Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not

[msmcghee]

David Selbourne - The London Times Online - September 09, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2349195,00.html

LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.

If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.

<snip>

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

<snip>

*******************************

The other nine reasons are pretty interesting too and well worth the read.

[bowens43]

1. When you start with false premises

you false conclusions.

[CJCRANE]

2. This is "the West vs Islam" garbage.

Sorry but most people don't want to play this stupid game.

Even with 3,000 people killed on 9/11 by Bushco's buddies and 30,000 civilians wiped out in "shock and awe", the vast majority in both East and West aren't interested in fighting in this made-up "clash of civilizations".

[ghost guerilla]

13. AGREED.

Selbourne makes a couple of good points in his article, but his negative bias against Islam is what stands out the most. he makes it seem like all of Islam is somehow at war with the West when it is actually a small group of thugs who do not at all represent what Islam is.

this point struck me a bit

6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

i dont believe this point in its entirety but one can understand that the U.S's aggressive/premptive foreign policy towards the middle east will turn the entire world against her, and that is pretty damn scary is it not?

[bluerum]

3. .... back handed arguments vilifying Islam

The author uses back handed arguments vilifying Islam that could be universally applied to almost any major religious or political movement. To single out Islam like this author has done is rabble rousing vilification. You could substitute Christianity and the Vatican in all the appropriate places in that article and it will make just as much sense.

Islam - one of the oldest and most successful religions in human history. But it does share the same repressive "open hostility to dissent" and "maltreatment of women" and "selected out-groups as jews and gays" that Christianity does via the pope, the Vatican, and the fundy wackos.

Every major religion with a political agenda poses a similar threat. IMHO, until equitable economic systems are established, and the poor of the world are not exploited and enslaved by the super rich, people will always be able to use religion as the rationale for revolutions. Religion is the last refuge of the scurrilous.

on edit: grammar, sp.

[CJCRANE]

6. Good point

and also another reason this attack on Islam will never win - because the attackers usually have a hidden agenda, they are usually either RW christians or RW pro-Israel. In terms of religious logic and support Islam can more than hold its own against these kind of attackers.

However, a (non-violent) push for secular societies and human rights in all societies and cultures is the surest way to promote moderation in Islam and all religions.

This will only happen with a post-Bush America that has reclaimed its Constitution and place in the international community.

[The Magistrate]

9. Actually, Mr. Rum

Islam is far and away the newest of the major religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and for that matter the quasi-religions of Taoism and Confucianism all are noteably older. The proliferation of recent sects within Christianity do not qualify as new religions, and are about the only sizeable development after the formatoion of Isamic doctrines.

Judging "success" is somewhat more difficult, as there must be some agreement on what a definition of "success" is. Should it be defined in such terms as accurate understanding fo the universe or inculcation of ethical behavior as a social norm displayed by adherents of a creed, it is just about impossible to maintain any extant religion is a success. If success is defined by a wide spread, than Islam has enjoyed a certain success, but this was mostly achieved and maintained by violence, and while this is hardly unique to Islam, it indicates no excellence beyond the spheres of the military arts, and falls far short of, say, the standards of Buddhism, which owes its spread initially and subsequently almost wholly to the reception of its teachings. If success is defined as social and cultural achievement among societies imbued with a religion, than Islam, again, has certainly enjoyed some great success in the past, much of it owing to the preserved classics of the Greco-Roman period, but its success in this sphere began to wane badly several centuries ago, and has in the present day almost wholly evaporated. If success is defined in any terms of "a good society", meaning a cultural pattern valuing individual liberty and equality of persons, of the sort persons of liberal and progressive orientation hold dear, than it is hard to see Islam in the modern day as anything but a failure, and a pretty abject one at that.

[bluerum]

11. Successful in terms of longevity among other things. I do not

ascribe economic successes or social successes as characteristics of religious pursuit - though religious peoples may fervently claim otherwise. That is of course, their prerogative. It is also the prerogative of conservative or extremist religious groups to paint other religious groups as evil and lacking redeeming qualities.

Taking Islam out of it's own context and putting into the western cultural box though, makes no sense. Of course it will look as a failure when measured against the western economic and social models that are foreign to it.

My guess is that there are liberal and progressive Muslims that have much in common with progressive and liberal Christians. I see the current tarring and feathering of Islam as a war between the ultra-right or extreme conservative wings of political and religious groups. For example, the bushites and their ilk on the one hand, and muslim extremists on the other.

The author of the article in question is throwing sophomoric arguments at Islam for motivations that I cannot begin to guess. And based upon your post, you would agree the authors statements - is that right?

