I agree we should oppose certain practices of Islam the way it is practiced in certain places. I don't mean we should be in a war with Islam. I don't mean that we should tell any nation what religion they should or shouldn't allow, but we should oppose any abuses of human rights in the name of religion. We should pursue attempts to help enlighten cultures and foster equality, and freedom.
Either you are ignorant or stupid Do you know how many different countries and cultures are in the Middle East? Do you know, for example, the vast difference in the practice of Islam from the Wahhabist Saudi Arabia to the semi-liberal Egypt, Lebanon, or most North African Arab states? We are fighting NOT against a sect of Islam, but rather against the ideology that brought us Al-Qaeda's attack on the WTC. If you wanna narrow it down to a specific ideology, then it is the Wahhabi ideology that is proliferated by the Saudi Royal family. The ideology also has some hold in Pakistan & Afghanistan (really two states that have fallen victims to Saudi Wahhabism to differing degrees). And to further complicate issues, there is no uniformity in those countries either as to which brand of Islam the population subscribes to. There are many different schools of interpretation in Islam, and Wahhabists represent a very, very small (but vocal) minority among the 1.3+ billion Muslims in the world. Still, you can't EVER go after a certain group based on their religious beliefs, because if you do then we first must clean up our own home, which has a large group of extremist Christians that preach hate and intolerance in our society. You also need to go after the extremist Jews in Israel and right here in America, and the extremist Hindus in India, as well as other members of different religious groups that are creating problems around the world. So again, for the sake of repeating this a thousand times over and over again, don't lump people together, don't use your ignorance of a region/group of people to make disingenuous generalizations about a fifth of the world's population (10s of millions of whom, by the way, are your next-door neighbors in America, as well as 10s of millions who live in Europe and elsewhere). I don't think this war is meant to be at all a war against Islam, but I have my own theory about this whole thing, and it mainly has to do with China & Europe rather than the Muslim world at large. Do you think the U.S. would have any interest in the Middle East if it wasn't for the massive amount of energy resources present in that region? Do you think the U.S. would be looking to establish bases in Central Asian countries and permenant bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere if it wasn't for our need to secure access to the energy resources present in the region, preempt Chinese involvement/presence in the M.E., as well as using our presence/control of the resources in the region as a tool by which we can pressure China and Europe to do things "our way", basically the ability to have and use the "stick" if needed? The anwer is no. American foreign policy has a rational, Machiavellian, secular character to it; it is not primarily concerned with religious or moral aspects of world politics. Right now, at this point of time, the U.S. is mostly concerned about the rise of China as a superpower, as well as the rise of a united Europe that might become more adversary than friendly/cooperative with us in the next decades. Furthermore, and more recently, the rise of some Leftist regimes in some Latin American countries have began to worry the Bush administration, as was mentioned by Condi Rice in a recent speech. So basically, most of what's happening now is about China first and foremost, that is what is most troubling to the current, and likely future, administrations. The challenges on the horizon have little to do with "Islam" as a religion or its followers, the real challenges come from China, the EU, Russia, and securing our access to energy sources around the world, most of which happen to be in the Arab world. So no, this is not a war against Islam or any other religion for that matter. American foreign policy is based entirely on realpolitik
I don't think I'm smart enough to distinguish between those two options, lol. Maybe you can explain the difference. IIRC the 9/11 bombers were from more than SA. In fact, some were from what you call 'semi-liberal Egypt.' Further, 'fundamentalists' broadly defined cut across cultures and borders throughout the middle east and the Subcontinent (Pakistan, Afghanistan etc). I'm not sure if you believe Wahhabists are the only fundamentalists within Islam. Is that your contention? You don't EVER make un explanation of why we would need to 'go after' other extremists, or why that would be relevant to whether or not we oppose Islamic fundamentalism other than some posturing about 'being consistent' that has nothing to do with the threat from radical Islam. Since last I checked Hindus, Jews, and Right Wing Christians haven't declared war on the West, and haven't blown up planes, trains, or automobiles in the West lately. If you'll look at my original post I said 'as practiced in the ME and the Subcontinent' which would by definition EXCLUDE the vast majority of Muslims including those living in America, Europe, and elsewhere. Very glad you 'have (your) own theory' but I fail to see its relevance to my question, which is basically 'should we oppose those identifiable as Muslims, who identify Islam with partaking in terrorism, oppressing women etc.?' btw: dude, get a grip on your anger problem - stress kills.
