Where do you see Islamofascism in 50 years?

[Gil Hamilton]

How is that anti-government? A command to pay your taxes is anti-government?

Think about it. If everything is owed to God in the Hebrew culture, how much does that leave Caesar?

[Beowulf]

One of the biggest problems is that the Koran isn't just a religious text, but also a text on government.

Good point; while the Biblical New Testament discourages the union of church and state with the "Let Caesar have what is Caesar's" line (not that George W. Bush seems to have noticed), the Koran makes no distinction between personal religion and state affairs. However, one must wonder how much difference this will really make in practice, as that "Caesar" line was pretty much ineffective at separating church and state for nearly two thousand years.

The differnce is that the Koran states there is one true way for a nation to be, that which the great prophet Mohammed created. There is no difference between religon and state. Christianity is slightly more flexible than that. There may have been rather closely intertwined nations, but you can have the government changed without being declared a heretic. A traitor, maybe, but heretic, no.

[Master of Ossus]

The Koran also dictates a number of laws, punishments, etc. that even the Bible doesn't touch on. It really is as much a legal document as a religious one, which leads to serious problems in understanding. To many Muslims, the idea of a secular government is threatening and insulting, even though in the West it is the accepted norm.

[consequences]

Step one, forcibly relocate the population of Israel somewhere else in the world(The bottom of the ocean suits me if they whine about it enough).

Step One point five, allow Islamic Fundies from all over the world travel to the abandoned territory that was once Israel.

Step two, build a giant wall around the entire Middle East(exact boundaries determined by complex analysis of population by big-brained types).

Step three, detonate enough upper atmosphere nukes over the place to fry all electronics, and continue doing so for the next hundred years, just to be sure.

Step four, let them live the lives the apparently believe Allah intended them to have, with no interference from the West's technology and corruption.

To prevent interference with the Wall building, it may be necessary to commence stage three before stage two is complete.

I realise this is completely impractical and doesn't address little problems like the use of chemical explosives to breach the wall, but it is technically more humane than the 'sea of glass' strategy that I would otherwise favor.

[Perinquus]

The Koran also dictates a number of laws, punishments, etc. that even the Bible doesn't touch on. It really is as much a legal document as a religious one, which leads to serious problems in understanding. To many Muslims, the idea of a secular government is threatening and insulting, even though in the West it is the accepted norm.

Actually, a quote from Margaret Thatcher sums this up quite well:

It is recorded how towards the end of the eighteenth century a Muslim visitor to England was taken to see the House of Commons at work. He later wrote of his astonishment at finding that the British Parliament actually made laws and fixed punishments for their infraction - because unlike Muslims the English had not accepted a divine law revealed from heaven and therefore had to resort to such unsatisfactory expedients. Muslims still understand the expression 'the rule of law' very differently than do most Westerners.

Things haven't changed all that much in the Muslim world since the 18th century. But even then, it would have been obvious to an unbiased observer that our "unsatisfactory expedients" were producing better results for our society overall than their "divine law revealed from heaven". Today, it should be a hundred times more obvious, yet many in the Muslim world still look on our way of government as an "unsatisfactory expedient" and theirs as "divine law revealed from heaven", no matter how much more wealthier, freer, more powerful, and more properous we are.

That's the sad, sorry thing about the deeply religious mindset. It makes one utterly impervious to facts and evidence.

[SWPIGWANG]

Just my .2 cents....

Well, there is always the problem of what one exactly what to achieve.


To stop terrorism, relatively fast:
Aside from "kill them all", one can set up regimes so oppressive (backed by US might) that terrorism is difficult and suicidal. (and they can wipe themselves out by blowing themselves up) In other words, more evil and secular dictators like Saddam that knows better about pissing off the US. This is not exceedingly diffcult if the gloves are off, so to speak, though it is against all the democracy whatever rhetoric. But than again, this is similar to the kill them all approach anyway.

To cause lasting, positive change to the population without massive oppression:
Fundamentalist Islam did not grow in a vacuum. Many Islamic states are failures and attempts at westernization have also failed, for reasons not fully caused by islam but the usual incompetence, injustice and corruption. Happy, employed and wealthy people generally worry about their own lives rather than follow grand, vague slogans of change. From an western perspective therocracy is horrible, but for the 60+% unemployed in the gaza strip it really isn't. Rejection of western ideas stems from the fact that the side ideas never worked in the ME context. Iraq, in secular Saddam or current cluster fuck doesn't really look all that better than Iran after all.

