Rome, Titus, Zealots and Al Queda

[Bugsby]

No, the Roman solution would not work. Lets get a bit MORE history into our lesson here. In the 7th and 8th century, Islam was created and spread wildly. Eventually the Dar al-Islam ("House of Islam") included Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Southern Asia. Through their contact with the Byzantine Empire, the Muslims became the dominant civilized power in the world. While Europe had its "Dark Age," Islam had its renaissance. Muslims were the elite. Christians were peasants to conquer at a whim.

In the late 15th century, that all changed. Europe assimilated Muslim culture and became civilized. Europe had its renaissance, while factionalism in the Dar al-Islam split the Muslim empire apart. From around 1492 with the fall of Grenada to 1919 with the end of WWI and the Ottoman Empire, the story of history has been the Christian powers expanding and becoming more advanced while the Muslim powers become more and more third-world. The discovery of oil was all that kept the key middle eastern nations even slightly relevant.

All of the above has given the Muslim population a HUGE martyr complex. They remember their glory days when they owned half the world and the Christains were their bitches. In Muslim thought, religion and government are inevitably tied, stemming from the fact that Muhammad was the ruler of a nation as well as a prophet. Therefore, the slow withdrawl of Muslim political power is seen as nothing less than an assault on the religion itself. (This is why there is such a big deal about having a Muslim state).

For this reason, assaulting a central religious point would not work. Whether or not we see it that way, Muslims already see this as a holy war. Terrorists believe they fight jihad. To assault a religous target would make this painfully obvious to all Muslims, and violence against America and Christainaity would increase tenfold. If we turned Mecca into a glowing crater, Washington would be a crater a month later, tops. The Vatican, too, probably. As well as anything that Muslims can identify as anti-Islam in either the political or religious realms.

[Augustus]

...If we turned Mecca into a glowing crater, Washington would be a crater a month later, tops. The Vatican, too, probably. As well as anything that Muslims can identify as anti-Islam in either the political or religious realms.

No to quibble and get off point but they are not capable of doing this.

Al Queda, if it had the capablility to wipe out Washington, LA, New Orleans, NYC or anyother major US city would have done so by now. True they might be working on it - but they will do it/try it anyway when they can regardless.

There is a total of 1 Islamic country that has the bomb - Pakistan and they are more interested in using them to deter India. Unlikely they would be handed over to be smuggled into the US. Its possible that Iran my also have the bomb, but its hard to believe they would keep quite about it.

Good analysis in the unquoted part of your text.

[Augustus]

That shout be "Not to quibble..."
Missed it in the preview.

[PainRack]

At this moment in time, it is estimated that there are 1 million fundamentalist muslims.


At the last census, there are 1 billion muslims, on all 6 inhabitated continents, most of which do not support the extremist views that using violence will solve the Muslim world problems.


It is estimated that those who support Al Queda and other Islamic based terrorist organisations with money, infomation, recruits, etc etc etc, are approximately 100 thousand strong.

Does anyone want to reverse the way those numbers are played out?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Regarding nuking mecca it is a bad idea. Firstly no one can destroy mecca since it is guarded by angles.

Can I assume you meant "angels"? Angles would not provide much defense against a nuclear weapon. Then again, neither would imaginary angels. Is this angel-based ballistic missile defense system a core belief of Islam? If so, would it shake their faith for it to fail in spectacular fashion?

Once again the superiority of Christianity over Islam is demostrated. While the heathen Muslims try to stop the nukes with their angled angels, Jesus has guided us to duck under a desk. Our survival is guranteed!

[RedImperator]

I'm no expert, but wouldn't that just make it easier for the terrorist to get more troops and power. I see invading Saudi Arabia and burning Mecca only helping Osama convince other Muslims that the U.S and the it's allies are "out to get Islam."

Thats the point in question.

Rome had a similar situation during the Jewish revolt. Their solution was to obliterate the Jewish religon (as it stood then), and they did not in the long run generate more terrorists/ zealots. In fact Rome's actions lead to a more stable situation in that part of the world.

