Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I get the belief that more Muslims are hostile to the west from the sheer amount of celebration evident after 9/11 and the reaction to several things since then. I distinctly remember the Danish Embassy in Syria being ransacked after the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons and widespread rioting and even people being killed as Muslims express their rage over a bunch of cartoons. Contrast that with the reaction in the West to the anti-Jewish/Western "art" exhibit put on by Iran as a way to test Western tolerance or even the reaction to the display of some of the tasteless art depicting Christian images in the west such as Serrano's Work or this one that uses Elephant Dung on a picture of the Virgin Mary. Perceived public reaction leads me to believe that Muslims are more anti-western and also less tolerant than westerners.You are absolutely right that by definition, every religion is intolerant. I repeat the [url url=http://Apostle's Creed]Nicene Creed[/url] every Sunday in church which specifically states that "I believe in one, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." The difference between most Christians, myself and most Muslims is that while I and most Christians may think non Christians are Heretics or at best heathens, we are content to let them go to hell in their own way. God gave us all free choice after all.I am convinced a renewed call to Crusade would receive a lukewarm response, if any at all from the community of the faithful. The message of the peaceful martyr is much more powerful in modern Christianity than that of the militant monk and fighter for the faith. The Islamic world has not reached that point yet.
I think we agree on more things than not. I do concede the anti-western feeling is the pre-dominant one in muslim lands - not to the extent you believe it to exist but too much nonetheless - but I do not believe that is because of the religion of Islam itself, which is no more or less tolerant then other religions. The reason why there are more crazies that are muslims than not I think has more to do with these;1 - Islam has not gone through the reformation struggles that you have went through. 2 - The only mostly muslim country in the world that has never been colonized is Turkey, which is also the most western oriented, secular and modern country with a muslim population. I do not think this is a coincidence as in most former colonies religion was a catalyst to overthrow the colonial power. That sort of resentment doesn't just go away overnight, especially if those same colonial powers are percieved to be also responsible for most of today's problems. As to why I think this will change is simple; communication. It used to be easier to scare people into believing the west was out to get them. That if the mighty [Saddam, Esad, Humeyni etc.] did not protect them the west would come make them all jews or christians rape their women and kill the rest. As you have pointed out from personal experience that even in recent past there are people who believed this sort of thing. The only way that the people will see that this is not true is through communication amongst the real people. I hope this will be the true accomplishment of the so colled "information age".
I don't think it is pandering to Islam so much as pandering to the multicultural postmodern ideals of many on the left. And yes, Muslims would love to convince the majority in the US that there has always been a significant Muslim presence in the US. That would benefit their cause of trying to convince people that they are all just a bunch of folks that want to just get along. While I think many Muslims do want to just get along, I think even more don't. That maybe due to the anti-western propaganda prevalent in modern Muslim society or it might just be inherent in a culture influenced by an intolerant religion. I am not enough of an expert to say conclusively one way or the other. I do know that as a modern phenomenon Anti-western propaganda goes back farther in Muslim society than anti-Muslim feeling does in the west.Don't forget that the history of western crusading was forgotten by the Muslim world until the decline and destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the growth of western influence in the Middle East. Crusading history is used for propaganda and not education in the Muslim World. I distinctly remember trying to convince a local sheik in Iraq in 2004 that we were not crusaders commissioned by the Pope to subdue Islam and force them to convert; yet that is what he was being told by Arab TV and Muslim scholars in Iraq.