One need to let the locals build a functional and reasonably just and responsive government. There should be enough oil wealth left for some countries to fund this on their own, the problem is political power. Once that is done, the idea would slowly (and I mean slowly) fade into history. It would probably never fully die out, like christian fundies, but it wouldn't be as it is now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the west can just ignore the ME, israel and everything altogether and quickly find alternatives to crude oil. The fundamentalists can not realistically win and there is little motivation of action when the west simply stays far out.

[Perinquus]

One of the reasons, at least, that there has been a wave of fundamentalism is that the pro-western regimes, or regimes that while not specifically pro-US or pro-western, were at least secularized - regimes like that of the Shah, Nasser's regime in Egypt, or even Saddam Hussein's, were oppressive and brutal. Many who were willing to embrace a more secularized society were repelled by the oppression that came with it every time it was tried in the Middle East. The only leader from the Muslim world I am aware of who managed to make the transition to a more secular society somewhat successfully was Kemal Ataturk in Turkey right after WWI.

[Admiral Valdemar]

One of the reasons, at least, that there has been a wave of fundamentalism is that the pro-western regimes, or regimes that while not specifically pro-US or pro-western, were at least secularized - regimes like that of the Shah, Nasser's regime in Egypt, or even Saddam Hussein's, were oppressive and brutal. Many who were willing to embrace a more secularized society were repelled by the oppression that came with it every time it was tried in the Middle East. The only leader from the Muslim world I am aware of who managed to make the transition to a more secular society somewhat successfully was Kemal Ataturk in Turkey right after WWI.

I have heard people say that such regimes, while tyrannical, at least maintain order and stop fundamentalism in many respects. Look at the rampant terrorism in Iraq now. Freedom is now available to every citizen in a state that hasn't tasted such a thing in the best part of a century, yet they have many now that, instead of setting an example or how their nation should be run, go out and try to force out those that removed the force keeping them down.

One has to wonder whether the same thing would happen with the Saudi regime or Iran. We may eliminate a state that sponsors terrorism eslewhere or poses a threat on the worldstage, but what's to say that iron fist isn't best left in place for the good of the population? Freedom, unfortunately, is a double-edged sword; you are free to follow the good or the bad. It seems many want to become fundamentalists in the Middle-East.

[frigidmagi]

However it is dissatifaction with corrupt regimes that cause many of these young men to join up in the first place. Many of them feel that the US is backing these regimes and keeping them down, robbing them of their rightful place.

I will admit that many... Most of the regimes in the Middle East get a hell of alot of support from us and that only seems to make them angier.

[Admiral Valdemar]

As fallacious and corrupt as we may find their reasoning, it is not something we can argue down as we would on this board. When the opposing side has a God to follow, a gaggle of clergymen and lethal intent, then thought inducing debate is little relief. It would be nice if this board was an example of the world stage.

Prejudice and hypocrisy are rife and they have always been a problem so trying to rid those things from this problem will be hard enough without adding more fuel to the fire with even further involvement in the area.

[Ender]

I can think of another solution: forced internal moderation.

At this point there are a few minds in the ME that do argue for more moderation in how the Koran is interprated. My suggestion is, through several dummy corporations, money laundering, patsies, and all the other intellegence agency tricks we used against the soviets to buy their hafnium during hte cold war, start to fund those who have views we support, or at least aid us. Not a big thing, but, for example, start a show on Al -Jazzera that showcases their thoughts. Book contracts from islamic book companies. That kind of thing. It has to be widespread (so that the one or two will be killed by thier opponent's followers or turn out to be scamming us), it has to be incredibly secret, and it will unfortunately be long term. One of the key points is that we will never be albe to acknowledge what we are doing, or have any american institutuions start to hype these people as well. The attempt to turn this into a success story for political gain would only worsen the situation (and I can completely see the bushies doing that given their track record). They have to be chosen not for political reasons, but for the value of their ideas and viewpoints.

That is the only way I see this really ending in less then 100 years, barring the nuclear fire option

[Ender]

It would be nice if this board was an example of the world stage.

While constant insistance on a free exchange of ideas and that you must support those ideas with logic and high standard meeting evidence is appealing, the mental image of every interview with Dick Ceney coming down to anal sex is off putting.