So is it not possible that a modern day Titus taking similar actions in the present, while they would be horrible in the short term, ultimately would lead to a long term solution?

Did you just ignore my post? I explained in detail why the Titus solution won't work--unless you're willing to unload the combained nuclear arsenals of the declared nuclear powers (minus Pakistan, of course) plus Israel onto Muslim population centers, and maybe not even then.

[Augustus]

I'm no expert, but wouldn't that just make it easier for the terrorist to get more troops and power. I see invading Saudi Arabia and burning Mecca only helping Osama convince other Muslims that the U.S and the it's allies are "out to get Islam."

Thats the point in question.

Rome had a similar situation during the Jewish revolt. Their solution was to obliterate the Jewish religon (as it stood then), and they did not in the long run generate more terrorists/ zealots. In fact Rome's actions lead to a more stable situation in that part of the world.

So is it not possible that a modern day Titus taking similar actions in the present, while they would be horrible in the short term, ultimately would lead to a long term solution?

Did you just ignore my post? I explained in detail why the Titus solution won't work--unless you're willing to unload the combained nuclear arsenals of the declared nuclear powers (minus Pakistan, of course) plus Israel onto Muslim population centers, and maybe not even then.

Sorry Red missed you post, I'm not ignoring you Red. It was very well thought out.

[Augustus]

Humm... dont type and use the phone at the same time. Sigh.

Ok well plan Titus will not work. Perhaps there is another historical possiblity.

Maybe there is a way of enforcing centralization on Islam - yeah right! Thats what they need - their own Pope!

[Bugsby]

Humm... dont type and use the phone at the same time. Sigh.

Ok well plan Titus will not work. Perhaps there is another historical possiblity.

Maybe there is a way of enforcing centralization on Islam - yeah right! Thats what they need - their own Pope!

What a can of words you open there. That is what the division between Shi'ite Islam and Sunni Islam is about. Shi'its believe in a central holy fgure, Sunnis believe in the law (a lot like the Jewish law). Although the bloodline of Ali died out almost 1000 years ago, so the Shi'ites are out of luck. They say their leader is now "hidden." But if any Sunni hears you talking about a Pope-figure in modern Islam, he will get a bit testy. Although bringing the Caliphate back would probably work out...


(I guess my Islam course last semester was good for something. )

[Axis Kast]

Although I’m sure it has relevance for some, I just can’t see the imagined ideal of a Muslim super-state as a truly actionable motivation for resentment of the West – and more specifically, the United States – by the Arab world. That matter is much better – and more realistically – explained by emasculation. To put it simply, I think that terrorism, insurgencies, and protests against the United States are a form of violent self-actualization; they are the final resort of people who feel that they can meaningfully shape their own societies via any other means.

I remember reading a last year’s Pew Report on Perceptions of America for class last semester. The findings, although no surprise, do a lot to explain the sources of anger and resentment toward the United States. We are one of the few nations on Earth – and the premier example, at that – whose population, by and large, doesn’t worry about the threat of basic disease, the possibility of war on the border, or the problem of local corruption. Between them, those three issues account for the major, overarching concern of easily 60% of the people on the face of the planet. And that’s an extremely conservative estimate.

Aside from appearing somewhat justifiably distant from the rest of humanity, there’s the power factor. The United States has so much power that we are the arbiters not merely of our fate, but also those of others. It’s very difficult for Americans to understand, but people in places such as Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta are infuriated by how much the agendas that their governments follow are a response to issues originally passed down from Washington or New York. The old adage about the elephant being unable to walk in the forest without trampling somebody or something – no matter how careful he may be – is very true.

The sad fact of the matter is that there’s also no way around this. We can’t effectively fight the nations that fund and support terror – nations like Iran – without taking on pretenders to the Islamic faith in some form or another. And for the people on the ground, doing away with even the corrupt and imperfect forms of Islamic statehood is a direct assault on the legitimacy and future of the idea itself. Fighting terrorism effectively means making more terrorists in the process, until we prove that a functional state inhabited by Muslims and shaped by Muslim ideals is possible from our intervention. It's a sad Catch 22.