I agree about your comment regarding anti-muslim feeling being pre-dated by anti-western propaganda in the muslim world. I also agree that the crusades were not an issue during the Ottoman reign, but I don't think they were forgotten. I just think "the Crusaders" were no longer an immedeate threat so it was not a big deal. I mean consider modern day Mongolia, do you consider them to be a threat now? Of course not, so Genghis Khan is just a historical figure from ages ago. But let's say in 40 years the Mongolians somehow become a superpower and bring their brand of [please insert any ideology here] to countries near and far. Than the march of the Mongols on europe wouldn't seem to be that far in the past. Of course its absurd for you or I to believe you were commissioned by the Pope for a crusade but as you earlier said stupidity and ignorance is plentiful in the world. And just to be on the safe side I'm not comparing what the US did in the ME to what Genghis Khan did all those years ago 🙂The fundamental premise I don't agree with is what you said about more muslims being hostile to the west. Admittedly the past ten years has not been one where mutual understanding was at its peak but at the end of the day muslims, christians, jews hell even jehovas witness just want to live and see their offspring prosper. I also admit the percantage of volatile individuals are much higher in the muslim countries then in the west. But this is to be expected if your standard bearer is Turkey in things like democratization, tolerance, economy etc. I believe irrespective of its name by its nature every organized religion as a rule is intolerant. Its only if the devout of that particular religon realise that its not their job to "convert every heathen" or "rid the world of the infidel" that any such religion can truly become a "religion of peace". Unfortunately I agree that Islam has not crossed that threshold in almost all places where it is practiced. But I'm still hopeful that it will. I will comment on the why later as I have a football match to go to now. 🙂
THe problem, in America at least, is that many folks don't have that grade school level of knowledge. Witness the popularity of the show Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader in the US and the number of people that go on there and are not. Read the comments on the YouTube video and you will see exactly what I am talking about. The average American is not just ignorant, they are almost willfully so. This makes them easy to persuade that something i true when even basic research will show you that it is not. This is not to say that the average European is better, they absolutely are not.
Agreed on all points but - as you pointed out in the end - this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Laymen everywhere are easy to manipulate but they are very hard to convince of something anything if it goes against their (i) prejudices, (ii) what they see with their eyes or (iii) what people they would like to believe tell them. And Islam being a "part of the American family" goes against every one of those for the average American, no? I still think it was just an exaggaration to curb both the Islamophobia that is taking root in the West and the anti-west sentiment that is taking root in what used to be "moderate" Islamic countries.
It strikes me as "blatant pandering to Islam and multiculturalism."
I tend to agree.
In order for this to be pandering would it not be a pre-condition that muslims - I presume you meant muslims by Islam - wanted to be portrayed as "always being a part of the American family"?Personally I just think its an un-important exaggaration, no one with even a grade school level of history knowledge would seriously contend that Islam was a shaping influence for the US.
But is his government illegitimate? It has represented Libya at all sorts of international bodies and the last time I checked had been recognized as such by just about every country in the world, including the US. We even have an embassy in Tripoli. Would Gaddafi be justified in kicking our diplomats out of the country in light of the Acts of War committed aginst his government?
I don't think anyone can claim illegitimacy of the Libyan government based neither on a 40 year old coup nor a 20 odd year old terrorist attack that has never been proven to be linked to him. I mean if anyone considered his government illegitimate there is one way of showing that; non-recognition. There must be something drastic to claim that a government that was considered to be legitimate last month is considered to be illegitimate this month. If he had ordered his army to kill unarmed civilians that might be considered as a point of losing legitimacy however I have seen nothing so far that suggests anything of that sort. In my opinion Bahrein's government is more illegitimate then Kaddafi's. It killed its own people and invited foreign troops into its territory all in an effort to keep an apartheid like system in place. I agree with Scout, France, the UK and the US have committed acts of war against a soverign nation and - I'm truly sorry and mean no offence but- I feel sorry for Americans for being led into such an exercise by a Commander in Chief that followed the French in this foolish exercise in futility for no real good reason (legitimate or otherwise). At least the Bush'es started wars for something, oil, strategic importance etc. You can debate whether he was morally right or legally obliged to do so or whether he went about it the right way. But this "l'operation" was a blunder far surpassing any done by Bush (either one) because even if the Americans win you don't win anything. And I realise the absurdity of the fact that Americans can't win because they have no stated goals except "protecting civilans" by shooting near them as was the case at Kaddafi's compound. I was actually hoping for an Obama victory in 08 - mostly because I was terrified of Palin almost as much as Ahmedinutjob - but now I see why my American republican friends are holding countdowns till the next elections. I just hope they stay away from Palin this time.
The fact is, I am a smoker and will admit to bias here.
So will I. Well admit to being biased, not being a smoker 🙂
What are the reasons you can oppose to what is currently happening in Libya?