[The Magistrate]

12. My Comments On The Article In General, Sir, Are In No. 10, Below

A run of fourteen hundred odd years, Sir, is not much by the standards of major religions. What piqued my interest in your comment was simply your statement Islam was one of the oldest religions, and in fact it is a johnny-come-lately. Whether it is praise or blame being engaged in, it is best to have some knowledge of the item and the ocntext surrounding it.

Only one of my suggested criteria for success could be called Western, and that is the final one. It is certainly the most important one to me, as human liberty and equality on the lines promulgated in the Enlightenment are my leading social and political values. It does not make me blush to judge other traditions by these, and to criticize them where they fall short.

[bluerum]

26. Yes I agree,, 1400 years in the scheme of the planet is a wink.

But for religions I feel it is a substantial enough body of time to establish credibility. Islam has been around since the late 7th century according to wikipedia. To be sure they have had their share of reformists and division etc. But remember that the Martin Luther reformists began their movements approximately in the 1500's. Christianity has been spawning fundamentalists groups ever since.

We are in great agreement regarding the point on equality. I personally believe that equality is the soil in which liberty finds it's most fertile ground. It also seems to me that the lack of equality and economic opportunity is one of the main recruiting tools used by political and religious extremist groups.

I do find your thoughts on the superiority of western thought entertaining. Thank you for the comic relief.

[The Magistrate]

29. If We Are In Agreement, Sir, On Points Of Equality And Liberty

Then we are in agreement on the superior quality of Western thought stemming from the Enlightenment period, whether you are prepared to acknowledge that or not. It is immaterial to me whether or not you do.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. He didn't specify major religions...

To be fair, there's approx 4,000 religions world-wide. Of that 4,000 about 12 religions are considered to be major religions. I don't know or particularly care about the Oldness Ranking of religions, as they all suck in their own ways regardless of how many centuries they've been fermenting away for...

You see Islam as an abject failure. Christianity also fails abjectly if you apply the same standards to it, wouldn't you agree? Mind you, as a Christian who quit the churchy stuff, I'm familiar and knowledgable enough with my religion to make such statements about it, but when it comes to Islam, I'd be more inclined to take what a Muslim DUer from the Muslim/Islam group has to say about the religion as being a credible comment....

[niallmac]

4. Point #2 e.g. is the biggest pile of BS I have read lo these many years.

Amidst the article are some astute observations but still the same ol good guy
bad guy BS that got us into this mess in the first place.

Really, ALL of Islam is bent on taking over the world? Substitute the word, uh, oh lets see,
oh I know: Christianity why don't we?

Is Muslim outrage at the West made out of gossamer nothings? Anyone here in class
worked overseas and experienced first hand how our corporations treat Third Worlders.

God Dammit the ignorance and self righteousness that the Western mind comforts and scares
itself with is so frustrating to live amidst. Want an insight into the 'struggle' we find ourselves?

Read 'Jihad Versus McWorld' Benjamin Barbour.

If you think 'they' hate us because 'they' are inherently different and following a religion
of hate then 'you' need to get over it. We need to get over it. America for one is not an
innocent victim of foreign religious fanatics. It started with our own home grown
capitalist/christo fanatics. No one in this scenario is totally innocent. I am not saying that.
But articles like this reflect a monumental paucity of self reflection needed to save the
civilized world from itself. We get along ultimately or we perish.

[tocqueville]

8. absolutely right

this is nothing but racist propaganda. It's exactly the same thing you hear from extreme right-wingers in Europe.
The average Evangelical or integrist Catholic is far more dangerous regarding human rights than the average "muzzie".

[Turbineguy]

5. And then there's reason 11

Muslims are immigrating to western countires in significant numbers and growing larger families.

He's probably right, It's just having George Bush and his cohorts in charge of things will bring the Islamic victory sooner.

[tocqueville]

7. this is not true either, in fact a complete myth

muslim immigration to the west is not increasing, the one that is increasing is the one from black Africa/Asia/Eastern Europe.

Besides it's not because you are a "Muslim" migrating to Europe that you will transplant a guy with a beard, a woman with a veil etc... If it's not a Muslim FLEEING the Islamists, most of the migrating Muslims lose their "Islamic" identity after one generation. The bearded guys are at iny minority. During the Danish cartoon protests in Europe no more than 5-10000 protested, and no more than 5000 at the time - out of total "population" of maybe 10-15 millions.

The immigrants from the muslim countries are not a threat, they are the best resource against Islamists. By achieving good integration policies, they can be an attractive secular model for the non-european muslims and the British model has been abandoned because it was an utter failure (creating segregated cultural communities).

The author of the article is completely wrong, please don't add to it.

