Edi wrote:You have a very broad definition of radical, much broader than the one commonly used. I especially disagree with #3 because that's just a blanket brush. I'll agree to the protion of it that defines people who provide support for radical NGOs as radicals, but people who do not actively oppose a radical government are not necessarily radicals. There are valid reasons for not doing this, some of which were vividly imprinted on my mind in a conversation with an Iraqi who had had to flee the country long ago.
Okay, I can understand that. The problem is that, whether you're being forced not to do something or you're willingly not acting, your inaction is still harming people. Furthermore, in Iran we can see that action, that resistance, is possible. Even in the most brutal of countries, the will of the people can't be resisted -- Saddam couldn't kill everyone in Iraq, obviously.
I know you can counter with, well, "it's unreasonable to expect them to resist and die for freedom with they have family to worry about, and there's no hope of succeeding against such an all-powerful and Tyrannical government." I would reply to that: "Well, they're unwilling to risk their lives, and the lives of their families, to overthrow this government, then when this government makes decisions which brings them into the line of fire, it makes them partially culpable."
IE, if they refuse to act for fear of their families, and the families of others get killed, a drop of the blood descends on to their hands by that inaction, and tough luck if they end up "collateral damage" -- Because someone else's family has already ended up "collateral damage" due to the desires of the ruler they did not act against.
I don't also agree with the part of the whole of Saudi Arabia. Yes, the Wahhabite interpretation is radical, but not all people there support it, only a very large majority. And of that majority, not all support it to the same extent as the fanatics who preach it. It's not black and white, there's shades of gray, though I will readily admit that we're looking at pretty dark shades of gray in this case...
The only people in Saudi Arabia who aren't Wahhabi are foreign workers who are treated like slaves, and foreign diplomats who are in potentially the same situation as the diplomats in Peking during the Boxer Rebellion if the muslim clerics get the people whipped up.
Seriously, there are indeed divisions in Saudi Arabia, between the city people and the bedouin, but the city people are the ones who support Osama - The bedouin are even
more conservative, and don't support him because they're loyal to the monarchy.
Point #2 I almost entirely agree with, though there are examples such as Khatami who are trying to change the radicalist power structure from within...
And Khatami was a relatively conservative choice after over a hundred other more liberal candidates were rejected by the Ayatollahs, and even his relatively minor reforms have been so completely stymied that he's threatened to resign on at least one occasion.
Ah, okay then.
You're welcome to come by. We have another Finn, at least, and maybe two who post there occasionally. Differences in opinion are welcome, though if you annoy the Senior Chief, just let it roll off, because he was the real thing back in 'nam and he acts like it. *grins*
Yes, they are, because they'll take a homegrown oppression over what they see as foreign oppression any day of the week. It is ignorance which fuels this choice, because democracy is a Western concept and the West has been portrayed as decadent, corrupt and evil for decades there, and on top of that has oppressed them in the past. And the icing on the cake is that we're infidels. Let them work at it. Iran turned to fundamentalist Islam for solutions and didn't find them, and is now looking for other solutions. You don't just take a system which requires a majority of the population to be educated and informed enough to make a choice and plonk it smack in the middle of an environment where the majority of the population is ignorant, uneducated, actively misinformed and very often illiterate as well and expect it to work. You can't dictate democracy, and even if your transplant was successful, it won't be a carbon copy. Cultural considerations (apart from the religion) must be taken into account. Besides, there are movements that support some sort of democratic Islam and they are growing in popularity, albeit very slowly when you compare absolute figures.
Right, but look how secular democracy was successful in Turkey. Uhm.. Look, I don't care
how secular democracy happens there, I just want it to happen. If some guy got a secular Arab movement going in copy of Kemal Pasha and defeated our armies as we tried to conquer the Arab world, and created a unified Arab secular democracy, I'd be as pleased as hell. I just think it isn't likely, and that imposition will work better.
