religious leader, go ahead. But don't tell me I have to as well. Therein lies the flaw in your argument. And it is the flaw that has lead to 99.9% of all misery through human history.

I am really angry actually over our involvent in the world and the mess our politicians have created,

That, as a practical matter, things were made a mess is a separate issue. You are attempting to retrofit a rationale on why we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, and are barking up the wrong tree.

sending us down some road of Armeggedon...just because we think we can go into THEIR part of the world and try to reshape it the way WE want.

If I lived in such a dictatorship, I would hope the free nations of the world would be kind enough to kill my dictator and free me. I wouldn't expect it, but I would hope so. I would hope to holy god that there were such people wanting to "reshape it the way THEY want", if "they" = "free people" and "it" = "thugocracy".

[Beerina]

That leaves out the history of imperialism that goes back many years. Islam extremism was born, to a large extent, out of the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of the Shah, who was actively backed by the US. Then, when the Shah was gone, and more moderate Iranians were in power, the US continued to sulk over that event, and not normalise relations. It even helped back Saddam in his murderous war with Iran.

Prior to this, however, was the Cuba situation. A dictator took over, came to the US to ask for help. The US did the right thing and turned him down, so he went to the USSR instead.

So the US decided, well, if all these small countries are gonna be lead by thugs, they might as well be US-friendly thugs.

And they couldn't choose otherwise, yet the outcome was inevitable. Aiding people who would overthrow for the purpose of freedom is frowned upon, ludicrously, by the "self-determination is the ultimate authority" crowd, even if "self-determination" means "best guy locally at murdering his political opponents." Hey, it's self-determination!

[gumboot]

That leaves out the history of imperialism that goes back many years. Islam extremism was born, to a large extent, out of the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of the Shah, who was actively backed by the US.


Islamic extremism was born in the 1920's in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood...

It has been around a long time.

-Andrew

[Mike B.]

That leaves out the history of imperialism that goes back many years. Islam extremism was born, to a large extent, out of the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of the Shah, who was actively backed by the US. Then, when the Shah was gone, and more moderate Iranians were in power, the US continued to sulk over that event, and not normalise relations. It even helped back Saddam in his murderous war with Iran.


You have been repeatedly shown that the above is false for a number of years. You have been shown again in this thread that Islamic extremism predates the Shah.

Yet you continue to mouth this same mantra.

I am assuming you do this because you think it makes some sort of anti-US point.

[Elind]

Central and South America, for starters. Uzbekistan. Hell, we're chummy with Libya now. Our good friends the Saudis. Funny how we're all about not judging other cultures when we want something we can get by playing nice, but when we can't, then it's all about principle. We hear a lot about principle before, during, and after invasions. I'm not saying invasions are always wrong, but it's certainly idiotic to pretend they're done out of highminded humanitarism.

Talk about generalizations leading nowhere, with death squads thrown in for special effect.

Please tell me you are not going to start blaming all the world's crap on a cynical US:boxedin:

[Elind]

Islamic extremism was born in the 1920's in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood...

It has been around a long time.

-Andrew

Actually no; there was this guy called Mohammed see.......some time before that.

[gumboot]

Actually no; there was this guy called Mohammed see.......some time before that.


Modern radical islam...

Was Mohammed an islamic radical?

-Andrew

[Elind]

Modern radical islam...

Was Mohammed an islamic radical?

-Andrew

I would say that those he told to convert or die thought so:boggled:

[Mephisto]

Actually no; there was this guy called Mohammed see.......some time before that.

And before that there was this guy called God who called for the murder of "witches," disobedient children, anyone approaching you about worshiping a different God, . . .

He even held the sun still so that the original Israelis could have enough light by which to murder the inhabitants of a city that refused to bend to His will.

[Elind]

And Mohammed was his prophet.........

[anduin]

They mean to destroy us -- that is their stated goal...their repeatedly, unabashed, stated goal. They are doing everything they can to make that goal a reality.

I find this language of “them” quite unnerving. Who are “they” exactly? Can you find quotations where they want to kill us all, or convert us to Islam?

I’ve just came back from a week in Pakistan, I talked only with local people, who all knew I was not a Muslim. I was well treated; nobody threatened me, even while traveling on my own all over the country. I never felt under any problem, and by the end a very religious Muslim man called me “brother” and bought a gift for my mother. I was invited to a Mosque and attended evening prayers in the 2nd largest mosque in the Islamic world. In short, I was treated much better than I have been treated by Belfast Protestants.

I get extremely upset about the generalizations about Muslims, because in my own experience I have never had one try to convert me to Islam (I work and live surrounded by Muslims here in Edinburgh).