[The Magistrate]

10. That Is Not A Bad Article, Ms. McGhee

The author of it is, to my mind, a little too gloomy for his own good, however, under-rating considerably the raw power of the West in any such confrontation. It is very difficult to see any means by which the fundamentalist radicals of Islam could translate their program into even political dominance over the West, let along physical conquest. Material progress on that line would necessarily have the effect of concentrating and unifying the West in opposition to it, and eleiminating much of the divided counsel he sees as such a problem. Counsel is indeed divided at this point, but this is largely because there is no obvious and pressing threat, the enemy having little real power, and most of that power he does have even, being more or less on loan from the West, as the result of the foolish reactions of some to his actually quite minor capabilities.

The point you have selected for your header deserves serious consideration. It is quite true many on the left take a view on "anti-colonialism" that is most ill-considered. Merely because a political force originates in once colonized lands, and may operate to some degree against the profits of Western economies, does not make it a progressive element, or a desireable one, from the view of human progress. The most basic fact of the classical period of Western colonialism is that it would not have been possible to implement the enterprise had the once great civilized societies it marked for its targets been functional and healthy societies at that time, and it was only the rot within these structures that enabled their domination and exploitation. No social development during the colonial period addressed any of these internal problems, and they remain just as powerful and hampering today as they were then. The fundamentalism rising within them is an extraordinarily reactionary and anti-liberal force, that no clear-eyed person on the left ought to do anything but denounce and oppose.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. The article was an attack on the entire religion!

It was nothing but a collection of broadbrush strokes of an entire religion, something best left to the conservatives. It wasn't a discussion of religious extremists within the religion, which is something completely different and far more acceptable....

[The Magistrate]

30. The Articke, Ma'am

Presented some facts concerning a stream of human thought, and concerning the reaction of some persons in the West to the challenge presented by a very vocal and violent strain within Islam.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Is this one of those 'facts'?

"Islam is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself."

How has this swill got anything at all to do with Islamic extremists?

I thought I'd add on edit that with the large volume of credible writing that's available on the subject of Islamic extremism, it's not necessary to turn to articles and books that view in a negative light the entire religion and its adherents, and which fails to make a clear distinction between the minority of extremist fanatics and the majority of normal Muslims. The book about Islam written by this guy was rejected by five or so major publishing houses, and I strongly suspect it's not his 'They're Afraid Of The *Truth* About Islam!!' theory that caused it to be rejected...

[The Magistrate]

36. Islam, Ma'am

Is no more a religion of peace than any other of the doctrines within the Abrahamic stream, and that particular chestnut really needs retiring all around. Its text and traditional practices contain ample justification for violence and intolerance, and the fact that is not unique in this does not mean it cannot be described in terms that recognize this. Religious texts are masses of contradictory statements, that believers are in the habit of atomizing into single lines, and further of reading in symbolic and "spiritual" lights, so that just about anything anyone wants can be extracted and presented as the "true" drift of the thing: all that matters is what degree of resonance a particular interpretation finds among a population of believers. To take an example from Christianity, there is no reason whatever to believe Bishop Sprong represents "true" Christianity and Pat Robertson represents a "hijacking" and "perversion" of Christianity, though it is worth pointing out that the latter fellow has a sizeable and coherent political following the former lacks, and the latter can find more support in the plain meaning of the relevant texts for his views than can the former. Fanatical minorities are worth giving weight out of proportion to their numbers in analysis, because they are energetic, and moderate majorities are inert. Further, fanatical minorities generally adopt a program of action that aims at heightening tensions, and forcing radicalization in consequence on the moderate majority, whether this wishes it or no.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Did you read all of what I quoted?

I asked you to explain what it had to do with religious extremists, and you haven't done that...

Here's the rest of what was quoted...

..'nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself."

I take it you don't find any of that particularly disturbing?

[Lithos]

40. It's the Hermeneutics...

and the fact that is not unique in this does not mean it cannot be described in terms that recognize this.

It is more than what you describe. Selective hermeneutics is not only the passion of extremists of a particular religion to shield and defend their own bigotry, it is also the passion of those who are foes as well who use it similarly. This is why discussion of Religion has to be done with careful language and avoidance of stereotypes when used in a judgemental manner.

L-

[The Magistrate]

41. The Article, Sir, Is Certainly A Polemic

Most of its ire is directed not at Islam, but at the reactions of some persons in the West to the fact of violent jihadi extremism. Its direct comments on Islam strike me as merely corrective to some similarly highly selective, and even pollyanna-ish, apologetics that are in circulation on the subject. People are entitled, it seems to me, to hold an unfavorable view of any system of thought, and pattern of cultural practice, and to express it. The position that criticism must be rooted in bigotry is simply a shabby tool of debate, employed to distort and poison the course of discussion, by people who would prefer for various reasons to overlook elements of the matter that others find of great importance. You will be aware that my own views on religion, both as a general matter and in particular to just about all creeds, is as rejectionist as an Anarchist's view of state authority. That is not bigotry on my part, it is reasoned conviction based on examination of the texts and of the cultural patterns and social systems they support. Persons who are either believers in a particular religion, or who find broad criticism of it politically inconvenient, would doubtless find little comfort in the blunt expression of my views on such a matter, and my general practice is to show a courteous restraint in consequence.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Magistrate...