The people are afraid of, and taught to hate the west - But, for example, in the MacArthurian Regency situation, there are ways to create democracy in the countries that do not have it, where things are ripe for it, where the populace is not so fanatical. Syria and Iraq are the best possibilities right now. In coordination with a reconstruction of the occupied nation, the infusion of aide in the Marshall Plan type, you'd provide demonstratable benefits.
For the more fanatical nations it would not work, I grant you, until you break their will first. For nations like Japan that meant large-scale civilian casualties. But it
can be done.
Another option might be to detach the
Hejaz from Saudi Arabia after a conventional and limited ground war with that State, and to assign it to a friendly Hashemite Jordan, or a democratic Egypt. This would allow us to implement democracy in the states where it is possible, and perhaps also negate Islamic terror in the states where the fundamentalism has too great a grip, without massive civilian death tolls. But it would require a recognition that we would have to completely redraw the boundaries of the Middle East, by our leaders. And I do not know what it would take for that to happen.
Hardly. The troubles of Nigeria have their origin in tribal rivalries and the unstability in that part of the world is not mitigated by the fact that national borders have been arbitrarily drawn on the map without regard for old tribal boundaries. The religious rivalry only makes things worse. Corruption, poverty, favoritism and such things make for a powerful recipe of disillusionment for the common people and make them susceptible to peddled quick-fixes like Sharia, which won't really help fix the underlying problems at all.
Yes, and Nigeria is one of the better countries in Africa, that is, below the Sahara. But it doesn't change the fact that Muslims see the Sheriat as a solution, not a problem.
Yeah, they don't change the texts, but there are many ways you can interpret the text. You don't see Christians changing the Bible, which they regard to be the absolute word of God (though not necessarily literally), and look at how many interpretations you've got...
Oh, precisely, and that's where Mahdism comes from. But the Eastern tradition of Despotism is firmly ingrained in the Quran, and when it is religiously supported as the word of God, it is quite hard to change..
And? Then let the Western-propped governments topple and let them have their joy of Islamic government. Let them fuck things up the ass with an electric cattle-prod and fix them on their own. That's what happened to Iran, and it seems to be working. We're not talking about instant processes here, but things that take generations to happen.
And what if they decide to wage
jihad against the West during that period, as all signs indicate they inevitably would? They shall simply be more powerful in that stage, at least briefly. Furthermore, the economic disruption would be massive, not just from oil, either, and western civilization lives off of trade. No, that isn't an option.
The preaching by the Wahhabites can't be the only reason. If there were no other external reasons, they wouldn't find purchase. Problem is, they have a very convenient external target to heap all the blame on: The West in general and the US in particular. But it's always 'Death to America' that they shout, not 'Death to Europeans' (not that the extremists make a distinction, really, but not all of those teeming millions are extremists). I've suggested again that America should review its foreign policy, with the long term (50+ year) goals in mind instead of the current short-sighted see-sawing in pursuit of short-term (2-10 years) interests. There's a lot that could be accomplished by changes that are not even very far reaching in scope, as well as a change in attitude. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I agree about long term goals, though I differ very much in what they should be. However, as to why America is hated, I suggest you read this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson080202.asp
I understand the distinction all too painfully clearly, I've had it hammered into me by a Muslim fundamentalist by the handle of Salahudeen over at Heavengames.com main forums. Indeed, the Islam these fundies promote is the government and the government is religion, no separation, not even the concept of them being separate. However, places where they do implement some bastardization of the Sharia these pure Islamists promote, the government is still separated in most cases. Nigeria, Morocco, many of the other places, they still have separate governments though they are heavily influenced by the clergy. There is a difference between them, though it is minor.
No, there isn't. Yes, the ruler of the government isn't a member of the clergy, but he occupies a place in the
religious order of the universe, and has certain religious duties to perform according to the Quran. The only possible example is Nigeria, because though the Islamic State governments are under Sheriat law, the Federal government isn't. The combination is
total when you have Sheriat law instituted. Everyone occupies a place in the conceived religious hierarchy.