I think the better question is what are the reasons for the intervention.Libya was probably the only example amongst the recent upheaval in ME where the protestors actually resorted to violance. Admittedly they were probably expecting Kaddafi to go crazy unlike Mubarek or Bin Ali but as soon as you take up arms against the legitimate government of a country at best you become a belligerent entity at worst a terrorist organisation. Thus the rhetoric regarding rotecting civilians should be met with "which civilians"? The anti-kaddafi ones with guns or the pro kaddafi ones without guns?
So essentially both you guys believe that smokers have less rights than non-smokers? Just trying to be sure where you are coming from on this.
Not really. From here it looks like you're then one that thinks smokers have more rights, or maybe the better word is privileges, then none smokers. We are asking you to refrain from doing something that - I believe - has been proven to be harmful to us. As long as I don't limit your ability to smoke away from me I'm not infringing on your rights. You on the other hand are asking us to put up with something that - I believe - has been proven to be harmful to us. So as soon as you do smoke near me you're infringing upon mine. This would not even be an issue if the consequences could be seen by the naked eye.
And smokers have no rights? ???
Of course they do, they have the right to smoke when there is no one around them. I'm 100% with skiguy on this; every individuals rights end at the point they infringe upon other people's rights and as soon as your exhale that lungful of smokey goodness you infringe upon the rights of everyone around you. If smoking was something you could do without effecting the people around you I couldn't care less but since it's not I'm all for a ban on smoking in public places. It has nothing to do with imposing my belief on smoking upon anyone and everthing to do with wanting to live a smoke free life.
Then how abut a variation on Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers method. Where you can only vote if you have demonstrated civic responsibility by military or civil voluntary service for some retarded amount of time. We will say ten years minimum to get the franchise; or a property qualification? There has to be a better way to pick both voters and representatives than just being a citizen, breathing and of age.
This was a very hot topic in Turkey after the last election. A model ( 🙂 I kid you not ) said after the government got 47% of the pop. vote that "what kind of a democracy is this? My vote is the same as a goat herder's!" I know what you're saying is very different from elitism but it is a slippery slope when you get to exclude someone or another. I agree its sometimes its frustrating and it has its faults but I still can't think of a better way. At least not yet.
Or just do like the Greeks did, term limits and every citizen serves at some point in their lives.
Wouldn't essentially the same thing be achieved by a lottery? I know I would not want to waste 2-6 years of my life on Capitol Hill. They should probably reduce their salary to barely above subsistence level and provide in-office apartments and subsidized commercial ari-fare home during recesses. They could even peg their salary to that of the military with congressman getting say PFC pay and senators getting SPC pay and no bonuses.
Wait, isn't the idea to have more able and better representation? You're almost describing conscription which, from personal experience, doesn't really bring out the best in people.I agree that you shouldn't need to be rich to be elected but you also shouldn't be forced to serve either.
Fair enough, but I'm not really agreeing with you about Iran. They have on numerous occasions stated their desire for a caliphate. And it wasn't just Ahmadinijad who said this.Also, if there is no stable government in line to replace the recently ousted governments, the Mid East could fall into the wrong hands (like al Qaeda or the Taliban). The Horn of Africa is a good example of this.
Yes but the Caliph he is referring to is not the Same Caliph. Otherwise it would be like the protestants calling for the reunification of the Holy Roman Empire under the Pope.
I don?t think the Caliphate that folks like Ahmedinajahd. Al-Qaeda, the guy in Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood call for bears any resemblance to the historical Caliphate. They are more calling for an idea, Muslim unity of you will. The concern from a western perspective is that the fall of regimes such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. opens the way for the gradual takeover by fanatics. There is a very real perception in some western countries that Turkey is an exception and the wider Muslim world is not capable of supporting democracy.I know people will point to Iraq but democracy in Iraq only survives because of massive foreign aid and troops. The other supposed democracies in the Arab world are pale imitations at best. The tribal and religious element in Arab, not Turk, but Arab society is hugely influential. I think that many non-Arabs do not understand the strength of tribalism in the Arab world. It is not an Islam only issue; it is an Islamic Arab issue. If anything, Turkey proves that Islam is not incompatible with democratic principles. It does not however, prove that Islamic Arab democracies are workable. As long as someone feels they can resort to violence to get their way then democracy is doomed to fail. Democracy requires that people work for change from within the system. to do that requires trust in the system in the first place. Arabs don't trust their governments in the first place, what makes you think they will trust them after they are installed by force. Corruption, tribalism, and mistruct are massive hurdles to overcome in establishing democracy.The most likely outcome of the current unrest I see is a mix of failed states and repressive/surface democracies. I hope I am wrong but fear I am not.