The position that criticism must be rooted in bigotry is simply a shabby tool of debate, employed to distort and poison the course of discussion, by people who would prefer for various reasons to overlook elements of the matter that others find of great importance.

You are very mistaken. I have read a lot of criticism of Islam, and agree with much of it, none of which stoops to the bigoted nonsense in this article. Attempting to portray those who have a problem with the *ahem* 'direct comments on Islam' in this article (some of which I quoted in bold for you here) as having a position that criticism must be rooted in bigotry is so wrong and imo is what's a shabby tool of debate. Distort and poison the course of discussion? Bullshit! As I've said a few times now there is no shortage of articles about Islamic extremism that are credible, not weighed down with the broadbrush attacks on an entire religion and its adherents, and not written by some idiot who whined that no major publisher wanted to hear *the truth* about Islam when they rejected his book. If you want to have a serious discussion of Islamic extremism, start a thread with one of the articles I talked about (I'm more than willing to start a thread either here or in GD with one if you want me to), but I do not understand the need to use a bigoted article as a launching pad to have that discussion...

I'll stop now before I say something I'll regret...

[Lithos]

43. I might find more sympathy

Except for two points.

First, the memes/patterns he exploits are those often used by those to separate Islam, to make it different in a very negative way. His discussion is not about theology nor has he presented a counter view of Islam except thru negative terminology.

Second, I am quite aware of Mr. Selbourne's conservative views among which is the promoting of Culturalism in ways other promote Nationalism, ie as a differentiator and as a means to group people in order to maintain power and control. Liberalism is anathema to him as it is a destroyer of culture and thus the power that culture brings. This is clash of civilization taken to the next level and his part is to create and promote division.

[The Magistrate]

45. The Author, Sir, Is To Me An Un-Known Quantity

And probably was to the person who put up the article in the first place, as well. Your knowledge of the author's background is certainly helpful in assessing his intentions.

It is odd that there should be so great an over-lap between the views of rightists here and the jihadis on the question of liberalism. Both take it as a leading enemy, and on similar terms to boot. However, it is also true that some of the rightist critique of left response to the jihadis, however poorly rooted, is still apt in some ways. We have no difficulty recognizing the reactionary nature of domestic elements as their policies impinge of liberty and equality: we do not always display the same perspicacity towards foreign reactionary elements, and sometimes seem to have trouble even recognizing that foreign rightists and reactionaries exist, and need to be opposed, when they are also bitter opponents of our own domestic reactionaries.

My view on the general question of "clash of civilizations" is, however, not only that it exists and is presently underway, but that it is hardly a new development, and quite transcends any present political markers or figures. It is the general condition of history. The relations of Christendom and Islam have been hostile and mutually predatory from their commencement, and it is only fairly recently that the balance tipped decisively to the former side. The gobal clash between the Capitalist and Communist systems, in the three quarters of a century that it dominated political life, blanked out a number of long-standing and persistant trends, which now that that interregnum has been concluded, are re-asserting themselves. It is worth pointing out in this connection that while we in the United States are pleased to believe generally that the collapse of the Soviet Union was owing to U.S. actions and policies interacting with the Soviets' own internal difficulties, the jihadis are just as convinced it was they who pressed the Soviets to their collapse, and take that event as a signal their power is both great, and on a rising arc. The childhood bromide that it takes two to make a fight has always struck me as foolish: one, sufficiently determined, is enough for the purpose.

[Lithos]

46. My issue with the clash of civilizations

Is the idea it implies of a singularity whether it is a singular meme, singular winner/loser, singular all or nothing result. Truthfully, there are many dynamic movements, compressions and releases of force in the human interchange that result more in mixture of ideas and this is the norm.

What is this clash of civilizations? Is it one of moderation vs. fundamentalism? Occidentalism vs. Orientalism? Secularism vs. Religion? Imperialism vs. Nationalism? Class? Ethnic? Religious? Economic? Culinary?