[JME2]

That's the sad, sorry thing about the deeply religious mindset. It makes one utterly impervious to facts and evidence.

Quick detour from thread topic: You just perfectly summed up the Bush Adm.'s attitude towards science and logic.

[SirNitram]

One could always try what, if memory serves, the British did with the IRA:

Negotiate with the moderates. Get them into power, make the negotiations public... And ignore the fanatics as best you can. Not quick, not easy, and it has none of the 'RAHR KILL' crusaderism people latch onto, but..

[Stuart Mackey]

Things will head in the direction of Iran.
One thing is clear, you cannot expect some of these nations, with these attitudes, to simply wake up one day crying 'Democracy, Democracy!' any more than democracy 'just happned' in the west.
The attitudes we have are the end result, in many respects, of hundreds of years of political and social evolution, so why expect anything more from the islamic parts of the world?.

The problem is, Islam is far more prone to theocracy than western Christianity. While I won't argue that Christianity is inherently anti-theocratic, it doesn't have a history of theocracy on the same level as Islamic theocracy; as powerful as medieval Popes were, they never lorded over massive empires like the caliphs did. For a lot of Muslims, it seems that the problem is not so much that they don't favor a separation of church and state, it's that they don't even acknowledge the fact that they CAN be separated. Islam is the state, and vice versa, and ne'er shall the twain be split. Islam was theocratic at birth, with its founder being a military leader who conquered territory and established Islamic dominance over it. But neither Jesus nor his disciples ever ruled anything.

And thats why god invented TV Nevertheless, the principle remains. Its kind of diffiicult to expect a nation to be something its never been on a whim, and given bacic things like TV and the internet the ME will eventually move towards a more secualr way of life, as Iran seems tobe moving towards.

[Sokartawi]

I don't really see any problem there at all that cannot solve itself over time.

The west just needs to pull out completely and Israel has to go. Interference will only cause problems, and invasion and oppression like what is happening in Iraq now will only make matters escalate until we have a global Israel/Palestine-like conflict with no end, that only revolves around ignorance and hatred.

[Perinquus]

I don't really see any problem there at all that cannot solve itself over time.

The west just needs to pull out completely and Israel has to go. Interference will only cause problems, and invasion and oppression like what is happening in Iraq now will only make matters escalate until we have a global Israel/Palestine-like conflict with no end, that only revolves around ignorance and hatred.

And if pigs had wings they would fly.

The west is not about to, and could not possibly "pull out completely". Why? Oil.

Now it's fashionable to sneer at "blood for oil", but oil means energy, and if you think energy is unimportant, I suggest you undeceive yourself. And if it's important, people and states will find their interests are tied up with it, and there will be conflict over it. This is the way it is. Anything else is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

Likewise, Israel is not going to "go". A whole generation has grown up over there and that is there home. How would you react if the rest of the world seriously proposed to throw you off your land? I daresay you would not like it. However much we may be inclined to think that setting up the state of Israel over there in the first place was, in retrospect, not the wisest course to take, the fact is that it was done, and we have to deal with the reality that Israel is now an established, recognized sovereign state. You cannot just dissolve something like that; the people who live there would simply not sit still for it. It is inconceivable that they would subnmit to such a plan. It would take a bloody war to remove Israel from the map at this point.

Any proposed solution out to have at least some grounding in reality. This one is about as grounded in reality as a scheme to find a lineal descendant of the Emperor Vespasian and return the rule of all former Roman provinces to him and his heirs.

[HemlockGrey]

The West cannot destroy fundementalism, period. Perhaps if we invaded every country in the ME and force-taught atheism to the children, in a few generations it would be eradicated. But that's obviously not going to happen.

Any reform or change to the Middle Eastern situation must come from within, i.e. with Turkey and Ataturk's reforms. Invasion and occupation only breeds more violence, especially when it's handled with mind-blowing incompetance (thanks, Bushies).

The West can only destroy terrorist cells and root out terrorists and contain fundementalist nations. It cannot hope to strike directly at the source of the problem because any attempt to do so merely exacerbates the problem.

I think, however, that there are things we can do to hasten the secularization of the ME- not totally fucking over the secularist movement in Iran is one, and, once the secularists take power, supporting and strengthening them. We should support and strengthen Turkey, and press Israel to stop with the Jewish State nonsense and become a free secular entity. We should also, rather than shutting our borders to everyone named Mohammed, allow Mid-Easterners to become educated in our country and promote a free exchange of ideas.