In my extensive experience, most Muslims are decent, normal people. Yes, I find their treatment of women appalling, and I would never join them, but most of them want us to leave them alone. The scaremongering is just a tactic to perpetuate the insane policies in the Middle East.

[Ziggurat]

In my extensive experience, most Muslims are decent, normal people. Yes, I find their treatment of women appalling, and I would never join them, but most of them want us to leave them alone. The scaremongering is just a tactic to perpetuate the insane policies in the Middle East.

I agree completely with your first sentence. But the problem is, that's not enough: it does not TAKE most muslims being fanatics in order for Islamic terrorism to become the leading threat to global stability. And it's not scaremongering: almost every border of the muslim world with the non-muslim world is characterized by religious violence on the part of muslim extremists not merely trying to hold the line against other religious groups, but actively seeking to expand their influence. Here's a good essay on why it's not enough that most muslims are moderates:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2006-06-04td.html

Only when the political elites of the Middle East and the Muslim world reconcile themselves to the reality of state nationalism, forswear pan-Arab and pan-Islamic dreams, and make Islam a matter of private faith rather than a tool of political ambition will the inhabitants of these regions at last be able to look forward to a better future free of would-be Saladins.
The fundamental question is whether Islam as a private faith would still be Islam, or whether such privatization would spell its doom. I think it would spell its doom.

[Elind]

I find this language of “them” quite unnerving. Who are “they” exactly? Can you find quotations where they want to kill us all, or convert us to Islam?


Those quotations are readily available anywhere and everywhere if you actually want to see them.

However you are right that there is a strong Muslim tradition (actually Middle Eastern) of hospitality towards guests and it is not hard to find in individuals.

The problems arise when the cultural norms are perceived as threatened. Attitudes towards women are one example that you have harsh words about. Is it hard for you to imagine that you could have problems with politics and religion also if you dared have frank discussions on those topics?

I suspect you were too polite, rightly, to engage in serious debate on such matters when visiting and I doubt that you visited the tribal areas where time has stood still for 1400 years.

[anduin]

I suspect you were too polite, rightly, to engage in serious debate on such matters when visiting and I doubt that you visited the tribal areas where time has stood still for 1400 years.

I did visit far away areas in Muree and Dharmarajika, and the same thing happened. However, I find your statement strange. If these areas are so backward, what do we have to fear from them?

I have no false impressions of Islam, in its fundamentalist form it is a harsh religion. However, I have never seen a singl Muslim try to convert me to their religion, and I have been treated really well most of the times.

My point is that Islam is not the caricature that some people paint it as, the vast majority of people want to co-exist, and are happy to do so. They want tourism to their country. WE did talk politics and religion, they knew that I was an infidel, and left it at that. I was curious about their practices and they were happy to tell me all about their culture. In politics, they were truly angry at what they see is a continuous war from some Western countries on their Muslim brothers. This is how the conflict is seen by moderate Islam.

I am still curious to reads these threats that Islamists want to kill us all.

[a_unique_person]

I agree completely with your first sentence. But the problem is, that's not enough: it does not TAKE most muslims being fanatics in order for Islamic terrorism to become the leading threat to global stability. And it's not scaremongering: almost every border of the muslim world with the non-muslim world is characterized by religious violence on the part of muslim extremists not merely trying to hold the line against other religious groups, but actively seeking to expand their influence. Here's a good essay on why it's not enough that most muslims are moderates:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2006-06-04td.html

OK. I'm ditching my idea that it's not enough that most Americans are moderates.

[gumboot]

I find this language of “them” quite unnerving. Who are “they” exactly?


"They" are radical islamic militants. I understand that it is estimated between 10 and 15% of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims fit into this category. While even 15% isn't a significant percentage, 180 million people is not a small problem.




Can you find quotations where they want to kill us all, or convert us to Islam?


Here's a brief assortment:

First Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; the supreme leader of Iran since 1989, and before that President of Iran. In his own words:

Our people say "death to America", and this is like saying "I seek God's refuge from the accursed Satan," which is recited before any chapter of the Koran. Why is this? So he will never forget, even for a moment, that Satan is ready to attack him and to destroy his spiritual shield and his faith_ The saying, "death to America" is for this purpose.

Or, we could look at a video clip, also on Iranian TV, of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad; the current President, speaking in July 2004, before he was elected.

The message of the [Islamic] Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. Have no doubt_ Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.

Or perhaps a music video broadcast in Iran in 2004, which depicts war footage, etc, with music and the following words:

America is lurking for you, and will not give up until it destroys you completely. Rise up soon because the world is not safe from the hunter. "The World Without America" (played to final fanfare with depiction of statue of liberty as a skull)

Or perhaps we should go back earlier, to when things were peaceful...