When Rome took on the Barbarians who won? Did the Barbarians become Roman or did the Romans become Barbarians? Did the Normans conquer the Anglo-Saxons or did the Anglo-Saxons win? Similarly, England in India, the most popular dish in England at the moment isn't fish and chips, but curry - yet English is the language of business and law in India. In Israel, Shwarma is extremely popular served on a pita with hummus and a side of fries and it is not uncommon to hear Arab inspired music either thru the Sephardi based Mizrahi singers or groups such as Ethnix. Religion too sees the interchange - Zoroastrianism strongly influenced Catholocism and in turn was influenced by the same sources which inspired Judaism. Judaism in turn to the Mesopotamian influences also owes a great deal to the Canaanites and the Egyptians.

L-

[msmcghee]

47. If I might interject . .

. . it seems that the sharing of cultural memes occurs whenever different cultures are exposed to each other. In many cases those are peaceful and due to expanding trade routes, education, better communications, etc.

At other times they are due to militaristic conquest in which case millions can die early and painful deaths - before that beneficial mixing of cultures can occur - in the generations that follow the carnage.

Are you suggesting that we should lighten up - that the military conquest mode of cultural adaptation is really not so bad once you get past the Katyushas and suicide bombers - because after the dust settles - some trading of recipes and musical styles is bound to occur?

Hmmm, the multi-cultural argument for jihad. Never thought of that.

That sounds a lot like Bush thinking he can impose democracy on people who don't want it just by killing enough of them. Except in this case it's Islam and Sharia instead of Fundamentalist Christianity and the neo-con version af corporatist democracy that's being imposed. And instead of the autocratic tyranny of Iraq - it's the only secular democracy in the ME that's being wiped out.

An unbiased observer might even think the Bush neo-con approach was the better of the two if one had to make a choice - like during the next presidential election.

I guess the difference between the right and the left now according to you is just which belief system is getting installed by way of explosives. Hey wait, isn't that what the last few centuries of social progress and the enlightenment was supposed to get us past? :eyes:

[Lithos]

48. LOL

The militancy is just a tip of an iceberg of what is happening w/r to Israel and the Middle East. The militancy is a reaction, not a cause to much of the ongoing change the region is undergoing. What Israel did in Lebanon was to try and manage things reactively which of course is extremely ineffectual. The results speak for themselves. An old management consultant joke is that reactive management is an oxymoron much like military intelligence, ie it's a contradiction in terms.

Are you saying there are only two solutions, the Neo-Con or nothing which you've just implied is the "leftist" solution? If so, then I dramatically disagree with you.

The Neo-con and Paleo-con solution to crime in the US was to hire more police, build more prisons and enact stricter laws. The money of course came from social programs and education. Course, all they did was increase the crime rate they didn't address the core problems and their solution only exacerbated things. However, when the government started in 1992 to focus on the economy, revitalizing the infrastructure including education and urban renewal and of course on job creation, the crime rate went down. Since 2001, the Republicans have returned to the old tactics and the crime rate is climbing again along with a whole slew of social issues caused by their abandonment of much of the lower and middle classes. The leftist solution was still tough on crime, but recognized that there were solutions which truly solved the problem.

Similarly, Israel's tactics of disassociation from addressing the root causes and reliance on their military to effect a civil solution are not working. I suspect Israel may find that supporting education and building hospitals and creating jobs will likely be more cost effective over the long run than trying to maintain a large fleet of Merkavas and an economy that suffers evertime a major reservist callup happens.

So, what is your solution?

[msmcghee]

51. Another old management consultant joke . .

. . is that the world is full of perfect solutions to the wrong problems.

Reactive management can be very ineffectual in a business operation. However, when people are sending suicide bombers into your country and killing your kids - then some reaction is probably called for.

But then, when Irael tries to manage the situation pro-actively you call that "collective punishment"

Your fantasy that Israel could "manage" people better who have been calling for Israel's destruction for almost sixty years and relentlessly doing everything they could to implement that goal - and coming pretty close on several occassions - is the real joke.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. Can the West defeat the Islamist threat?

...Yes, when we recognize it for what it is: a purposefully trumped up illusion of fear used as control mechanism against the masses by those in power---just like the Communist "red scare" illusion of the 50s and 60s was.

[Tom Joad]

15. Don't seem to vary your theme so much. If someone put "can the West

defeat the <some other major religion believed by millions of people> threat, it would be immediately banned, and rightly so. Too bad this stays.

That it stays up says how strongly the anti-Muslim hysteria is in the US, and even in supposed "progressive" circles is countenanced and accepted.

In a word, this post is disgusting. I expect much more of these kind of stories from you, msmcghee.

[The Magistrate]

16. Your Comment, Sir, Strikes Me Rather Odd

You would have a very difficult time pointing out any group of, say, Buddhists, who were claiming at great length it was their religious duty to oppose the West by violence, and had engaged in any great number of violent actions aimed at military and civilian targets in actualiztion of that belief. The existence of violent fundamentalist believers in Islam so engaged is a fact of modern life. That this may be inconvenient for the political views of some persons does make that fact disappear, nor can they reasonably expect it will do so.