Wow! So because you had 1 or 2 people from Egypt in the 9/11 attacks it means the "brand of Islam" common among Egyptians encourages terrorism?! I am telling you this stuff from PERSONAL experience, from actually living in Egypt and Saudi and numerous other countries in the region. Each society has a different culture and traditions, which influence their understanding of Islam. How many citizens of those countries are involved in terrorism? There is a major difference between having extremist views and actually being a terrorist. As I said before, if holding extremist views was the only criteria, then who the hell can be considered to hold "extremist" views? Don't conservatives consider liberal views "extreme" and vice versa? Who's to judge what's extreme and what's not? Even if there was an agreed upon standard, then do you punish people for holding certain views that differ from your? IF you do, then you must be opposed to the current system in America where people are allowed to think whatever the hell they please, as long as they don't break the law or infringe on someone else's right to free speech/freedom of thought. According to my own perception, no. I do think there are more fundamentalist sects in Islam, but the Wahhabis stand out for the most part because they champion the old stereotype prevelant in the West of Muslims as people who keep their women in "bee-keeper" suits and prohibit their women from going to schools, driving, etc. The version of Islam the Taliban and the Saudis practice IS Wahhabism, which is an extremist interpretation of Islam to say the least. Of course, to Westerners, being a Muslim or a Communist or anything other than an "enlightened Westerner" constitutes an extremist, so again it all depends on who you ask. Well I do think that Right Wing extremist Christians have declared war on American values and are, as we speak, changing our country to the worst, but that is a different topic. Radical terrorists HAVE declared war on America, and thus they should be fought against as long as they continue to threaten Americans, I have no problem with that. But Islamists have not declared war against the West; in fact, they are the biggest proponents of democracy in the Muslim world, and our country is in fact working with some of them to promote democracy from within. Again, holding what one might consider an "extremist" view is radically different from committing an act of terrorism. For example, if an American is an anti-abortion advocate and holds what some might consider an "extremist" view that abortion doctors are doomed to hell and should be prosecuted for aiding murder, that is still just a view. Now, if the same person decides to get up one day and bomb a clinic and kill the doctors, then he is not merely holding an extremist view anymore, he becomes a full-pledged terrorist. Same thing for those ELF people who burn houses and vandalize SUVs because they are defending the environment. Hope the analogy works. 'as practiced in the ME and the subcontinent' IS what I am objecting to, that is a broad sweep than includes more than 500 million Muslims, did you know that?!! If 500 million Muslims were extremists, then why the hell is the Al-Qaeda force no more than 20000 strong (at most) by our own government's estimates? Why are those "radical Muslims" not answering the call of their beloved Bin Laden? If that many Muslims were extremists, you and I would be dead right now. That just shows you how misleading and rediculous your statement is. 'as practiced in the ME and the subcontinent'? WTF does that mean?!! Does that include my friends in the region? Does that include most Muslims in this country and in Europe and elsewhere that are originally from those regions? You know that most Muslims here in America are either of Mid-Eastern descent (Arab, Iranian, etc.) or from the Subcontinent (Pakistan, India)? Yes, absolutely 100% we should oppose those 'Muslims' (or anyone else for that matter) who preach terrorism against Americans. We should also oppose oppression of women worldwide wherever it is practiced, but the problem then arises as to how you define "oppression" of women? Is it to be defined as not granting them the same civil rights as men? Or is it not granting them full equality in all aspects of life as it is accepted in Western culture? Basically, do you hold them to your norms or is their some accepted universal standard that everyone should live up to? And don't tell me the "UN" standard, because that IS a Western standard created by Western powers to shape the world in their own vision. I am proponent of "live and let live", what creates all these "cultural clashes" is the fact that people are so freakin' nosy and are hellbent on dictating to others how to live and how to act. This eternal desire to make everyone around us think and be "like us" is exactly how conflicts are created and sustained. Anger? What anger problem? I am the friendliest person you will ever come across.
HayesStreet...i don't think you have taken the time to read anything about Islam... all your arguments are based on the same rhetoric seen on television…you spew out the same b.s on television and those sh-tty articles written by illiterates of Islam…. I have taken a number of religion courses to learn about the religion and have not seen anything to support your claim that Islam is a “terrorist” religion...don't you think if Islam was such a terrorist religon that the 7-9 million muslims in the U.S would go out and kill some people...why ar'nt there any terrorist bomings since 9/11?
I think he is talking about American Muslims, not Iraqis or Palestinians defending against occupying armies.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't it say in the New Testament to turn the other cheek? If these guys really wanted to make a religious statement wouldn't "Old Testament" be better or did they think that might sound too Jewish and really piss of Muslims? Also isn't there a class of tanks in the US arsenal called "Crusader"?