Dr Ikrime Sabri, Mufti of Palestine, the supreme religious leader in the Palestinian Authority, made the following broadcast on August 24, 2001, two weeks before 9/11:

Oh Allah, destroy America! Oh Allah, destroy Britain and its supports and collaborators!

Or there is Sheikh Dr. Bakr Al-Samarai, the imam at Baghdad's al-Gailani mosque, speaking on Iraqi TV in February, 2003:

The Americans and their president and the British and those that follow them and the Zionists, the spoiled offspring of the entity. Allahu Akhbar! [God is great!] If Allah permits us, Oh Nation of Mohammed, even the stone will say, "Oh Muslim, a jew is hiding behind me, come and cut off his head." And we shall cut off his head! By Allah, we shall cut it off! Oh Jews! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!
(CROWD JOINS IN, CHEERING, RAISING FISTS, PRAYING, ETC)
Jihad for the sake of Allah! Jihad for the sake of Allah! Victory to Allah! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!

Or there's this pearl from Sheik Muhammad Al-Munajid, a disciple of one of Saudi Arabia's most revered religious leaders, Sheik 'Abd Al-'Aziz ibn 'Abdallah ibn Baaz. (Broadcast, August 2004 on Iqra TV, Saudi Arabia)

A British teenager tore out an elderly woman's heart after stabbing her and drank her blood. There are people [in the West] who are enthusiastic about drinking elderly people's blood.

Or there's what they have in their schools. As far back as 1998, what do we find in the text of a Jordanian and Palestinian school book?

"This religion [Islam] will destroy all other religious through the Islamic Jihad fighters"

Or an interview with a young girl on Iqraa TV, in Saudi Arabia, in May, 2002?

INTERVIEWER: What's your name?
BASMALLAH: Basmallah.
INTERVIEWER: Basmallah, how old are you?
BASMALLAH: Three and a half.
INTERVIEWER: Are you a Muslim?
BASMALLAH: Yes.
INTERVIEWER: Basmallah, are you familiar with the Jews?
BASMALLAH: Yes.
INTERVIEWER: Do you like them?
BASMALLAH: No.
INTERVIEWER: Why don't you like them?
BASMALLAH: Because...
INTERVIEWER: Because they are what?
BASMALLAH: They're apes and pigs.
INTERVIEWER: Because they are apes and pigs? Who said they are so?
BASMALLAH: Our God.
INTERVIEWER: Where did he say this?
BASMALLAH: In the Koran.
INTERVIEWER: Right, he said that about them in the Koran.

These extracts all appear in the documentary Obsession (http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/).

Recordings are taken from Middle East broadcasts, and translations are provided by two organisations which monitor television, radio, speeches, films, school teachings, cartoons, etc. in these countries.

The Middle East Media Research Institude (MEMRI) (http://www.memri.org/) and Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il/).

If you want to know what Syria and Iran are saying about the War in Lebanon at the moment, for example, MEMRI (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD123906) can tell you:

In an article titled "The Dracula of the Age," in the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra, Arab Writers' Union head Dr. Hussein Jum'a wrote: "Human history has never known a greater hatred than [the hatred] that [motivates] the Zionists' actions today… The only way they can slake [their thirst] is by drinking the blood of innocents and by destroying everything that represents life, civilization, and progress...

"While Lebanon was standing firm, the prime minister of the blood-slurpers [i.e. Olmert] came and brayed before the mayors of his entity [i.e. Israel] on July 31, 2006. He promised them victory, threatened to [inflict] disaster, to destroy, and to take revenge on the Lebanese resistance, and refused to apologize for the massacre that his barbaric army was committing in Lebanon. The human blood-drinkers who were present [at the meeting] applauded the Dracula of the age [i.e. Olmert], who had ignited the fire of war, and who is supported by the biggest blood-slurper of them all in Washington, George Bush...

And Iran?

Dr. Zahra Mostafavi, the daughter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and head of the Iranian Society in Defense of the Palestinian Nation, wrote a letter of salutation to Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Following are excerpts of the letter, which was published by IRIB News:

"The jihad that you wage at present does not come only to defend a land, but comes to defend the entire Islamic world, the Koran and all the Muslims. By God's grace, in our era you have become the [symbol of] truth as opposed to falsehood. Similarly, the struggle against Zionism represents the struggle between entire [world of] paganism and the entire [world of] Islam....

"Your sister, along with other Muslims and free men around the world, is determined to respond to your call and to follow your orders to the letter. The players in this international farce are well aware that when the will of the Muslim nations turns to Islamic Jihad, international conventions can no longer prevent them from rising up and [joining] the struggle between truth and falsehood. The day will come when we will witness a new Middle East, free of the filth of the usurper Zionism, with divine assistance and under the slogan 'La Illaha Illa Allah' (there is no God but Allah), and with the pure Islam of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).