[Tom Joad]

18. What of the targeting of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza.

The targeting of the whole city of Fallujah in Iraq.
The death of millions in Vietnam.
Hundreds of thousands in East Timor, directly supported (encouraged)by "the West".

As Gideon Levy writes in the daily Haaretz, the Israeli army "has been rampaging through Gaza - there's no other word to describe it - killing and demolishing, bombing and shelling, indiscriminately". Gaza where people are hungry, despite clear denials of comfortable folks here in the West based on nothing more than blind faith, it seems, in their own moral superiority of their system.

This whole thread stinks to high heaven.

[The Magistrate]

19. Irrelevant To Your Claim Above, Sir, Is What It Is

It does absolutely nothing to establish there is no validity to the proposition that there are radical Islamic elements hostile to the West, and enaged in violent action against it in the name of their religious convictions, or that there is anything disgusting or otherwise wrong about stating that fact.

As to your grab-bag of horribles, it is worth pointing out that the Timorese were Catholics, largely massacred by Moslems, though not as a direct result of religious conviction, though certainly religious rivalries played some role in the heat of the whole dispute.

Moslems, too, are rather thin on the ground in Viet Nam, the population being mostly Buddhist, with at the time a considerable Catholic admixture.

Gaza is certainly in a dire strait, and that is in good part an unfortunate consequence of a war pressed by various militant bodies among the Arab Palestinian people. Observing this fact says nothing about the relative values of any culture or social system, though it does say something about the difference between war and peace.

[CJCRANE]

23. It's not a religious duty

to oppose the West. Bin Laden himself said he is not against "freedom" otherwise he would've attacked Sweden.

Also, figures released today (in the UK Independant) show that of those civilians killed in the "War on Terror" only approx 5% were killed by terrorists, the rest were "collateral damage".

[Violet_Crumble]

25. So it's okay to slag off an entire religion if....

...a group of extremists within that religion make it their religious duty to oppose the West by violence?

So, is it still okay to slag off an entire religion if.....a group of extremists within that religion make it their religious duty to continue to occupy land that doesn't belong to them using violence? Because that's what the extremist settlers are doing, but it had never crossed my mind before that their actions made it acceptable to slag off Judaism and paint the entire religion as being a violent one....

[msmcghee]

17. I have a couple of questions.

In the last few years there have been hundreds if not thousands of attacks worldwide by Radical Islamists aimed primarily at civilians of various western nations including the almost 3000 Americans who died on 9/11/2001. Islamic radical leaders continue to call for our destruction and have repeatedly attempted to cause it. Hundreds of arrests have been made and have shown the problem to be widespread and well entrenched. The author believes that we are ill prepared to even understand the true nature of the threat much less respond to it intelligently.

Disgust is an emotion, typically associated with things that are perceived as unclean or inedible. In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Charles Darwin wrote that disgust refers to something revolting.

1) Why would anyone use the word "disgusting" to describe an article that attempts to warn us of a danger to our families? How could information that could possibly increase our safety be termed - revolting?

That seems to be a question worthy of some speculation by those who would be the targets of those attacks. But, moving on . .

You said, "That it stays up says how strongly the anti-Muslim hysteria is in the US, and even in supposed "progressive" circles is countenanced and accepted." You also said, "I expect much more of these kind of stories from you, msmcghee." Curious statements.

2) Are you suggesting that our mods harbor an anti-Muslim hysteria for not taking it down?

It doesn't seem to me that "anti-Muslim hysteria" in some other "progressives" would compell our mods to make such a decision.

I recently had a post deleted that said many of the same things this article says - although not all of them. The remaining existence of this thread seems to bother you. My guess would be that alerts don't carry as much weight when the ideas expressed come from the London Times.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. There were several stinky statements in the article...

I'll point them out as I'm sure you and one or two others may not be as diligent in picking up on this as you would be if it was an article about Jewish religious extremists. Mind you, this article wasn't about Islamic religious extremists, and was a spew-fit by some moron about the entire religion...

"Islam is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself."

"Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term."

And my question is what religions are religions in the conventional sense of the term?

[msmcghee]

27. I think your answer must be . .

. . to some other post as it has absolutely nothing to do with the two question I asked - of a different poster.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I was commenting on the article you posted...

Last time I checked I was allowed to do that, wasn't I?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

24. It's unbalalanced -

95% of civilians killed in the War on Terror have been "collateral damage" killed by Coalition forces (approaching 100,000).

The muslims have much more reason to be afraid of the West than we have of them.

