Why The West Lost The Ideological War Vs Muslims

[Indie Media Magazine]

By Abid Mustafa
Al-Jazeerah

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington

During his visit to Europe, George Bush emphasised to his European hosts that spreading freedom and democracy was the only way of defeating terrorism in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. His remarks echo a familiar tenet of his presidency - freedom triumphing over terrorism.

Why The West Lost The Ideological War Vs Muslims

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. this guy goes a little extreme in his arguments

He talks of using Sharia as law and not much about tolerance. I think it interesting that the Islamic countries with more tolerance are the ones with a lot of Sufis living there. Sufis, especially in India, have often tried to bridge the gap between cultures, to see the best of both worlds, instead of setting one culture as superior to another. That being said, I agree that the media in this country makes it appear that Americans are anti-Islamic. But I find that if one talks to individuals instead of just clumping people into groups, one can find curiosity about Islam and a degree of tolerance from all except the extremists, who don't tolerate anything outside their own narrow ideology.

[NorthSideCubsFan]

2. The issue is not Islam it is Wahhabism

The Wahhabi sect of Islam has no redeeming qualities. It needs to be delegitimzed and completely stripped of power.

The right won't touch this subject because it's in bed with the Saudis.

The left won't touch this subject because it's in bed with the Palestinians.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. It is none of our business

how muslims organize their societies, or what form of islam they practice.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. oh and

you should read bin laden's five points - they don't want to destroy us they want us to get the fuck out of islamic lands and leave them alone. Al qaeda and the wahhabaiists are promoting a defensive jihad, organized around these principals, and their stated goals and objectives, while not something I would want for my country, appear to be pretty much restricted to how muslims organize their own affairs.

All we have done since 9-11 is to validate every claim the jihadists have made about our intentions in the muslim world. We have played right into their hands. Oh we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan, mighty us! Too bad we lost all support in all of islam by doing so. We may capture bin laden and zarqawhi and 1,000 other islamic boogeymen, but there will be 1,000 more to take the place of each one we kill or capture. Islamic cities across the planet teem with young men and women feverishly determined to fight us in any way they can. It is an islamic "fight club" planet-wide. Are we going to kill all of them?

[piece sine]

9. defending bin Laden

is a great way to win over the "swing" vote needed to re-take the White House and Congress.

[thebigidea]

10. knowing your enemy isn't the same as defending him

what a miserably tacky thing to do, might as well yell "Saddamlover" too - its about as accurate.

from the Sean Hannity line of smear tactics, I guess.

so I guess Richard Clarke and that ex-CIA "anonymous" guy are also Bin Laden defenders since they explain it similarly?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. exactly. I paraphrased

the thesis written by anonymous in imperial hubris. But much better that we should be ignorant mopes dutifully paying for and dying in this phony war than we should actually learn who the enemy is.

Understanding the enemy's motives is not 'supporting' the enemy. We can pretend that bin Laden is simply a boogeyman, a lunatic, a one-dimensional evil-doer. We can protect the swing state middle americans from the difficult reality that we face by giving them the cartoon version of what's going on, or we can be square with them and tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may.

I vote for the truth every time, good bad or ugly.

[Igel]

12. Hence all the talk of Spain.

And the glory of the Caliphate.

Oops.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. some talk of spain but

very little in fact. As far as I know there was one al qaeda attributed statement that can be construed as expressing a desire to extend the future caliphate to include the southern part of what is now Spain but which was muslim Andalusia 500 years ago. The 'caliphate' generally refers to a unified muslim world under the rule of a single spirtitual and temporal leader, it does not generally imply toppling the nations evolved from the chrsitian branch of western civilization.

It is hard for many of us to disbelieve all the bullshit we have been fed about al qaeda's goals and objectives.

"This video does not engage in the "Islam and democracy" debate. It presents a perspective that argues that however democratic and free American society might be domestically, the face that it presents to the Muslim world is one of overwhelming military force that is used to compel Muslims to submit, without choice, to the commands of those who control that military force. In other words, in the minds of those who created this video, the conflict is not about attacking or defending Western style democracy and freedom, it is about responding with force to the seemingly overwhelming military power of the West."

"The direct target of bin Laden's propaganda strategy is not the United States but rather the existing Arab political order. The United States, the crusaders, and the Jews are indirect targets, however. Bin Laden and his senior lieutenants think that the United States sustains and supports the established regimes, which, in turn, maintain the status quo and oppress their peoples. As Ayman Zawahiri, bin Laden's most trusted confidant and right-hand man, who is featured in the videotape, claimed "America is responsible for everything that happens in Egypt and responsible or human rights violations there, and in other Arab countries as well." By attacking the United States, bin Laden and his aides hope to hit two birds in one stone. They aim at making it very costly for Washington to maintain its military presence in the Arab world as well as vital political support for the pro-Western Middle Eastern regimes. Bin Laden also aims at mobilizing Muslim young men, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and pushing them to destroy the temple on their heads and everyone else's."

Quotes from a fascinating analysis of an al qaeda recruitment tape.
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701721/session1.html

Also please read Imperial Hubris. You've been lied to. We all have.