[dummnutzer]

Maybe there is a way of enforcing centralization on Islam - yeah right! Thats what they need - their own Pope!

The problem is not the lack of a central figure, but the nature of the Koran as having been directly made by God without human interaction. Different from the way the Bible is seen by most mainstream Christians. This hinders a modernization of Islamic society, as one cannot simply disregard or reinterpret the Koran if it comes directly and unchanged from God.

This was a big question in the 8th and 9th century, maybe revitalizing these old theories that see the Koran as God´s word transformed by man might be possible. Likely as viable as reviving Arianism today, but worth a try IMHO ...

Where are the Bene Gesserit when needed?

[Plekhanov]

snip

What revisionist, self-serving, self-delusional, bullshit.

If Muslims are merely jealous of us then why don’t we hear them angrily denouncing Norway which I think is by most measures the best place to live in the world?

Has it not occurred to you Kast that the reason Khomeini referred the USA as “the great Satan” wasn’t because he was resentful of your superior standard of living but might just have had something to do with the MI6 and CIA sponsored coup which removed the Prime Minister Mossadeq constitutional government and installed the Shahs terrorist regime?

This is just one example in a long list of imperialist interferences in Arab society by Christian countries, the reason many Arabs look back to the soft focussed golden age that they belief the Caliphate to have been is because it was a time when Arabs not Europeans, Russians, Turks or Americans but Arabs were in control of their own destiny.

Christian intervention in the Arab world is the root cause of many of the problems there and the root cause of hatred for us. Further imperialist adventures such as the current “state building” adventure in Iraq really don’t seem likely to make things any better.

[PainRack]

I remember reading a last year’s Pew Report on Perceptions of America for class last semester. The findings, although no surprise, do a lot to explain the sources of anger and resentment toward the United States. We are one of the few nations on Earth – and the premier example, at that – whose population, by and large, doesn’t worry about the threat of basic disease, the possibility of war on the border, or the problem of local corruption. Between them, those three issues account for the major, overarching concern of easily 60% of the people on the face of the planet. And that’s an extremely conservative estimate.

Aside from appearing somewhat justifiably distant from the rest of humanity, there’s the power factor. The United States has so much power that we are the arbiters not merely of our fate, but also those of others. It’s very difficult for Americans to understand, but people in places such as Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta are infuriated by how much the agendas that their governments follow are a response to issues originally passed down from Washington or New York. The old adage about the elephant being unable to walk in the forest without trampling somebody or something – no matter how careful he may be – is very true.

There's also something else you forgot to mention.
60% of americans don't know anything else going on around the world, and the remainding 40% see a glazed plate view of it.(Yes, I did pull these numbers out of my ass)

Face it, go into continental America and see how much Americans know about the rest of the world, their culture, the way they live and so on and forth. Because of this stunning disability, and the belief that the American way is the ONLY way, arrogrance rubs off a lot of people, and American foreign policy has a way of doing that to lots of people.

How is this justifably distant?

More importantly, you neglect to mention the fact that American power is the real reason why the Arabs are disgrunted. The Americans control the way politics is played out in the Middle East. Especially in the aftermath of the Cold War, the Americans can be termed the sole kingmaker in the Middle East, with the ability to brand dissidents to American rule as malcontents, Axis of Evil, overthrow any government it does not wish to exist, etc etc etc. Determinisation and nationalism are powerful factors, especially when empowered by the fanatacism of religion and racial politics. The perception that America is interfering in domestic affairs, blasting aside local customs, destroying and replacing the local way of life with "morally inferior" ways, all these are real factors, and the inability of many Americans oversea to notice them is startling.

[Axis Kast]

What revisionist, self-serving, self-delusional, bullshit.

If Muslims are merely jealous of us then why don’t we hear them angrily denouncing Norway which I think is by most measures the best place to live in the world?