I believe that we cannot love "the meanest of creation" until we know and make peace with our own demons. The situation in Iraq is without a doubt extremely complex, and I do not believe anyone can mediate a long-lasting peace agreement until more of us in the world address the polarization of issues caused by our biases, opinions and judgments. I believe that when enough of us on the planet share and maintain a "pure" thought-form around peace that harmonizes with each other, everyone on neighboring "islands" and neighboring countries will start to share and practice the same thought-form. This is my understanding of how the "Hundredth Monkey" phenomenon or "global consciousness" works. I think that behaviors such as "fighting for peace," arguing, advising, debating, protesting, blaming and name-calling are distracting us from doing our inner work to resolve our inner turmoil. Ultimately, I think that our power is within, that each of our truths will help us co-evolve exponentially, and that solutions to complex issues and world peace will come when enough of us have found an authentic inner peace and sense of well-being. http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20050521/opinion/2141232.html
You gotta be able to see the difference between a magazine exaggerating and a reputable (allegedly) president conniving to start an unnecessary war.
Interesting post Basso but how does war, particularly an elective war, fit into that? War is the extreme polarization of issues.
Strange that you lash out against stereotypes and here you make a startling one yourself. Muslim Brotherhood Al Gamaat Islamiyya (Islamic Group) Al-Qutbiyyun Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (The Islamic Liberation Party) Al-Wa‘d (The Pledge) Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Zarwahiri's group) al-Jabhah al-Islamiyyah al-‘Alamiyyah Li-Qital al-Yahud Wal-Salibiyyin That's a short list of Egyptian fundamentalist/terrorist groups. It also should be noted that Zarwahiri's group has been involved in every major terrorist attack against the west in the last 20 years, which isn't insignificant. We could do this for each country in the ME and subcontinent with significant Muslim populations. Again though, there are two parallel rationale for using this geographic parameter as it is where the majority of violent Muslim action originates (although there is certainly Muslim violence in SE Asia and Eurasia) and where the most oppressive Muslim norms are located. Why would we oppose a moderate Islam? No reason to do that any more than oppose a moderate Jew or Hindu or Buddist or Christian. Me, of course. You're just going overboard. I didn't say we should kill all Muslims, or that we should 'punish' people for thinking differently. What I did suggest is that we should oppose Islam as its practiced in the ME and Subcontinent - specifically in instances where its advocates oppression of women (for example) or violence/terrorism or theocracies or female genital mutilation - to start with - and in any other way that's not consistent with modernity. That can take the form of a real war (like troops killing AQ) or it can take the form of a 'War on Poverty' (opposing by non-military means). ONE TWO THREE FOUR This is interesting because 1 & 2 really contradict 3 & 4. You say we should oppose violence and oppression (certainly a reasonable point) and then make all these qualifications, caveats, and outright denials in 3 & 4. Which is it? I'm not afraid to say that 'culture' is NOT on top of the moral hierarchy. If that were true then we'd never have outlawed human sacrifice, cannabalism, slavery, etc. I don't think giving women less than equal rights is correct and I would oppose a systemic phenomenon - in this segment of Islam - that indicates we do so. If you want to say we should also oppose fundamentalist Mormons who have similar oppressive practices (polygamy etc) then I would agree, but that is not really relevant to THIS discussion of Islam. Not usually, as modernity has a moderating affect on these groups, and civil law protects disenfranchised parties to a great extent.
Yawn. Modernity has a moderating effect on Islam. On the other hand, if we look at the majority of terrorist violence in the world today, its Muslims committing these acts, no? Indonesia, Phillipines, NY, Africa, Middle East, Europe - everywhere except I believe Latin America where the Islamic population is low. If that's incorrect, please post some info.
Europe has a number of other terrorist groups making attacks. The ETA just set off a bomb in Madrid today. The U.S. as well as has groups that aren't muslim and are largely right wing militia, or extremist Christian groups, or groups that are a combination of both.
You've mentioned modernity a few times and I think that's a dangerous precendent to set that we should be going to war for modernity. For one the Europeans claim that we aren't modern and our attitudes on things like abortion, the death penalty, stem cells and treatment of homosexuals is highly backward and some will even argue that that is why the US behaves belligerantly.
I think abortion should be legal, the death penalty is debateable, stems cell research should be legal and homosexuals should be treated equally. So I don't really fear modernity. However, I am talking about leveling the field and bringing to the forefront the conflict that some groups already have with modernity. Its a conflict already acknowledged by one side, in this case Muslims who fear or oppose modernity - i don't see a problem with saying 'yes, what you believe IS in conflict with that and you need to change.' That doesn't mean the US or the West is perfect by any means. If your standard is that we must be perfect before we advocate change elsewhere then you and I disagree fundamentally ( - pun intended). Such a standard would prohibit any action - as no nation or culture will ever be perfect. I believe in universal rights and that stands in conflict with 'group rights' as seen in many Asian cultures and stands in conflict with many religious dogmas. I don't have a problem with that, and neither should you, IMO.