Yes, it is outdated. Especially the strictly literal interpretations that allow no leeway for independent thought (which is possible if you have brain and the education to use it). You'd probably be surprised at what an educated fundamentalist with a good knowledge of those texts has to say, as opposed to a fundamentalist who has memorized a shitload of stuff by rote but has no understanding of it. Remind me to sic Salahudeen on you sometime, the fireworks will be spectacular...
Me? An admirer of Voltaire, someone whom, as Gibbon commented, "caused some distress" with the Ottoman ambassador to France? I almost don't want to think about that. Another part of me...
...Relishes it. *grins*
Or we could invite him to David, Suphi, Dirk and Stu's board. Always like differences of opinion, like I said.
Spain was a colonial power five hundred years ago... Not that it matters, your point stands if it's the later period of time you refer to.
Well, the question is - How long to you possess land before it becomes your's? I mean, okay, so, fine, Spain was getting going at Colonialism, but... Five centuries of possession is a
long time, and it wasn't like beating up the natives. It was a stand-up fight between two Mediterranean kingdoms. The Moroccans should accept that it modified their border to dis-include two cities and some islands a half a millenia ago, and stop whining.
As I thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the problems in Algeria start when aforementioned secular dictatorship simply annulled election results because they didn't like it that religious parties were winning? Unless my memory has become very shoddy lately, it was that which sparked the bloodbath going on in that country and radicalised the whole region.
The problems have been going on there since the French left; I'd need to look it up. I don't pay as much attention to North Africa as I should in the modern era.
On fascism in the Arab world, what do you mean long time? Result of the meddling of European colonial powers there and the formation of nation states that were pretty arbitrarily defined if you look at the map.
There were fascist parties in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq from nearly as early as there were in Italy and Germany.
You're going to get crucified for that...
So the death squads in El Salvador and the dozens of other incidents can just be ignored? Sorry, but doesn't wash. The end does not justify the means, especially there. That others did the dirty work does not lessen the moral culpability of the US because the US supported terrorist organizations and governments that engaged in state terrorism.
Communist infiltrators/sympathizers are a legitimate target. Communists are terrorists; their goal, after all, is to establish terror states. Guerilla fighters who engage in such actions are not terrorists as long as they limit their actions to legitimate targets. And communists are a legitimate target.
And he'd stay in power how many days after those WMDs were traced back to him? I don't think so. and the attitude that you should be entitled to invade a country in order to launch an attack on something you see as a potential threat doesn't raise my opinion of your views at all.
Well, we might nuke him, but we wouldn't invade him, if he had the Bomb. It's called strategic paralysis. Conversely, that means he'd probably never do that, almost surely not. But we can't be sure, and Saddam is a fascist, from the fascist ideology, the looniest of political mindsets. So it's reasonable to assume normal conventions may go out the window for him.
Anything to justify your personal crusade then? What about the Chinese, don't they pose a greater threat, and wouldn't it therefore be wiser to take care of them first? You make a lot of claims, but fail to back them up. How are minuscule extremist groups in Indonesian islands a threat tothe US? How is the piracy a threat to the US? How is even the breakup of Indonesia a threat to the US? A real threat instead of just making a slight dent in the economy?
Firstly, duties to our allies. Secondly, it might be considerably more than a dent considering those shipping routes. But duties to our allies is most important.
What sort of reform do you mean? Forcible secularisation? We went over this already... Musharraf, despite being a dictator, is limited in power as far as kowtowing to Western interests goes, because if he kowtows too deeply, he'll just be raising his ass high enough to get it royally kicked by the people he pisses off by doing so.
General Mustafa Kemal Pasha proved able to pull it off, changing the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and saving it from total ruin. Either Musharraf has the strength to do it also, or he does not. His one lack, I grant, is that of the victories that our great seculariser of Muslim history had. So perhaps he will fail because he does not have the popularity of a great victor, and defender of his nation. But Musharraf can at least try.