Iraq, if handled properly, could have become a secular state which would have eventually imparted secular values to its citizenry over time. But thanks to the Administration's criminal stupidity, that doesn't seem very likely.

[Darth Wong]

One of the problems we in the West have has been alluded to before: we can't even publicly make up our minds about what we want. We can't even publicly say that we're against religious extremism and fundamentalism, because the political parties want to curry favour with domestic Christian religious fundamentalists. So anything said against the fundamentalists of Islam simply comes off looking ridiculously hypocritical and only makes us look worse in the eyes of Muslims.

[PainRack]

Things haven't changed all that much in the Muslim world since the 18th century. But even then, it would have been obvious to an unbiased observer that our "unsatisfactory expedients" were producing better results for our society overall than their "divine law revealed from heaven". Today, it should be a hundred times more obvious, yet many in the Muslim world still look on our way of government as an "unsatisfactory expedient" and theirs as "divine law revealed from heaven", no matter how much more wealthier, freer, more powerful, and more properous we are.

That's the sad, sorry thing about the deeply religious mindset. It makes one utterly impervious to facts and evidence.

The reverse mentality holds true, because the formerly rich Arab nations and civilisation of Saladin, was based on Islam laws, and most Arab muslims actually believe that their nations have shifted away from their Islamic roots, thus bringing about their downfall at the hands of the west.

Kinda reminds me of Judah. Claim defeat is foredained because our nation has broken away from God Word.

[PainRack]

I can think of another solution: forced internal moderation.

That is the only way I see this really ending in less then 100 years, barring the nuclear fire option

Can the US keep the kind of secrecy this kind of operation will require? Or her allies? Or those she works with? Cause once this thing leaks out, the entire movement will be tainted.

[Perinquus]

Things haven't changed all that much in the Muslim world since the 18th century. But even then, it would have been obvious to an unbiased observer that our "unsatisfactory expedients" were producing better results for our society overall than their "divine law revealed from heaven". Today, it should be a hundred times more obvious, yet many in the Muslim world still look on our way of government as an "unsatisfactory expedient" and theirs as "divine law revealed from heaven", no matter how much more wealthier, freer, more powerful, and more properous we are.

That's the sad, sorry thing about the deeply religious mindset. It makes one utterly impervious to facts and evidence.

The reverse mentality holds true, because the formerly rich Arab nations and civilisation of Saladin, was based on Islam laws, and most Arab muslims actually believe that their nations have shifted away from their Islamic roots, thus bringing about their downfall at the hands of the west.

Kinda reminds me of Judah. Claim defeat is foredained because our nation has broken away from God Word.

Ah yes, but when you look back on it, you find there was indeed a time when the Islamic world was at the forefront of civilization and scientific advancement. And that was an age when Europe was sunk in the barbarism of the Dark Ages, it's peasants toiled away in their fields, dying in their twenties, the nobility was nothing more than an illiterate banditti, even rulers who bore the word "great" after their names, like Theoderic and Charlemagne, were illiterates who could only sign their names by tracing it through a gold stencil plate.

The rational thing for them to do would be to consider that they were indeed one of the most advanced cultures on earth at one time - but advanced compared to what? When you put it into perspective, it looks a little different.

[Darth Wong]

Argument from Ancient Glory doesn't cut shit with me.

China and the other Asian countries had their ancient periods of glory as well, but that doesn't keep them from adopting western-style reforms where necessary.

The Argument from Ancient Glory is just an excuse cooked up so that religious apologists can avoid blaming the true culprit. Yes, Islam was once advanced. But it was not faced with secular competition at the time. Nothing radicalizes religious fanatics more quickly than the fear of irreligious thought.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

How is that anti-government? A command to pay your taxes is anti-government?

Think about it. If everything is owed to God in the Hebrew culture, how much does that leave Caesar?

The Torah states that there is such a thing as private property.

[Ender]

I can think of another solution: forced internal moderation.

That is the only way I see this really ending in less then 100 years, barring the nuclear fire option

Can the US keep the kind of secrecy this kind of operation will require? Or her allies? Or those she works with? Cause once this thing leaks out, the entire movement will be tainted.

We did in the past, see the hafnium deal. That only came out recently after the cold war was done.