[msmcghee]

28. I think your answer must be . .

. . to some other post as it has absolutely nothing to do with the two question I asked - of a different poster.

[geek tragedy]

31. The real question is whether Islam can defeat the Islamist threat.

The real battle is not between Christians and Muslims, but rather between the sane and enlightened elements of Muslim societies vs. the Medievalists who call themselves the only 'true' Muslims.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I agree with you about that n/t

[The Magistrate]

37. That Is A Very Sound Point, Sir

And there is no doubt, from their own literature, that the jihadis take as their real leading enemies precisely those elements of Moslem society that you would consider sane and enlightened, and intend their destruction as the necessary preliminary to the remainder of their program. On the record of history over the last several centuries, and indeed, since the Mongol eruptions in the Near East, it is not easy to be sanguine over the prospects for the elements we would prefer to prevail actually doing so.

[geek tragedy]

38. The radical Islamists view us as an enemy only to the extent

that we enable the corrupt and the liberal forces within Muslim society (of course, to the Medievalists, the corrupt and the liberal are co-extensive).

The notion of a collective enemy--the Israeli, the American Imperialist, the Communist empire--is the best friend of the extremists in the Islamic world just as the notion of the Terrorist, the Communist, etc served American rightwingers.

[Spinoza]

44. Well done, Mcmghee.

This article engendered one of the most illuminating and interesting debates (between Violet and Sir Magistrate) that I have seen on the IP post. Great choice for posting.

[bemildred]

49. Makes me think of "Why the Left was Wrong".

The long thread, remember? The same rhetorical style, the same stereotypes, the adversarial style, the pejorative descriptions of those people this fellow fancies as his enemies, the same lack of interest in nuance and differentiation. I wonder how cantwealljustgetalong is anyway?

But the question is why should we care? If we accept his dubious premises and follow him to his "end of civilization as we know it" conclusions, then it's hopeless. And if we don't, it's speculative drivel. He doesn't seem to want to go anywhere so much as he wants to besmirch those that disagree with him.

Rome was not conquered from without, it crumbled from within. The barbarians wanted more than anything to be good Romans too. The danger that faces "the West", or whatever he names it, is of the same sort. It has far more to do with the degenerate decadence of our political and economic institutions than anything the Islamic fundies can or will do, they don't have a clue how to run a modern technological society either. The danger is a mutual descent into the mud, rather than the conquest of "the West" by violent fundamentalist gangs. It is not their actions that have weakened us, but our own folly; and shifting the blame to their willing shoulders will do nothing to change the course of events while giving Osama Bin Laden and his ilk a weight and stature they do not deserve.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I remember that thread...

I grew pretty fond of it. Did it vanish once DU got rearranged? I wouldn't mind reading through it again one day...

[bemildred]

56. Can't find it now.

Did not try that hard.
Inquiries to the DU admins might turn something up I suppose.
But I saved a copy to disk. A lot of links don't work anymore.
:-)

[Lithos]

58. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=116x2755

[bemildred]

59. Thank you. nt

[Lithos]

61. Thank you guys

And to everyone else who contributed to that thread. I popped it back to the top, guess I don't want to see it die either. There was a time when that was the first thread I looked at when I logged in.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Thanks n/t

[Englander]

57. That was one hell of a thread, I'd forgotten about that one.

Here it is, all four hundred & sixty-two posts, most of them articles;

'Why the left was wrong'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=2755

[bemildred]

60. Still fun to browse in. nt

[bemildred]

50. Why the jihad is doomed

Compare and contrast ...

Even before the American Century drew to a formal close six years ago, the Age of Jihad had already taken its place.

The extraordinary triumph of radical Islam achieved its greatest victories without firing a single shot, hijacking a single jetliner, closing a single belt detonator.

Armed at first only with words, the world holy war conquered the imagination and loyalty of disciples from Tehran and Tampa, from Jabalya and Germany, by taking aim at the ultimate soft target - the West.

The message of a fiery pure Islam - noble in purpose, uncorrupted in practice, egalitarian in its praise for the devout, its splendorous offer of an afterlife available regardless of color, class, or immigration status - galvanized Muslims for whom fate had seemed to hold out only the promise of fresh forms of injustice, deeper humiliation, a more ashen sense of alienation.

Haaretz

[Lithos]

52. Better article

It is always the lot of the revolution to suffer such a fate and to absorb some of the elements of the group they were revolting against in the first place. The US (Shay's Rebellion), the French (Napoleon), the Russians (twice - the first was Lenin/Stalin, the second was Putin).