For a carbon copy of our democracies to work, yes, but I believe I said something about that earlier. And if that were true, how come do we have democracy in the West in the first place, because the West has been rather religious up until recently?
Well, the only form of democracy that can work is one in the western tradition - It doesn't have to be a carbon copy, you can have a Roman or French style Consular Republic or whatever, or Direct Democracy or so on, but the Western tradition has the unique heritage of democracy and
nobody else has figured it out yet. Tribal assemblies come close, but that don't have the body and codification of written law that comes with a true State.
As for how we got the secular part? Well, the Greeks came up with it, and then we implemented it during the Age of Reason with lots and lots of blood involved over a long period of time.
I know, and I also know better than to just try and forcibly wreck it in order to cram my vision down the throat of people who will resist to the death.
That may be our only choice. I hope not; but it may be. And not
all of them will resist to the death. They never do.
And constantly ignoring the subdivisions in those categories? You can also divide Christianity into Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, but is that the end of it?
No, and I could bring up the countless other divisions in Islam from Druse onwards, too, along with the endless history of Mahdist uprisings and whatever else, but I didn't think it relevant to the discussion to display my knowledge thereof.
You're making a hasty generalisation about hundreds of millions of people, based on a few nutcases, and then ignoring all other possibilities. Open your eyes and take a closer look. There exist shades of gray where you only see black and white!
It's not hasty, and it is not based on a few nutcases only.
If a genocide that would make messieurs Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot look like schoolboys breaking a few windows is the only way you can think of to demonstrate power, you're a monster. Do have any idea of the horror your casual suggestion entails? And for the umpteenth time, Japan was geographically isolated and small in size, which made it possible in the forst place. The Muslim world is not, and you do not have the capability to do so.
It's the only way to
break the will of an entire fanatical society that I know of, the only way that has been proven to work. Now, there are other solutions that may work to solve this problem, if we act quickly. I mentioned one above.
As for your comments regarding Japan, I've mentioned MacArthurian Regency and Iraq in another thread, and do not want to repost it here; please indulge me.
And it ought to be smacked down every time it is. Repeatedly and hard. Have you even bothered to look at the alternatives? Obviously not, if this is the best you can come up with.
I have, and I've considered several viable ones if they're acted upon quickly. I just thought to bring up the worst case scenario. Makes for an interesting debate.
Western civilization is hardly as fragile as you make it out to be. People like you, products of that same civilization who lack even basic humanity and would do that sort of horrors, are more a threat to it than Islamic fundamentalism.
Any civilization can fall; our survival will only be when the whole world is western civilization, and even then, we must spread into space. As for my own personality: Simply said, people like me look at a situation as make pessimistic projections, nothing more.
Arrogant of me?! You dare to ask me that after your own presumption? Yes, they are spiritual, but do they need freedom any less, do they crave it any less? Look at Iran! Yes, they worry about eternity, but they do not expect or need every action to be regulated by the state/theocracy, even if they did have the Caliphate back! They are not all carbon copies of Osama bin Laden or Ruhollah Khomeini! Have you talked to people from that region? Really talked to anyone from there? I have, online and off when I've met some, and they are just like you and me, with the same dreams and hopes. Their religion is different, and perhaps more central to their lives, but they are not mindless fanatics, except for that small minority!
Agreed. But Iran is Shi'ite, was heavily secularised under the Shah, and has been given a long example of stupid and direct rule by Theologians. The real threat will come from the Sunni world, and in particular the Wahhabis, and they do not have the same experience with secular rule, nor with the incompetence of direct theological rule.
And I have spoken with some people who are Muslim in my lifespan, thank you, who are from Muslim nations.
Anyway, looks like we're not about to convince each other in the least, so I wonder why I bother.
Edi
I think it just demonstrates the fundamental differences between an America rising to Imperial power (On the Periclean Athenian model), and a Scandanavian Republic which is willingly in the EU, and previously was subjected to Russian Tsarist dominance. We're both western nations, but the shift in mindset within that spectrum is quite different.
Well, thank you for the interesting debate.