Even if religious fanatics take over a single caliphate cannot be established. The Calpihate was always supposed to be the seat that united all muslims but it didn't even succeed in an era where religion was the predominant identity of the people. Now the most likely result would be 3-4 different Caliphs would sprout one in Cairo, one in Riyad, one in Istanbul etc. and we would be at each others throats before you know it 🙂 Your second paragraph is a very very good point and this is really my biggest concern regarding the ME. The only thing that can curtail the historic tribal reflexes is the communication and education of the gen. pop. over there. Because as I see it tribalism is the most basic form of xenophobia, and the best way to combat xenophobia is communication. Libya is a very good example actually; what's going on over there is more a tribal war against a madman then a popular uprising against a madman.
Can you say Muslim Caliphate? I can. 🙂
Yeah, no kidding. :-
That is the Elephant in the corner that nobody in a position of authority wants to say out loud. I think the belief is that if they stick their heads in the sand and ignore it that it won't happen.
1- You (generally as westerners) subscribe way too much power to the notion of the Caliph and the caliphate. Altough in theory it should work to unify Sunni muslims everywhere this has never been the case, you guys as historians maybe know this even better then I. I believe The caliphate should be thought of like the papacy in medieval times; it's just another tool to influence other nations for a certain nations national interest, and even then it wasn't very successful. An example: When the Ottoman Empire entered World War I the Sultan was also the Caliph. And by virtue of this title he declared a real and "legal" Jihad against the enemies of the Caliphate. Of course the fact that when he did this he was also declaring muslims from the sub-continent of India enemies of the Caliphate but declaring Christian Germans allies. This was of course nothing more than a ploy to cause unrest amongst the muslims of India who were fighting on the sides of their colonial rulers and stem the tide of independance amongst the Arabs that was beginning to take hold.And as you all would know; it didin't work. The arabs threw their lot in with the "infidel" and some of the most blody wars the Empire fought was in the Arabian peninsula. 2- Even if it was something more than what I've described above; I really can't see any way the caliphate is coming back in any meaningful shape or form.Let's take a look at some facts:The caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Republic close to a hundred years ago. Since then as far as I know there hasn't been a significant political movement in any Sunni country to bring it back. The two strongest countries in the middle east (Iran and Turkey) are strongly against resurrecting the caliphate. Iran for secterian reasons and us for obvious reasons. I believe the mistrust for Turkey that has been growing in recent years (as I see it this is the which is the main reason for these fears of a caliphate) stems from the political party in power, and some of it is understandable. However a fairly recent survey by TESEV, a prominent Turkish think thank, showed that only 7% of Turks want to live under an Islamic state with sheria etc. When the question was asked again but with emphasis on the more gruesome aspects of sheria (stonings etc.) that figure fell to 2% percent. So the 47% that voted for the current government are not for bringing back the Caliphate. I know cause I am one of them. I'll take it one step further; I'd bet my house that the 2% percent did not vote for the current government. So who exactly is going to bring the caliphate back in spite of opposition from Iran and Turkey? Only Egypt and Pakistan are potentially strong enough to be able to do that and I just don't see it happening.I believe in the long run the uprisings will help the region. I'm not sure how they will affect the regions relationship with the west but honestly putting that concern over the local popular sentiment is one of the main reasons behind the uprisings so I don't think it should be a determining factor one way or the other.
I just want to see elephants and rhinos with Kilimanjaro as a backdrop.
Actually its impossible to see Kilimanjaro from the Serengeti, I would bet that picture you posted was taken from Arusha national park on a good day. There is about 400-500 kms from the Serengeti to Kilimanjaro and Kilimanjaro is notoriously clouded and there is also Mt. Meru somewhere in the middle.