Has it not occurred to you Kast that the reason Khomeini referred the USA as “the great Satan” wasn’t because he was resentful of your superior standard of living but might just have had something to do with the MI6 and CIA sponsored coup which removed the Prime Minister Mossadeq constitutional government and installed the Shahs terrorist regime?

This is just one example in a long list of imperialist interferences in Arab society by Christian countries, the reason many Arabs look back to the soft focussed golden age that they belief the Caliphate to have been is because it was a time when Arabs not Europeans, Russians, Turks or Americans but Arabs were in control of their own destiny.

Christian intervention in the Arab world is the root cause of many of the problems there and the root cause of hatred for us. Further imperialist adventures such as the current “state building” adventure in Iraq really don’t seem likely to make things any better.

You didn’t actually read what I wrote, did you, Plekhanov? Because if you had, you’d have noticed that not once do I use the word “jealousy” to describe Arab enmity for the Western world. Not to mention the whole first paragraph’s focus on emasculation and self-actualization of power, which basically encapsulates our misadventures in Iran and makes your commentary on that issue nothing more than failed one-upsmanship and redundancy.

There's also something else you forgot to mention.
60% of americans don't know anything else going on around the world, and the remainding 40% see a glazed plate view of it.(Yes, I did pull these numbers out of my ass)

Face it, go into continental America and see how much Americans know about the rest of the world, their culture, the way they live and so on and forth. Because of this stunning disability, and the belief that the American way is the ONLY way, arrogrance rubs off a lot of people, and American foreign policy has a way of doing that to lots of people.

How is this justifably distant?

Yes. The American public’s blithe assumptions about the nature of our foreign policy often irk people living elsewhere in the world. Of course, you missed the other – and much more important – side that coin, which is that the politics of interference that seem so minor to Americans at home often have significant reverberations in ways we aren’t given to imagining. Argue all you like that we have a responsibility to keep up with the news; it won’t change the fact that our influence is so vast and the impact of our decisions so great that everything Washington does is a benchmark for the rest of the world. And no matter how exhaustive you want to make book-beating, the vast majority of Americans are just never going to get to read more than superficially about the trade discussions in Rio de Janeiro or the fallout caused by the War on Terrorism in Singapore. We see it as a sign of positive interconnectivity between nation-states; others see it as an intollerable Americanization of their affairs. And without putting an end to our own prosperity – our market and market power being so large that they cause global ripples –, you’re not going to put an end to that kind of disruptive relationship.

More importantly, you neglect to mention the fact that American power is the real reason why the Arabs are disgrunted. The Americans control the way politics is played out in the Middle East. Especially in the aftermath of the Cold War, the Americans can be termed the sole kingmaker in the Middle East, with the ability to brand dissidents to American rule as malcontents, Axis of Evil, overthrow any government it does not wish to exist, etc etc etc. Determinisation and nationalism are powerful factors, especially when empowered by the fanatacism of religion and racial politics. The perception that America is interfering in domestic affairs, blasting aside local customs, destroying and replacing the local way of life with "morally inferior" ways, all these are real factors, and the inability of many Americans oversea to notice them is startling.

Go back and read the first paragraph of what I wrote.

[PainRack]

Yes. The American public’s blithe assumptions about the nature of our foreign policy often irk people living elsewhere in the world. Of course, you missed the other – and much more important – side that coin, which is that the politics of interference that seem so minor to Americans at home often have significant reverberations in ways we aren’t given to imagining. Argue all you like that we have a responsibility to keep up with the news; it won’t change the fact that our influence is so vast and the impact of our decisions so great that everything Washington does is a benchmark for the rest of the world. And no matter how exhaustive you want to make book-beating, the vast majority of Americans are just never going to get to read more than superficially about the trade discussions in Rio de Janeiro or the fallout caused by the War on Terrorism in Singapore. We see it as a sign of positive interconnectivity between nation-states; others see it as an intollerable Americanization of their affairs. And without putting an end to our own prosperity – our market and market power being so large that they cause global ripples –, you’re not going to put an end to that kind of disruptive relationship.

