Arab World vs Western World from their POV

[Stormbringer]

Let's be honest, the West (and this includes Europe as much or more than the US) has treated the Middle East badly. While dealing with the Barabary Pirates was necessary and justified, colonialism wasn't. The legacy of European Colonialism left a region in poor shape. The Cold War policies of both sides only made it worth, econonmic despotism at it's worst. That record is certainly in the minds of the few educated enough to know their history.


The problem is the fundamentalists and extremists, who consitute a majority in most middle east nations. To them history doesn't matter and they don't bother to teach it to the ignorant masses. So arguing historical precidents for invasion is a little pointless. To most they are raised from birth by the extremist to believe any nation percieved as christian or for that matter non-fundamentalist Islamic is a threat. They're people that never let go of the Crusades for fuck's sake. It's a distorted view of history that bares little resemblance to reality.

I suppose it's fair to say it's historical precedent but twisted so far out of line that it doesn't much matter.

[Bob McDob]

Has anyone read Different People: Pictures of some Japanese by Donald Richie (at least, I think that's what it was)? In it, the author writes mini-biographies (derived from personal interviews while the author was living in Japan) about the lives of ordinary Japanese people, recording them going along on their daily lives, their thoughts, their fears, their hopes. I'd like a similar book on the Arabic world in general. I think it would spread light on a lot of things.

[Coyote]

A lot of the current troubles in the Islamic and Arabic world have deep historical roots.

Bear in mind that when Europe didn't even know enough to wash its hands before eating, wise men in Damascus had been contemplating atomic theory and led the world in literacy and engineering. They attributed their success to Islam, which they saw as a superior guide to society, ethics, business and government. It had, indeed, been a powerful motivating force.

As time went by the Arab world began to falter and Europe became technologically dominant. The once-filthy and backwards Europeans were able to organize and conquer the Islamic world with ease, and provoked a crisis in faith-- if Islam was superior, then perhaps they had failed Allah and as a punishment, Allah had allowed them to be dominated. Islam reinforces the belief in predestination and that all things are the Will of Allah.

The Salafiyya movement started as a means to get people back to the fundamentals of Islam. The Salafiyists squashed a nascent movement of questioning and reforming the sayings of the Prophet Mohommed. A literal interpretation of the Qur'An was needed to regain Muslim dominance over the quasi-infidel Europeans.

Modernization made slow inroads until the late 1940's, when a writer named Hasan al-Bana came to America to study. He was shocked att he 'immorality' of Western culture and the 'liscentious women' and and public displays of flesh and alcohol. He went back to his native Egypt and called for religious reform of the government to halt the spread of immoral Western influences. He wrote a book called 'Signposts' (or 'Milestones' in some translations) that called for grassroots civic action to overtake the secular governments of the Arab world.

Hasan al-Bana formed the nucleus of the "Muslim Brotherhood", an anti-Western group that wanted to cleanse the Arab world of corruptive, corrosive Western influences through civic action. Western entertainment was destroyed where it was found and technology viewed with suspicion: anything that might distract and pull away a proper Muslim from the will of Allah.

Hasan al-Bana died in a Nasserite Egyptian concentration camp for political dissidents. He attacked the Nasser government for allying with the Communist USSR, which attacked religion. His death sparked a more radical interpretation of his ideas ans such groups as the Takfir al-Hijrah fundamentalist terrorist group formed to eradicate Arab secular governments. It was this group that assassinated Anwar Sadat.

The Arabs remember European-Christian arrogance and domination during the Crusades, and later times. When America inherited the mantle of Western-Christian world leadership, then America became the hated enemy trying to corrupt Muslims into ungodliness. Israel is seen as yet another Western attempt to colonize the area in a new sort of Crusade. The true believers, the fanaticists, see everything through this lens.

Wahhabism came about in the last couple of centuries, in the 1800's IIRC, a relatively recent philosophical school of Qur'Anic interpretation that seeks literal and fundamental interpretation of the Qur'An and Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet Mohommed. Biblical Literalsts, in other words. Other schools of thought include Hanbali, Safi'i, and Maliki'i; each varying their interpretations of the Qur'An to different degrees.

Other groups include the mystical Sufis and the Shi'aa, or 'partisans', which actually started off as being a bit more liberal, especially in regards to women.