I get extremely upset about the generalizations about Muslims, because in my own experience I have never had one try to convert me to Islam (I work and live surrounded by Muslims here in Edinburgh).

I think your mistake is to think we are talking about "Muslims". We are not. We are talking about Radical Islamic Militants. Ordinary Muslims are as much a victim of these people as the west. More so, infact. For while we are threatened with enslavement, for many Muslims it has already happened.

The Palestinian children, who, since the 1950's, have been raised in state schools to hate other religions and to embrace death and destruction, they are the greatest victims of all.


In my extensive experience, most Muslims are decent, normal people. Yes, I find their treatment of women appalling

While I agree with your first statement, I do fail to see how you can consider male Muslims to be "decent" and "normal" when you also believe their treatment of half their populations is "appalling". Frankly, I believe most "ordinary" Muslims don't treat their women so badly. Sure, I don't agree with a lot of their ideology on a woman's "place", but that is not the same as treating them "appallingly". Important slaves in the Roman Empire were treated exceedingly well. They were still slaves.


but most of them want us to leave them alone.

This is also not true, and a great misconception.

According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project (http://pewglobal.org/):

Moreover, there is enduring belief in democracy among Muslim publics, which contrasts sharply with the skepticism many Westerners express about whether democracy can take root in the Muslim world. Pluralities or majorities in every Muslim country surveyed say that democracy is not just for the West and can work in their countries. But Western publics are divided - majorities in Germany and Spain say democracy is a Western way of doing things that would not work in most Muslim countries. Most of the French and British, and about half of Americans, say democracy can work in Muslim countries.

These people WANT freedom. But the radical minority have staggering power in a number of countries, and left unchecked by a "head-in-sand" west, their powerful propaganda machine is bringing more and more people under their influence.

If we do nothing, we not only threaten our own survival (a show down between radical islam and the west WILL happen, it's a question of when), but we condemn these Muslims who want freedom as well.

-Andrew

[Skeptic]

Islam extremism was born, to a large extent, out of the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of the Shah, who was actively backed by the US.

Actually, Islamic extremism was born with Muhammad, who was--by today's standards--a radical terrorist thug, who (for instance) broke the peace treaty he made with the jews in the local towns the moment he could and slaughtered them, and sent threathening letters to the leaders of the world during his time to convert or die (they ignored him), and who saw Jihad--holy war against any and all unbelievers--as one of the most important things a Muslim can do.

Of course, not all Muslims agree with this--for that matter, Muhammad himself often disagreed with the radical sayings in his name in other places. The problem is not that Muslims believe *in theory* in some eventual worldwide Jihad or the world accepting Islam. Similar beliefs occur in all religions.

The problem is that Islam did not pass the modernizing process that made such eschatological visions of the final triumph of the one true religion, e.g., the coming of the Messiah (for the jews) or the "second coming" (for Christians) into a theoretical, end-of-days issue that has little effect on actual behavior for most Muslims. There is always a relatively strong radical faction that says that the worldwide Jihad is coming right now, which is a *significantly larger* one than occurs in other religions.

[Ziggurat]

OK. I'm ditching my idea that it's not enough that most Americans are moderates.

You're quite right: it's not enough. But what IS enough is that our system empowers the moderates. The same, frankly, cannot be said about most muslim societies. Now I'm sure you thought you were very clever for what you thought was a devastating comeback, but I'm afraid all you've done is demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to actually think through these issues in any detail or depth.

[Elind]

I did visit far away areas in Muree and Dharmarajika, and the same thing happened. However, I find your statement strange. If these areas are so backward, what do we have to fear from them?

I see, they have a way of killing Pakistani soldiers, but are nice to visiting Americans based on your good luck. Anybody mention meeting OBL when you were there?

I have no false impressions of Islam, in its fundamentalist form it is a harsh religion. However, I have never seen a singl Muslim try to convert me to their religion, and I have been treated really well most of the times.


True, they are not prone to evangelism like some Christians; their conversion tendencies (the extremist types) tends to be highly political and focused on their own.

My point is that Islam is not the caricature that some people paint it as, the vast majority of people want to co-exist, and are happy to do so. They want tourism to their country. WE did talk politics and religion, they knew that I was an infidel, and left it at that. I was curious about their practices and they were happy to tell me all about their culture.

No disagreement there.

In politics, they were truly angry at what they see is a continuous war from some Western countries on their Muslim brothers. This is how the conflict is seen by moderate Islam.


And is that how you see it also?

I am still curious to reads these threats that Islamists want to kill us all.