Go back and read the first paragraph of what I wrote.

And as I said, you missed out on something.
It isn't the perception of American POWER, nor of American INTERFERENCE, its the perception of American destruction, as well as wilful ignorance of allied, neutral as well as opponents culture, history, politics and to sum up, way of life.

The utter ignorance of Americans in the way others work, while blithely assuming that their way is the right way is also another irritant.

Am I nitpicking? No I'm not. There is a vast difference between being irritated at having to be the American lapdog, and being annoyed by America continued indifference to the ways other think and being forced to do something undesirable, and to see one way of life be subplaced by another culture. That's two seperate points in there.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Could you provide examples?

[Joe]

At this moment in time, it is estimated that there are 1 million fundamentalist muslims.

Bullshit. Where did you get your numbers?

[Axis Kast]

It isn't the perception of American POWER, nor of American INTERFERENCE, its the perception of American destruction, as well as wilful ignorance of allied, neutral as well as opponents culture, history, politics and to sum up, way of life.

The utter ignorance of Americans in the way others work, while blithely assuming that their way is the right way is also another irritant.

Am I nitpicking? No I'm not. There is a vast difference between being irritated at having to be the American lapdog, and being annoyed by America continued indifference to the ways other think and being forced to do something undesirable, and to see one way of life be subplaced by another culture. That's two seperate points in there.

And I acknowledged your point. But, as I said, America would face terrorism even if the population were more keenly aware of the problems and more cautious about the opinions of others. The United States is simply too large and too important not to excite people into desperation about control over their own futures.

[Plekhanov]

You didn’t actually read what I wrote, did you, Plekhanov? Because if you had, you’d have noticed that not once do I use the word “jealousy” to describe Arab enmity for the Western world.

You never used the word “jealousy” but if you didn’t mean to imply that Arabs were “jealous” of the USA then could you please explain the meaning of this paragraph:

I remember reading a last year’s Pew Report on Perceptions of America for class last semester. The findings, although no surprise, do a lot to explain the sources of anger and resentment toward the United States. We are one of the few nations on Earth – and the premier example, at that – whose population, by and large, doesn’t worry about the threat of basic disease, the possibility of war on the border, or the problem of local corruption. Between them, those three issues account for the major, overarching concern of easily 60% of the people on the face of the planet. And that’s an extremely conservative estimate.

What purpose does this paragraph serve other than to imply that Arabs are jealous?

Not to mention the whole first paragraph’s focus on emasculation and self-actualization of power, which basically encapsulates our misadventures in Iran and makes your commentary on that issue nothing more than failed one-upsmanship and redundancy.

Oh really, my “redundant” argument was that many Arabs resent the West in general and the US especially because of our history of Imperial interference in the Arab world, I made particular reference what you so dismissively call “our misadventures in Iran” (interesting way to describe the overthrow of a constitutional government and the installation of a brutal authoritarian one) because you singled out Iran in your post. Here’s your first paragraph:

Although I’m sure it has relevance for some, I just can’t see the imagined ideal of a Muslim super-state as a truly actionable motivation for resentment of the West – and more specifically, the United States – by the Arab world. That matter is much better – and more realistically – explained by emasculation. To put it simply, I think that terrorism, insurgencies, and protests against the United States are a form of violent self-actualization; they are the final resort of people who feel that they can meaningfully shape their own societies via any other means.

Where exactly in this paragraph did you “encapsulate” my “commentary”? It seems to me that you are arguing that Arabs are angry because they are weak that much is true but you only tell half the story. They are also angry because we have exploited and perpetuated that weakness for our own ends through a system of Imperial domination, I can find no reference to this in your post.

If you did indeed essentially argue that Arabs dislike us because of Imperialism then why on earth do you conclude that the answer to the problem is more Imperialism?

until we prove that a functional state inhabited by Muslims and shaped by Muslim ideals is possible from our intervention.

I’m intrigued please do explain why it’s going to work this time.