Many Fundamentalist Muslims are as antagonistic towards Communism as Capitalism, since to these Muslims they are the same thing. Both systems are concerned wioth nothing more than the distribution of wealth, goods, and economic power and pay no attention at all to ethical or familial obligation. There is no recognition or homage to a higher power in either of these systems and to a Fundy Muslim there is no real difference between the two camps.

The Fundies want to reinstate the Caliphate and the hard-cores want to return to the era of the Rashidun, or the first four Caliphs (theocratic leaders) of the era of Mohommed. This is seen as the only righteous and pure era of Islam, and the West is nothing more than a bunch of Christians who want to corrupt Islam and convert the followers, discredit the Qur'An, take their land and women and so on.

This is not going to be an easy group to bargain with or bypass.

[Perinquus]

Modernization made slow inroads until the late 1940's, when a writer named Hasan al-Bana came to America to study. He was shocked att he 'immorality' of Western culture and the 'liscentious women' and and public displays of flesh and alcohol. He went back to his native Egypt and called for religious reform of the government to halt the spread of immoral Western influences. He wrote a book called 'Signposts' (or 'Milestones' in some translations) that called for grassroots civic action to overtake the secular governments of the Arab world.

Hasan al-Bana formed the nucleus of the "Muslim Brotherhood", an anti-Western group that wanted to cleanse the Arab world of corruptive, corrosive Western influences through civic action. Western entertainment was destroyed where it was found and technology viewed with suspicion: anything that might distract and pull away a proper Muslim from the will of Allah.

It's amazing isn't it? A Muslim traveller, presumably lamenting the inroads that Western Civilization is making into his culture, goes to the West, and once there, draws precisely the wrong conclusion - or at least the one that is bound to have the polar opposite of the effect he wants: namely, to end the seductive, corrupting influence of Western Civilization (with its advanced technology and medicine, higher standard of living, increased lifespans, lower infant mortality, numerous available luxuries, etc.) by turning to the past, and embracing a superstitious, medieval theology, and adhering to it with absolute, close-minded, intellect-stultifying rigidity. Oh the pity of it all!

Carl Sagan was right when he called this planet a demon haunted world. Unfortunately, the demons are of our own making, and we willingly fasten them onto our own backs to torment us.

[Axis Kast]

There's no way to avoid a backlash.

Responding to terrorism by going after its state sponsors is inherently an affront to the Muslim Arab world. After all, if one measures the strength and vitality of Islamofascism by the number of states that fall within its grasp, the War on Terror can only bode poorly. And, of course, without Islamofascism, even a haltingly theocratic government is both difficult and unusual.

[Bob McDob]

The solution I would prefer is a SELFLESS act that the extremists would find difficult to paint in a negative light. We need a Marshall Plan for the ME. A few trillion dollars to build roads, infrastructure, schools, etc and ask NOTHING in return and let our works speak for themselves. In afghanistan we are not seeing Mujahedden type attacks as the Soviets suffered because of the Humanatiarian aide coupled with the assistance in rebuilding (frankly we can do better than what we're doign but it's a start.) American forces have undertaken. Under the Taliban not a single woman was in college, today we have 3 million women in college in Afghnaistan...THAT is America, THAT is what we should be about, not bombing them into submission but killing the exremists with kindness.

Think of Stalin and how he handled the Marshall Plan...he couldn't attack it, it was charity to save Europe from starving to death in the WInter of 46 and what could the Soviets offer? NOTHING. We start building roads, ralways, schools, power generation facilities, supermarkets, etc what can the extremists like Ossama offer? A bomb laden vest?

We have the experience in fighting and waging a winning war of ideas, we defeated COmmunism whoch at its height had adhrenets equal to Islam, I propose we do the same here, attack the fundamentalists with something they can't counter...good deeds.

Unfortunately these good deeds cost money. The question is whether we're willing to spend it now or later in waging another premeptive war.

I've been doing some reading on the Middle Eastern beliefs in general, and the more I look into it the better this looks ... I'm starting to believe, in fact, this is the only way to deal with the situation, and I'd like to find ways to get it off the ground. I'm assuming this project would be dealing primarily with non-oil countries, since obviously many of the others aren't exactly poor.

First, how would something like this be funded? It's obviously not going to be cheap, and I doubt a group like the Navy would be willing to cut an aircraft carrier out of the budget.