How curious are you about the reality of the West continuously waging war on Islam? (Let's pretend to ignore the other side of the coin, in case you already don't):boggled:

[Mephisto]

Us vs. Them is easy to propagandize, and use to keep people's minds off other problems. Gets old. Really tired of it.

Me too! You see it everywhere you turn. It's the simple drawing of a line in the sand meant to give simple people the illusion that they are behind the right guy.

"You're either with us, or against us."

Traditional marriage - gay rights

Anti-Abortion - Pro Choice

Stem Cell Research - Kill babies for cloning

Creationism - Science

Prayer in Schools - Freedom from Religion

Supporting Our Troops - Needless War

Truthiness (thanks Stephen Colbert) - Facts

Security Leaks - the right to know what our Government is doing

Security Measures - wiretapping U.S. citizens

Protecting Americans - looking at your bank accounts and reading your email

The economy is doing great - largest deficit ever

"The world is a safer place with Saddam gone" - widespread violence in the middle east.

It DOES get kind of old, doesn't it? :(

[Crossbow]

I have been hearing more and more how Bush in particular has this long range goal of totally transforming that part of the world to be like us. Who says he can do this? Doesn't he know that these countries want us to bud-out, and for us to live our type of democracy, while they live theirs? That they would actually RATHER live under a regime and be taken care of, rather than have to live with the fear of trying to sink or swim on their own?

I am really angry actually over our involvent in the world and the mess our politicians have created, sending us down some road of Armeggedon...just because we think we can go into THEIR part of the world and try to reshape it the way WE want.

While these are good questions, they can readily answered by simply listening to what the planners of the Iraq War have had to say since it has started.

For example, after Richard Pearle (one of the major pro-war people) left the Bush Administration, he wrote a book and went on tour to tout it in which he described the Iraq War as essentially a wake up call to the Middle East. To wit, you all had better get on board with the USA or else.

He took credit for Libya giving up its nuclear weapon program because they saw what happened when a nation did not do what the USA said to do.

He also explained that since much of the Middle East had been ruled by one despot or another for so long, that these nations were now ready for democracy (which the USA could do a great deal to deliver) with a and that democratic nations would be much easier for the USA and Israel to deal with.

Such a transformation would secure oil supplies, bring about a wave of democracy, stabilize governments, resolve the Israel/Palestine issue, and Bush would be able to take credit for wrapping everything up into a neat package.

If you listen to what these advisors have had to say, then compare it to the things Bush has said, then one will see quite a bit of correspondence between the two.

Anyway, Bush bought this whole spiel hook, line, and sinker, thus leaving us in the state we are in now.

[Giz]

Remember Bin Laden is not the most rational person on the planet, I really don't think you should expect anything he says to stand up to scrutiny...

On the other hand don't forget Bush did drop a clanger just after 9/11 and said "This crusade, this war on terrorism." Crusade was probably not the best word to have picked.

OTOH the Muslim reaction to "crusade", "operation infinite justice" etc seemed a bit hypersensitive. It's a figure of speech (just like Arafat used Jihad to mean an "internal struggle"). Eisenhower recalled the D Day campaign as the "Allied crusade in Europe" - no muslims in sight...

[Elind]

On the other hand don't forget Bush did drop a clanger just after 9/11 and said "This crusade, this war on terrorism." Crusade was probably not the best word to have picked.

Yes, but the funny thing is that in spite of his faults, Bush was actually being respectful of Muslims, thinking that they were intelligent enough to know that this was an English figure of speech without deep connotations. Of course he also stupidly thought the Iraqis were civilized enough to run a country, given that they had a few nuclear scientists and viral biologists on the payroll.:boggled:

[Eos of the Eons]

Um..I think we do. We really do. Haven't you repeatedly...REPEATEDLY...heard on radio or tv, or read articles that speak of "our interests" there? Do you listen to talk radio? I have heard at least one conservative leaning host say that if our interests become compromised regarding oil that comes from there, that we will have no choice, due to our economy, to go and take it, at all costs!

No. We DO want to westernize it. We want the entire world to be like us so that we can more or less deal with ourselves on our own western style level. We can have McDonald's, WalMarts and Haliburtons on every street corner. And if their governments are all favorable to ours?..look at all the military stuff we could manufacture here and sell them. Look at how easy also it be for us to schmooze them and set up military installations in these countries then. You don't think we have such motives to see every country on earth westernize? Come on!

Huh? I think you missed the part where the extremists I'm talking about want us wiped off the face of the planet.

