Middle Eastern terrorism certainly didn't. OK, now you are just borrowing Bush rhetoric I am sure Bin Laden has nothing against all the nice little gadgets that he and his followers use to attack us. I think he's pro-science and pro-technology, don't you think?
Middle Eastern terrorism didn't predate our being the sole superpower? Are you kidding? No, its not just rhetoric. Do you think the Taliban regime was an example of a society embracing modernity? I don't, and Osama's vision is much farther away than that. Do you think considering man made civil law a mortal offense is consistent with modernity? I don't. Osama certainly self justifies whatever he needs to fight his war including using technology (although I doubt he's carrying a cell phone these days ) will a quick 'Allah provides,' but I don't think there's much evidence to conclude he wants to bring Muslims into the modern world.
tigermission...the Saudi's were in great position to do something that would drive the economy forward...rather than remain stagnant in one position.. …..providing your citizens with a highly advanced social infrastructure is silly if eventually you will not be able to sustain it because of the reliance on a single commodity…im thinking more long term. in 50 years…. oil supply and demand will fall drastically!! ..what have they done to prepare for this…nothing...that's basically my point. HayesStreet..... I just don’t personally buy that ‘modernity’ is what the terrorist are against...it may play a small role…but I don’t think it would be the driving motivation for terror.
Not all terrorists are poor and downtrodden but then again not all terrorists are materially well off. There are many reasons for why someone becomes a terrorists even within the same organization.
But you can't deny that the Saudi government hasn't done anything for their people. You seem to be changing the terms of the debate. You first criticize them for having not done anything for their poeple now you're criticizing them for doing too much. Make up your mind.
HayesStreet, No, I am actually serious. Terrorism as it exists today in the Muslim world didn't exist even half a century ago. Heck, Hamas never even adopted suicide-bombing until they embraced the tactic when they fought in Lebanon, which is where suicide bombing was popularized and employed to devastating success. Hamas didn't adopt suicide bombing as a tactic against the Israelis until the early 1990s. Obviously, it depends on how you define terrorism and what specific event do you have in mind that preceded Western involvement in the region. Please elaborate in case I am misreading what you are saying. As for modernity, again, it's very relevant to ask you what you mean by 'modernity', because it is VERY much a matter of perception; what you perceive as 'civilized' and 'modern' might be viewed by the rest of the world as barbarism (Chavez, for example, considers American capitalism a savage mentality that is draining the world's resources and destroying the environment). For example, Western civilization was built on the premise of 'secular humanism', and therefore anything else would be dismissed as 'backwards', which can be easily discerned from the constant attacks on 'religion' in this country and especially in Europe and Canada, where religious people are considered 'backwards' and 'fanatics' in many cases. So basically my argument is 'it depends' on your own perception of modernity and civilization. But as for my personal opinion, I do view the Taliban and the Wahhabists as radicals for sure, but you might be surprised to know that Wahhabist clerics have nothing against technology, they merely insist on placing limits as to how that technology is used, because modernity in and of itself isn't evil, it's rather how we use it that determines that. Heck, without technology those clerics couldn't have been as successful in spreading their message and brand of Islam, and without technology Bin Laden wouldn't be heard all across the world from America to Asia.
Vince, where in Dhahran do you live? You live/work for Aramco? There is a lot of pointless spending, but what country doesn't do a lot of thatt? There's a bridge to nowhere in Alaska being built that is costing HUGE amounts of money.
sorry man....i tend to write first and think second do you think they have done too much? i'm too young to have worked in Aramco (still in school)....but my dad did....you been?
I grew uo there. We moved there back in '88. My dad still works there. Only him and my mother are there now. Me, and my older sister are at college in tx, and my little sister is in her first year of boarding school (10th year highschool). I grew up in Dhahran, aramco.
Well, we became the world's sole superpower in 1991, so what happened 50 years ago really doesn't fit. Terrorism as we know it in the ME has been around since before 1991. Well, I'll admit modernity can be hard to pin one definition on, so let's say democracy, secularism, and equal rights (we can discuss this in the other thread too since that might make it easier). Fundamentalists are inherently anti-democratic - shiara law is the only choice no matter what 'the people want.' As far as technology the article I posted in the other thread handles this as well. They'll use it in some temporary vacuum as the 'will of allah' to help them win their fight but are not predisposed to allow the freedom of use we associate with modern democratic thinking. The PRC doesn't either (blocking the internet for example) but that isn't out of some nostalgic calling for a return to the old ways - its just cold hearted efficiency in keeping power. IMO what fundamentalists strive for is much more dangerous.
Agreed, but the point was that it didn't exist before 'Western' involvement in the region. Generally speaking, the 1970s is regarded as the beginning of modern-day terrorism by radical Islamists. My point was it didn't pre-date heavy Western involvement in the region. I understand the 'sole' superpower reference, but the British and the French's intense involvement in the Middle East even pre-dates the birth of the Soviet Union. Almost every major event in the region today can be traced back to British/French imperialism. Agreed.
your still a student, highschool? maybe thats why you cant comprehend that some of the resources that the money has been spent on is valid. You argue about 5 lane highways, but then you should realize that they wont have to worry about any upgrading for like 30 years. You know why saudi cant become a tourist spot like dubai(uae) or other middle eastern countries, is because they have strict rules about letting non muslims into the holy cities, and their whole immigration system is heavily monitered. Had they opened up say a whole city dedicated to ttourism, it would bring, drugs, gambling, alcohol, prostitution into a country where it isnt prevalent, and this is one loss they arent willing to take no matter how much they lose monitarily...
Of course a lot of Saudis and Arabs from the Gulf States go to Thailand or England for their fill of drugs, alchohal and prostitutes.
"Two millions euros for the blonde in the corner." "What?? You dare refuse Sultan Aziz??!!" "Okay, four millions euros and you must throw in a bottle of Courvoisier...."
Almost every major event in every region can be traced back to french/british colonialism. The suckass part is that (a) we've inherited the colonial mess the Euros left while they sit back and let us pay the bill and (b) we were actually a hedge against their colonialism [suez canal incident] before we became the defacto block cop.
i'm in uni....... Adeel ………Saudi will never need a 5 lane highway!!.....especially in some of the regions they have it in…..the population just won't reach that capacity level....it is inefficient to have to maintain these silly highways...anyway that was just an example of the types of improper allocation of funds these idiots have...secondly...i never said Saudi should build a tourism industry.... you are right it won’t work....that never was my point.