Second, how would the aid be handled? Peace Corp-style volunteers? Private organization? If it's somewhere like Saudi Arabia, the horseshit the fundies'll raise over "infidels" won't make things pretty. Will the support teams be all-Muslim and Arabic?

Third, and most importantly, since it's the reason we're jumping through these academic hoops in the first place - would it be worth it? The mainstream Arabic community might see this as another attempt by the despotic Western Crusaders to impose our culture and way of life on them - how would we compromise to create the infrastructure?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've been doing some reading on the Middle Eastern beliefs in general, and the more I look into it the better this looks ... I'm starting to believe, in fact, this is the only way to deal with the situation, and I'd like to find ways to get it off the ground. I'm assuming this project would be dealing primarily with non-oil countries, since obviously many of the others aren't exactly poor.

First, how would something like this be funded? It's obviously not going to be cheap, and I doubt a group like the Navy would be willing to cut an aircraft carrier out of the budget.

Second, how would the aid be handled? Peace Corp-style volunteers? Private organization? If it's somewhere like Saudi Arabia, the horseshit the fundies'll raise over "infidels" won't make things pretty. Will the support teams be all-Muslim and Arabic?

Third, and most importantly, since it's the reason we're jumping through these academic hoops in the first place - would it be worth it? The mainstream Arabic community might see this as another attempt by the despotic Western Crusaders to impose our culture and way of life on them - how would we compromise to create the infrastructure?

It wouldn't work. It would just be viewed as a sign of weakness.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Heavy sacasm ahead.


In the wake of the attack earlier this week that left Uday and Qusay Hussein dead, many in America's academic community came forward to encourage the remaining supporters of Saddam Hussein to "look past their anger" and try to discover the "root causes" of the American attack. Said Middle East correspondent and professional idiotarian Robert Fisk, "While it might be tempting for Saddam's supporters to lash out at the west, they would be better served by trying to understand why they are so hated throughout the world, including in their own country."

Fisk went on to suggest that invading Kuwait and supporting terrorists around the world had done much to draw the ire of the west, and that the best course of action would be to try to understand American culture. A leading Berkley professor suggested that Ba'ath party members should "spend time learning about Americans, Western Culture, and maybe every try a cheeseburger or maybe listening to some pop music."

Said Fisk, "The temptation will be for the Ba'athists to strike back, but violence only begets more violence. You can't judge an American until you've walked a mile in his Nikes."

Notice how stupid this sounds. Why is the reverse any less stupid?

Taken from John Hawkins, of RightWingNews.com

[Bob McDob]

It wouldn't work. It would just be viewed as a sign of weakness.

Hmm ... elaborate?

In the wake of the attack earlier this week that left Uday and Qusay Hussein dead, many in America's academic community came forward to encourage the remaining supporters of Saddam Hussein to "look past their anger" and try to discover the "root causes" of the American attack. Said Middle East correspondent and professional idiotarian Robert Fisk, "While it might be tempting for Saddam's supporters to lash out at the west, they would be better served by trying to understand why they are so hated throughout the world, including in their own country."

Fisk went on to suggest that invading Kuwait and supporting terrorists around the world had done much to draw the ire of the west, and that the best course of action would be to try to understand American culture. A leading Berkley professor suggested that Ba'ath party members should "spend time learning about Americans, Western Culture, and maybe every try a cheeseburger or maybe listening to some pop music."

Said Fisk, "The temptation will be for the Ba'athists to strike back, but violence only begets more violence. You can't judge an American until you've walked a mile in his Nikes."

Notice how stupid this sounds. Why is the reverse any less stupid?

Taken from John Hawkins, of RightWingNews.comIn the wake of the attack earlier this week that left Uday and Qusay Hussein dead, many in America's academic community came forward to encourage the remaining supporters of Saddam Hussein to "look past their anger" and try to discover the "root causes" of the American attack. Said Middle East correspondent and professional idiotarian Robert Fisk, "While it might be tempting for Saddam's supporters to lash out at the west, they would be better served by trying to understand why they are so hated throughout the world, including in their own country."

Fisk went on to suggest that invading Kuwait and supporting terrorists around the world had done much to draw the ire of the west, and that the best course of action would be to try to understand American culture. A leading Berkley professor suggested that Ba'ath party members should "spend time learning about Americans, Western Culture, and maybe every try a cheeseburger or maybe listening to some pop music."