First you have to understand scapegoatism. Hitler made the jews scapegoats, since he hated them anyways. Blame everything bad on them, and kill them. Take their stuff, and start a war. Suddenly people have something to focus on, and the war makes them feel like they are fighting all the bad stuff they figure the scapegoats brought on. It detracts from the fact that the dictator then doesn't have to fix any real problems. The dicator also wants all the good stuff for himself, and fighting makes people too busy to notice that you're all fat and happy while they are blowing themselves up for you and their families live in crappy housing and don't have a futre.

Religion is a good tool too. Keep people busy praying all day and following stringent rules. Tell them it's their fault if something bad happens, because they or someone close to them let an ankle show outdoors. Tell them if they DO manage to do everything right, then they will some great reward after they DIE. Tell people that other religions cause evil and bad things to happen (hunger from drought, death from earthquakes). Tell them to keep fighting the evil so that they may get some reward (no earthquakes that year, and all enemies dead) while still alive.

Notice how this stupid stuff doesn't matter so much in a democracy? People have some level of control, and don't want to kill others for bringing bad karma on them. We can prevent hunger in years of drought by using technology (irrigation). We don't need to pray for enemies to die and stop bringing bad evil that dries up the skies. We don't need to pray for death to our enemies so that good times may some time come. We can yell at our government for not spending taxes better on water systems, instead of having our government distract us from ruined crops by blaming it on our enemies (and then spending money on guns instead of building a dam or something).

It's not about Walmart. It's about people who can speak out and think for themselves. It's not about McDonalds. It's about all the reasons why someone becomes a suicide bomber.

Democracy means liberty, freedom of speech, and peace.

They don't have to be like us in their democracy. They can their own versions of thriving businesses once the money is better distributed. Right now all they have is propoganda and money & lives spent on wars against "the enemy".

[gumboot]

They don't have to be like us in their democracy. They can their own versions of thriving businesses once the money is better distributed. Right now all they have is propoganda and money & lives spent on wars against "the enemy".



This is of course the great enormous thing many people totally miss...

In a true genuine democracy the peoples of Iran or Syria or Lebanon or Palestine or wherever are perfectly able to choose a hardline Muslim political party that intends to implement Sharia Law.

If they want.

-Andrew

[Elind]

This is of course the great enormous thing many people totally miss...

In a true genuine democracy the peoples of Iran or Syria or Lebanon or Palestine or wherever are perfectly able to choose a hardline Muslim political party that intends to implement Sharia Law.

If they want.

-Andrew

No that is not true, for the simple reason that Sharia Law is fundamentally incapable of acting in a democratic manner and would therefore by definition never be able to rule what was already a "true" democracy, because to gain power they would have to convince the people to democratically give up the rights they had.

Now there are other ways to gain power, but to call it via democracy just because an election is held is wrong.

[gumboot]

No that is not true, for the simple reason that Sharia Law is fundamentally incapable of acting in a democratic manner and would therefore by definition never be able to rule what was already a "true" democracy, because to gain power they would have to convince the people to democratically give up the rights they had.


Please cite where it is specified that Sharia Law requires the leaders to not be democratically elected.

-Andrew

[Elind]

Please cite where it is specified that Sharia Law requires the leaders to not be democratically elected.

-Andrew

Are you kidding me? Sharia doesn't know the word Democracy or Election to begin with. How is it supposed to say anything about it?

God makes the law as interpreted by the most scheming of the local leaders, who pretty much elect each other, if that's what you want to pretend is democracy.

[Ziggurat]

Please cite where it is specified that Sharia Law requires the leaders to not be democratically elected.

I've got to go with Elind on this one. Supposing you democratically elect leaders under Sharia, what then? They aren't allowed to make laws, because that's what Sharia is for: it's complete, and if you change any of those laws you're committing apostasy. So even if you have some of the superficial forms of democracy, you cannot achieve its substance.

[gumboot]

I've got to go with Elind on this one. Supposing you democratically elect leaders under Sharia, what then? They aren't allowed to make laws, because that's what Sharia is for: it's complete, and if you change any of those laws you're committing apostasy.


Sorry, I didn't think of it in that way. I suppose it would have to be a democratically elected government that intended to pass laws of a Sharia nature (many non-Sharia Muslim nations have certain Sharia Laws in their legislation).

I suppose also in theory an elected government could pass a whole heap of laws so that they EFFECTIVELY established Sharia Law (but in the framework of a democratic legislature), however this seems super highly unlikely. As you say, Sharia is meant to be divine, so any party dedicated enough to establish full Sharia would want to do so in a divine way, not via democratic legislature.

Perhaps I should refine.

Muslims in a democratic society are perfectly able, if the population wishes it, to elect a very hardline conservative Muslim party that has very tough religious laws. :)

There are examples aplenty in smaller magnitude of differentiation - for example the United States of America has elected a more conservative government than New Zealand.