[Igel]

22. I have been lied to, and have no

doubt that you have been.

On the other hand, the link you provided says little that I didn't already read in translations of the other primary sources out there. This one doesn't go as far as some. It goes farther than others.

The problem is that most of the ideological war has yet to be fought. Whether it's magicians and westerners stealing Sudanese penises, IDF men routinely deflowering virtuous Palestinian maids, or the control of Egypt by the US, it's lies and self-deception. So the first order of business is not a war of ideologies ... it's a war for accuracy and honesty.

I take the Islamists mostly at their word, and find that what they say makes an odd sort of sense. I reject most of their facts and their assumptions, but I'm accustomed to suspending belief in order to follow an argument. Theirs is consistent.

Ultimately it's a fight for power, but of different sorts. I think most people assume there's only one sort. They are mistaken.

[piece sine]

8. was South Africa's Apartheid

"none of our business?"

[Warren Stupidity]

18. did we invade south africa?

[NorthSideCubsFan]

19. No we didn't but

We did impose economic sanctions on them as were done on Iraq.

If the Afrikaner government had held on to power and was fighting a bloody civil war against the ANC, would you have been in favor of even-handed noninterventionism?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. no

but that certainly wasn't the situation in Iraq.

My original post was that our government has basically lied to us about what al qaeda's aims are and what the jihadist movement is all about, portraying it as an us-against-them clash of civilizations etc. where 'they' are out to destroy 'us' so we must destroy them first.

Instead, if we take al qaeda at their word, they appear to simply want us to stop meddling in the affairs of the muslim world. They do not appear to seek to destroy western eurpopean civilization, they do however appear to want to destroy our ability to project our military power into the muslim world. Those are very different objectives.

I observed that perhaps we should not be so concerned with how muslims choose to organize their own societies. Perhaps we ought to understand what their 'beef' is with us, evaluate which of their complaints, if any, have merit, adjust our policies as much as possible to address those just complaints, and then try to find a way to live in peace with the planet's muslims.

It seems that this is some sort of heresy. Quite frankly I don't quite get what the alternative is. Is it the current wisdom here on this blog that the muslim owrld is essentially insane and irrational and has no legitimate greivences with us, that there is no possibility of peace, and that we must in fact exterminate and/or subjugate 'them' until they no longer pose any threat at all? If so, then aren't bush and the neoclowns right? Aren't our leaders then following the only path available?

[NorthSideCubsFan]

14. I guess it wasn't any of our business

how the Germans organized their society in 1938 then.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. no it wasn't.

Not until they started invading other countries, which would be 1938 if I remember correctly with the annexation of austria.

The case coould be made that when the final solution started, that presented what is now referred to as 'a humanitarian crisis that constitutes a just cause for war'. I do note that the extermination of jews and other undesireables by the nazi regime was NEVER a major issue for the allies, they ignored it and did nothing to stop it, for example the did nothing to disrupt transportation to the camps even though they knew exactly whatwas going on.

[NorthSideCubsFan]

20. If the only choices in dealing with inhuman ideologies

are "minding our own business" and "total war" - then I fear this really lays the foundation for a Bush doctrine of preventative war. What else is there?

We can and did do things in opposition to Hitler short of invading Germany.

We can and did do things in opposition to apartheid short of invading South Africa.

We can and did (but rather poorly) do things in opposition to Saddam short of invading Iraq.

We can and should do things in opposition to Wahhabism short of invading South Africa.

[NorthSideCubsFan]

21. Oops - read "Saudi Arabia" in last line above....

[Warren Stupidity]

25. I think I agree with you

however we did essentially nothing to oppose hitler until rather late in the game.

But yes it is a false dichotomy: the choice is not between 'do nothing in the face of evil' and 'total war'. That is indeed the neoclown rational for Iraq. There are lots of steps to be taken between 'nothing' and 'shock and awe' that could actually lead to peace and progress. It seems that neither we nor al qaeda want any part of it.

[thebigidea]

5. yes, the Democrats - in bed with the Palestinians

we all know how all those Democratic Senators do everything in their power to help the Palestinians and stuff.

oh wait - they don't.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. good point - what a crock.

I actually heard this same crap from a rightwing likudnik cousin of my wife. The blind support for Israel is axiomatic for both parties.

[NorthSideCubsFan]

23. I said "the left" not "the Democrats" and I stand by that

[izzie]

3. Extremist on both sides seem to be the problem

I do think I will re-read that one once more. The Fat East has seemed to work ed out the problem of coming in with the rest of the world better than the Middle East. I wonder why?

[bemildred]

11. Babble. The obverse side of the "clash of civilizations" rhetoric. nt

[Igel]

13. It's unclear that we lost. Or that we were even actually

fighting.

Some things are just a crock:
"The West has spent the last two hundred years combating Islamic thoughts in the hope of dissuading Muslims from Islam. This campaign began with the orientalists who studied Islam and attacked its beliefs and rules."

View everything through the nice little prism carved around 900 AD and it all makes sense.

On the other hand, few in the last couple of hundred years have given much thought to Islam. He's viewing Western actions and ascribing motives based on his views. Western motives were almost invariably different.

Such an occidentalist view.