Said Fisk, "The temptation will be for the Ba'athists to strike back, but violence only begets more violence. You can't judge an American until you've walked a mile in his Nikes."

Notice how stupid this sounds. Why is the reverse any less stupid?

Stop not making sense

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The article is heavey sarcasm, intended to demonstrate the position of the left, and the blame America first crowd, by turing the tables, and asking the OTHER side to act like us.
You didn't hear of R. (Gerbil) Gear being booed at a firefighters event, when he asked them to forgive the terrorists, and try to see things from a different perspective? The same of Hillory. This did NOT play well to the NYFD, just after the attack!
Compassion is sooo much better than justice.

The biggest point, is sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Any group who advocated, and acts as a terrorist, or safe haven can expect the same and more so in return. (Syrria)
By the reasoning of the left, the terrorists are justified, but we are not.
The left will not make the arabs live with one standard, everyone tolerates everyone ethos.That would be "imposing" our "cultural values" on them, an othe ract of "aggression" against the poor arabs.
The west must be tollerant, of the the arab intollerance, and the arabs get to stay intollerant, because our insisting they be tollerant, would show intollerance on OUR part, and we can't have that, because intollereance is bad. (When practiced by the WEST, everywhere else it is ok though.)

When freedom and tollereance are just "cultural values," why, who are WE to critisise an "alternative" moral code?
THAT is what the sarcasm mocks.

[Bob McDob]

I've thought a lot about the best way to reply to this ... and I've decided to just take the most direct path and work out the kinks later.

The article is heavey sarcasm, intended to demonstrate the position of the left, and the blame America first crowd, by turing the tables, and asking the OTHER side to act like us.

Well, aside from the parts about "cultural understanding" (based on the mistaken belief that if you understand someone's culture you understand everything), I actually agree with the article. Of course, that's kind of academic since Saddam doesn't have that many supporters and the ones that he does aren't in the mood for thought.

You didn't hear of R. (Gerbil) Gear being booed at a firefighters event, when he asked them to forgive the terrorists, and try to see things from a different perspective?

No, because I generally did my best to avoid all news media in the weeks immedietly following the attacks.

The same of Hillory. This did NOT play well to the NYFD, just after the attack!

Well, they were really really dumb to say that at that time, especially being a politician.

Compassion is sooo much better than justice.

And what exactly does this justice entail? Mind you, I'm not advocating blind love for an enemy ... that's not common sense, it's not even logic, it's bloody survival instinct ... I am saying that to defeat an enemy you have to understand him, and very few people seem to truly understand the mind of Osama bin Laden or even why he does what he does.

(And no, "he's a crazy fundie terrorist" doesn't cut it for me ... I try to go beyond that ... if he's insane, why is he insane? How can we keep other people from going insane like him? Although, if you've watched him, he sure doesn't look insane to me ... very calm and resolute ... a scary thing in an enemy).

[Posbi]

It wouldn't work. It would just be viewed as a sign of weakness.

Which really gets me thinking if we (speaking for the West) aren't getting to the problem from the wrong side. All so far it seems to me that the western military apparatus has shown unbelievable restraint in all engagements post 1960 between the "Arab" nations and such of undoubtly western origin.
Israel (which I see as a western nation) was attacked from all fronts, every time, and despite having the measures to do so never did much more than holdings its ground. When they annexed the Sinai and the Golan Heights in 1967, Zahal could also as easily have marched right into Kairo and Damaskus, ethnically cleasing the region of Palestinians, driving them past the "new borders". But they held back. They even kept the Palestinians inside their occupation zones, making them de facto members of their state.
Even after Yom Khippur ('73), which was again a victory, albeit a close one, Israel never became overly territorially ambitious despite the fact that they easily could have pushed something like that through without having to fear major resistance!

The very same could be said for Gulf War II! A military victory like none a long time before - really? Slaughtering conscript divisions without any real battlefield coordination in the open desserts of the Two-Rivers' land, was that really a victory when the whole Arab world knew that Saddam had his creme de la creme divisions and all WMD back surrounding Baghdad - formations the coalition didn't harm back then?
Is it possibly this stance of just doing the miniscule necessary instead of the probably achievable that makes us look weak? We have stopped doing what we can do and instead rely on what we think is necessary - which oftenly turns out to be a misconception.
To draw an analogy, with the stance and attitude towards things the West seems to have developed over the past decades, something like the Requonquista would have been impossible. Back then it was the strong will, the persistence with which we tracked and fought such issues that ensured us the respect (and hate) of the Arab world, the will to get a thing done no matter the costs of money and life. This attitude made the European nations and the USA the dominant powers on this globe.