But yes, I now agree, true full Sharia Law cannot function in a democracy (and obviously no way they can operate in a liberal secular democracy!)

How about a conservative monotheocratic democracy? Has a nice ring to it. :p

-Andrew

[Elind]

How about a conservative monotheocratic democracy? Has a nice ring to it. :p

-Andrew

Sounds cool, as in Republican? :boggled:

Seriously, I don't think the word democracy fits in that phrase at all. The word is mutually exclusive with theocratic, for the same reasons discussed earlier.

Even Israel is questionable as a true democracy, IMHO, however much more so they are compared to their neighbors; if only for the simple reason that they give preferential treatment to their own fanatic sects, not to mention the issue of citizenship to only some peoples.

[a_unique_person]

I've got to go with Elind on this one. Supposing you democratically elect leaders under Sharia, what then? They aren't allowed to make laws, because that's what Sharia is for: it's complete, and if you change any of those laws you're committing apostasy. So even if you have some of the superficial forms of democracy, you cannot achieve its substance.

If you read the old testament of the bible, then all kinds of strange things would be law now if we actually enacted what it proscribes. People adapt the irrational to the reality, it happens all the time. Many muslim societies have lived quite happily without the extremes of sharia.

[Ziggurat]

If you read the old testament of the bible, then all kinds of strange things would be law now if we actually enacted what it proscribes. People adapt the irrational to the reality, it happens all the time. Many muslim societies have lived quite happily without the extremes of sharia.

Islam is not the same as Judaism OR Christianity. Unlike the bible, the Koran is not human transcriptions of divine revelation, flexible to interpretations of both literalness and historic context: the Koran is the literal word of Allah himself (and Allah only speaks Arabic). It is not open to interpretation, to selection, to saying things like "that behavior was OK then but things have changed now". It is eternal and immutable. If you live "without the extremes of sharia", then you're living without Sharia. Which is fine, and a lot of Muslims do indeed choose and prefer that. But you can't pretend that there's some "moderate" form of Sharia just because there are moderate Muslims. There isn't.

[Darat]

Islam is not the same as Judaism OR Christianity. Unlike the bible, the Koran is not human transcriptions of divine revelation, flexible to interpretations of both literalness and historic context: the Koran is the literal word of Allah himself (and Allah only speaks Arabic).


Depends on which Christian, Judaic or Islamic "sects" you are talking about.


It is not open to interpretation, to selection, to saying things like "that behavior was OK then but things have changed now". It is eternal and immutable. If you live "without the extremes of sharia", then you're living without Sharia. Which is fine, and a lot of Muslims do indeed choose and prefer that. But you can't pretend that there's some "moderate" form of Sharia just because there are moderate Muslims. There isn't.

It isn't "pretending" it's a fact. Islamic beliefs are very varied and how particular parts of laws and teachings are interpreted and practiced vary from Islamic denomination to denomination.

[Elind]

If you read the old testament of the bible, then all kinds of strange things would be law now if we actually enacted what it proscribes. People adapt the irrational to the reality, it happens all the time. Many muslim societies have lived quite happily without the extremes of sharia.

And many muslim societies live quite happily WITH the extremes of Sharia. The truth is that there is no middle ground with Sharia. Comparison with Christianity (yes the bible has incredible evil in it too) is invalid today for the simple reason that Christians have mostly come to terms with secular law over religious law.

[Elind]

It isn't "pretending" it's a fact. Islamic beliefs are very varied and how particular parts of laws and teachings are interpreted and practiced vary from Islamic denomination to denomination.

Where do you get that? Muslims have those who are more, or less, religious than others in their day to day activity of course, but when we are talking of the actual application of Sharia, that is done by the courts, invariably run by the holier than thou (that's how they get appointed).

At that point this distinction becomes moot. If you are a woman who has been raped and don't have 4 (four) friendly witnesses of the act (what a laugh) in your favor, then you will have just confessed to illegal intercourse and will be jailed, or worse.

The distinctions you talk about do not exist, because such Sharia does not exist except perhaps when practised selectively, for example in divorce cases in countries that do not have Sharia as the dominant legal system; but that is pick and choose, not real Sharia.

[Ziggurat]

Depends on which Christian, Judaic or Islamic "sects" you are talking about.