[Axis Kast]

What purpose does this paragraph serve other than to imply that Arabs are jealous?

It serves the purpose of exposing just how different our worldviews are. The Middle East, Africa, and Asia view the United States as an interloper incapable of so much as genuinely sympathizing with their problems, let alone empathizing. This is exacerbated even further in the Arab world, where a culture of victimization has emerged: the West must be pushed out of the Arab world not only because its interventions hinder true self-determination, but also because no entity in the West is seen by Arab extremists as remotely capable of fathoming or accommodating their situation in a fair or constructive relationship.

Where exactly in this paragraph did you “encapsulate” my “commentary”? It seems to me that you are arguing that Arabs are angry because they are weak that much is true but you only tell half the story. They are also angry because we have exploited and perpetuated that weakness for our own ends through a system of Imperial domination, I can find no reference to this in your post.

This is emasculation. I speak of emasculation.

If you did indeed essentially argue that Arabs dislike us because of Imperialism then why on earth do you conclude that the answer to the problem is more Imperialism?

Because there’s no way to end the fallout of what you call “imperialism” even assuming we scale back our interest in the Middle East.

And don’t try and feed my any bullshit about alternate fuel sources or “letting the people do as they will”; you know as well as I do that the Middle East will always be somebody’s battleground, and that the answer to fossil fuel consumption is by no means around the corner by several decades. And that’s research, not the total economic transformation that would necessarily accompany the onset of hydrogen cars in every garage and synthetic fuels or lubricants in every industry.

The United States cannot help but have vital national security interests in the Middle East; we cannot rewrite our history.

I’m intrigued please do explain why it’s going to work this time.

“This time?!” It’s never been attempted before. The kind of nation-building we’re doing in Iraq has no parallels – least of all Iran.

[frigidmagi]

I have a suggestion I want to run pass everyone. Give the Arabian People power to choice their leaders in a peaceful fashion and their lawmakers has well.

Then get the fuck out of the middle east and find another power source.

What are the odds on that working, assuming we don't do so high handedly that we just piss them off more.

[Darth Wong]

The United States cannot help but have vital national security interests in the Middle East; we cannot rewrite our history.

But you do not accept the possibility of addressing those interests through negotiation rather than the neo-con strategy of "ensuring dominance".

[Axis Kast]

I have a suggestion I want to run pass everyone. Give the Arabian People power to choice their leaders in a peaceful fashion and their lawmakers has well.

Then get the fuck out of the middle east and find another power source.

What are the odds on that working, assuming we don't do so high handedly that we just piss them off more.

In order for that plan to "work," you've got to convince the entire world than an energy source their economies are already geared toward at a cost of countless trillions of dollars is worth leaving behind to adopt what would doubtless be a tremendously expensive new form of fuel requiring not merely more than a decade of research at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars or more, but also tremendously expensive infrastructure redevelopment, subsidiary industry bail-outs (the sheer impact of so many patroleum-centered companies being force to find new markets would be overwhleming enough to top the global agenda above all else), and more.

You've also got to consider what will happen when the Arab world - which isn't going to generate a homegrown democracy on its own - will do when the money stops flowing altogether. Part of the problem is obviously the presence of a culture of victimization in the Middle East, but the other half of the equation is also the result irresponsible government. The Middle East is today so poor because none of its incredible wealth has gone to support meaningful infrastructure. When the oil money is gone without an alternative in place, we'll have even more trouble.

[Axis Kast]

But you do not accept the possibility of addressing those interests through negotiation rather than the neo-con strategy of "ensuring dominance".

And just how do you propose we "negotiate" with countries such as Afghanistan or Syria?

We've passed the point that we can afford to play tit-for-tat with these nations.

[Darth Wong]

But you do not accept the possibility of addressing those interests through negotiation rather than the neo-con strategy of "ensuring dominance".

And just how do you propose we "negotiate" with countries such as Afghanistan or Syria?

Afghanistan was a special case. I am referring to your claim that there is a general longstanding security interest in the Middle East because of oil.