As long as we still keep to employ Sgt. Rummy's attitude of half-assedness and don't do the things the proper and hard way, so long the Arab world will continue to percieve us a weak.

Just a little rant...

[Bob McDob]

I have an alternative proposition: fund Internet and computer access and training in those countries. If nothing else, it's bound to make the governments shiver a little, and maybe help infuse fresh viewpoints to the Web at large.

[MKSheppard]

So what do you think Muslims are saying about the "western world" right now?

The same Goddamn shit they've been saying for the last 40 years.

Did you know that during 1967, rather than admit that their "superior"
Egyptian Air Force had been royally assraped by the IAF, the Egyptian
goverment said that US Navy aircraft had carried out that first strike etc?

With the resultant fallout being bloody mobs at US embassies all over
the middle east.

[Bob McDob]

So what do you think Muslims are saying about the "western world" right now?

The same Goddamn shit they've been saying for the last 40 years.

Did you know that during 1967, rather than admit that their "superior"
Egyptian Air Force had been royally assraped by the IAF, the Egyptian
goverment said that US Navy aircraft had carried out that first strike etc?

What does something that happened in 1967 have anything to do with today?

(Unless someone took the planet back to 1967 and didn't tell me. Bastards, always running off and doing that)

[MKSheppard]

What does something that happened in 1967 have anything to do with today?

Maybe you're being intentionally dense, but they're still doing the same
goddamned shit. Anyone remember that fat cow going lalalalalala
as the WTC collapsed?

[Bob McDob]

What does something that happened in 1967 have anything to do with today?

Maybe you're being intentionally dense, but they're still doing the same
goddamned shit. Anyone remember that fat cow going lalalalalala
as the WTC collapsed?

No, I try not listen to the news. Please elaborate.

[MKSheppard]

No, I try not listen to the news. Please elaborate.

You're really dumb as fuck are you?

Fuck you. If you were too stupid as not to be watching
the TV set on 9/11, then fuck off.

[Posbi]

Anyone remember that fat cow going lalalalalala
as the WTC collapsed?

I take it you mean the idiots dancing in the streets burning the stars and stripes? The very moment I saw this I had to grin evily, thinking 'they're gonna get ya, too, idiots'.

[Bob McDob]

No, I try not listen to the news. Please elaborate.

You're really dumb as fuck are you?

Fuck you. If you were too stupid as not to be watching
the TV set on 9/11, then fuck off.

Thanks, I love you too.

[MKSheppard]

I take it you mean the idiots dancing in the streets burning the stars and stripes? The very moment I saw this I had to grin evily, thinking 'they're gonna get ya, too, idiots'.

Heheehhe Yeah. We're going to git' em one day. Still though,
that behavior has been endemic to that region for almost 40 years,
so at this point, I think Enlightenments idea of nuking the place and
starting over from scratch would be more efficient than deprogramming
them all.

[MKSheppard]

Thanks, I love being a stupid dumbshit who can't remember what happened
on 9/11, because I was under a horse that day, sucking it off for $500.

[Bob McDob]

Thanks, I love being a stupid dumbshit who can't remember what happened
on 9/11, because I was under a horse that day, sucking it off for $500.

Stop existing

[Coyote]

Bob macDob, 1967 is important because it is a turning point in history which continues to affect Arab and Israeli attitudes and motivation to this day. It is still being discussed in high up circles over there as a point to return borders to in the event of a peace settlement.

If this has to be explained to you, then you really need to go brush up on history before throwing yourself ignorantly into these types of threads. Lack of this most basic knowledge means that you are woefully unprepared to actually form an opinion worth listening to regarding Middle East politics.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

But, but, but, what's the PAST got to do with the PRESENT?
You mean there's a connection from the past to the present?
So what if I don't know how we got here. I know where we are NOW!


I knew the cheering mobs on 9-11 would get their sacred cow gored but good, when the fire of anger washed through my soul, and cleared away liberal weeds in my mind, leaving room to grow new ideas, and reexamine the unburned ones. I was not alone.
9-11 reminded us there is a world outside our borders, and the world didn't get safe just because USSR was gone.