Uh, NO. There isn't a single large Christian denomination which believes that the bible is the literal word-for-word transcript of God. Even those few who consider it the literal truth (and they constitute a pretty damned small sliver of Christians, with no major church adopting that position) don't think it's word-for word God's voice - which is why the most fundy groups in the US, for example, don't say mass in Latin, Greek, or Aramaic. But the Koran is, word for word, IN ARABIC, the word of Allah. That's why it is NEVER read in prayer in anything other than Arabic. That fact has peculiar consequences in more than one direction: on the one hand, it lets radical preachers polarize Muslims with religious arguments that Muslims who don't know Arabic can't refute, but on the other hand it also means that many Muslim moderates remain ignorant of, shall we say, "problematic" passages in the Koran and so lead fairly modern and liberal lives in blissful ignorance of the contradictions in their beliefs.

Islamic beliefs are very varied and how particular parts of laws and teachings are interpreted and practiced vary from Islamic denomination to denomination.

Those differences revolve primarily around the various hadiths, not the Koran itself. All the major threads of Islamic jurisprudence to which you refer still hold the Koran to be the literal word of Allah. They have to, because that's what it says it is. And if you don't believe that it's the literal word of Allah, then you believe the Koran is a lie, and you don't believe in one of the central tennants of what makes a Muslim a Muslim. It's like thinking that Jesus was a great prophet or philosopher or moral teacher but not the son of God: that's all fine and dandy, but if that's what you believe, you're simply not a Christian.

[bigred]

Sorry if some of these questions have already been answered or I post duplicate comments, don't have a chance to read the whole thread, but offhand.....

I have been hearing more and more how Bush in particular has this long range goal of totally transforming that part of the world to be like us.
1 - who/what did you hear this from.
2 - what is meant by "like us"


Who says he can do this?
1 - who says he can't?
2 - why do you presume it's automatically a bad thing?
3 - why do you feel it's such an all-or-nothing/black n white kinda deal?

Doesn't he know that these countries want us to bud-out,
I'll avoid the obvious silly beer joke and just point out what a gross oversimplification that is.


That they would actually RATHER live under a regime and be taken care of, rather than have to live with the fear of trying to sink or swim on their own?I don't even know what you're trying to say here.


I am really angry actually over our involvent in the world and the mess our politicians have created, So you don't think we should ever get involved with other countries at all? I doubt you do. So where should the line be drawn?

sending us down some road of Armeggedon...I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if we ARE "going down the road of Armeggedon," it's not all Bush's (or any one person's, or country's) fault.


just because we think we can go into THEIR part of the world and try to reshape it the way WE want.That has been a long-standing fault of ours, promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike, to one extent or other - but that's also been common among many countries. In fact it's human nature. Not that that excuses it of course.

[a_unique_person]

Islam is not the same as Judaism OR Christianity. Unlike the bible, the Koran is not human transcriptions of divine revelation, flexible to interpretations of both literalness and historic context: the Koran is the literal word of Allah himself (and Allah only speaks Arabic). It is not open to interpretation, to selection, to saying things like "that behavior was OK then but things have changed now". It is eternal and immutable. If you live "without the extremes of sharia", then you're living without Sharia. Which is fine, and a lot of Muslims do indeed choose and prefer that. But you can't pretend that there's some "moderate" form of Sharia just because there are moderate Muslims. There isn't.

They do it anyway. And the Bible is the Word of God. Where have you been? And just as they want homosexuality banned because the Bible says so, they don't want people killed for not honouring the Sabbath.

[a_unique_person]

dupe

[gumboot]

Sounds cool, as in Republican? :boggled:

Don't be silly. There's nothing cool about Republicans...



Seriously, I don't think the word democracy fits in that phrase at all. The word is mutually exclusive with theocratic, for the same reasons discussed earlier.

Er... you do realise it was a joke right?

-Andrew

[Elind]

Don't be silly. There's nothing cool about Republicans...




Er... you do realise it was a joke right?

-Andrew

Er...yes :boggled:

[Beerina]

I've got to go with Elind on this one. Supposing you democratically elect leaders under Sharia, what then? They aren't allowed to make laws, because that's what Sharia is for: it's complete, and if you change any of those laws you're committing apostasy. So even if you have some of the superficial forms of democracy, you cannot achieve its substance.

You don't need to satisfy people who want that kind of law. You create freedom of religion and speech and separation of church and state and let people get used to it. Within a generation, the next generation will love it. The US and other western countries have tens of millions of Muslims who have no problem with it. Again, in ME countries, it's all about those thugs in power maintaining power, and nothing about religion per se.

[Elind]

The US and other western countries have tens of millions of Muslims who have no problem with it. Again, in ME countries, it's all about those thugs in power maintaining power, and nothing about religion per se.


So far, in an admittedly short term, there seems to be a difference between the US and other Western Powers. Exactly why is yet to be defined, but in the case of the thugs, there is a clear correlation between their ability to manipulate religion in order to remain in power, do you not think?

Assuming you agree, is that a comment about their manipulative power, or the susceptibility of the religion to manipulation?