L-

[bemildred]

53. Well yeah, history does not stop.

The fact is the Muslim world has been modernizing rapidly, birth rates are falling, cousin marriage is falling out of fashion, males are coming to terms with the idea they might not get that male heir; which is what one would expect as an agrarian culture transitions to an industrial/urban form; and islamic fundamentalism, like other fundmentalisms, is largely a reaction against those trends, that process of change; and it will lose because the drivers for change are more permanent than the drivers of reaction. Not that it will be pretty.

And the problem of institutionalizing "revolutionary" change is not new. One could extend this generational argument to Israel too ...

It seems a safe bet that in due course there will be something new to fight over, and that the "problem" will be outlived rather than solved. Given the approaching global ecological singularities, the people of the future may well look at us all as deluded loons anyway.

[Lithos]

54. In a nutshell

- The only thing constant is change.
- Reality bites...

:)

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. this is a ludicrous, vulgar, crass and racist conspiracy theory

-All too reminiscent of earlier anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. "They're out to take over the world"

Yes there are groups like Al Qaeda who do will us harm. These are marginal movements that may occasionally acquire a certain amount of folk hero status in parts of the Islamic world the same way extremist IRA terrorist would become folk heroes even to many Irish-Catholic Americans in Boston or San Francisco. But their actual political power is minimal. Although their potential is dangerous enough to warrant a real effort to work with Muslim countries and Muslim people and any other allies in insuring that they don't acquire weapons of mass destruction and are neutered in their ability to carry out serious attacks. After all on September 11, 2001 we were attacked by a bunch of young men with wire cutters - NOT a unified nefarious global alliance of the Islamic world.

It is sure nonsense and a preposterous conspiracy theory to attempt to link every form of political Islam; most of which have local agendas, into the vast web of likes of Al Qaeda as if they are all working together in concert guided by their fiendish thirst for American blood.

The very notion that every group from Chechen rebels to Muslim separatist in the Philippines to Hamas and Hezbollah to the Iranian government are all part of the same network with the same agenda and directed by the same global vision simply does not hold up in the world of reality. Iran does indeed seek to become a regional power. Other groups seek their agendas and perhaps political power within their respective countries. Most of these groups have little in common with each other and are miles apart in their ideology and in many cases even their religious beliefs. Most of these groups find their appeal on the desperate street of the subjugated, dispossessed and disenfranchised. Will further subjugation, dispossession and disenfranchisement make the problem all go away?

My gravest worry is why are there people in both political parties in America so anxious to drag America and as much of the West as they can bamboozle into an endless total war against the Arab and Muslim world while completely ignoring the imperative of building the kind of lasting trust and alliances with the Arab and Muslim world that is necessary to reduce the threats that really do exist and prevent future potential and perhaps more deadly September Elevens?
_____________________

Zbigniew Brzezinski calls War on Terror a narrow and extremist vision

The ultimate cold warrior himself, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser under President Carter takes a contrary view regarding the war on terror and has no truck with those calling for a new war against Islamist fundamentalism.

link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

snip: "This phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world and is summed up by the words "war on terrorism." War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

snip:" That failure was contributed to and was compensated for by extremist demagogy which emphasizes the worst case scenarios which stimulates fear, which induces a very simple dichotomic view of world reality. "

snip:" what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?"

snip:"And if we take preemptory action we will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, not to speak about the widening of the zone of conflict in the Middle East."

snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. "

link to full article:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

[bemildred]

64. Not the brightest bulb in the box, is he?

A mountain of alarmist slander built on a molehill of paranoid projection. The real problem is that this fellow assumes his conclusions; he starts with what he wants to demonstrate, the unstoppable oncoming islamofascist juggernaut, and the necessity that we all run gibbering with fear into the arms of the totalitarian state to protect us from it. Only by all pulling together obediently can we hope to stave off doom. But since his real purpose is to instill fear, to prop up the boogieman, the lack of coherent expository structure in the piece is not seen as a deficiency. Better actually to keep logic and reason out of the way, and just hammer away with the fear-mongering.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. what truly bothers me is that these sorts are not the least bit interested

in actually reducing the threat of terrorism. They are not the least bit interest in reducing the kind of tensions that water the seed bed of terrorism. They are interest in spreading a message of hate. While they attempt to turn the public into a bunch of sniveling frightened little cowards so scared of their own shadow that they will accept whatever dictates big brother demands of them. If these people succeed in duping a large portion of the public into swallowing this poison, it doesn't take too much imagination to see what they would propose as a final solution. As I said above, this vile garbage is all too reminiscent of the hateful anti-Semitic propaganda of the 1920's and 1930's.

BTW on a somewhat relevant personal note, my work has me in the Middle East much of the year. I have never been treated with more kindness, common decency and respect, and I have never felt safer than I have anywhere else on earth in my whole life.