Muslim "Moderates"

Cosmo

jlew24asu wrote:

that has never been the one and only reason for us being anywhere. secondly, its not such a bad side effect of our involvement. freedom isnt such a bad thing.

...
Yeah.. but, "Spreading Democracy" is a fucking lame excuse. It's kind of like saying the good side effect about taking a drug to deal with your depression is your fingernails are nice and shiny... the bad side effect is your dick turns black and brittle and snaps off in your hand during a painful, burning urination in a filthy Texaco gas station off of I-5 near Stockton.

jlew24asu

Cosmo wrote:

...
Yeah.. but, "Spreading Democracy" is a fucking lame excuse. It's kind of like saying the good side effect about taking a drug to deal with your depression is your fingernails are nice and shiny... the bad side effect is your dick turns black and brittle and snaps off in your hand during a painful, burning urination in a filthy Texaco gas station off of I-5 near Stockton.

that happened to you too? that was a bad day

Cosmo

jlew24asu wrote:

that happened to you too? that was a bad day

...
If it ever does... I'm telling you... that bad side effect definately would trump the not so bad side effect.
...
And not thanx... I'll stick with staying depressed.

OutOfBreath

NCfan wrote:

You say:
This history, territorial and power interests, elites controlling all the wealth, war and rampant poverty does a hell of better job explaining this part of the world rather than "Well, they're muslims and hence violent bastards, see how they suck".


You're taking my argument out of context. It's pretty much the same thing you acuse me of - taking Islam out of context.

I don't believe that just becuase somebody is a Muslim, that they must be violent. I don't think Muslims suck either.

I didn't say you say that, but that's consistently the tone of articles you link on the subject. My argument is with those authors, really.

But I do beleive that Islamic culture as a whole in the Middle East prevents progress. Sure, there are fringe zealots who act out when there is no law enforcement. But there are a shit load of average citizens all across the Middle East that want to treat women like second class human beings. I'm not saying they want to cut their heads off becuase they don't wear a burka. But they do want them to wear it none-the-less.

There's not really much difference between that and having particular dress codes and behaviour demands for women. You dont have to go back that many decades to find these things in the west too. Maybe not the burka, but controlling women is at the centre of all of our monotheistic religions traditionally. Bad conditions also enhance fundamentalist and radical interpretations of any religion.

That said, it's not islamic culture that prevents progress, but traditional arab patriarchism and tribalism can certainly provide obstacles.

It is this kind of strict, religious culture that is coliding with the forces of globalization. Most of these countries are 30, 40, 50 years behind Western or Asian nations in terms of health care, education, access to information, human rights... you name it!

And you went in and crushed the country that was perhaps doing the best among them in health care and education. But yes, this region has been struggling for some time now. But that's not unique to the muslim of the middle east. Most former colony places have these problems. What about sub-Saharan Africa for instance?

The power politics you talk about would not be possible without the consent of the people, without a nod from society. We're not talking about suppresion on the level of a North Korea or a Stalinist Russia. Look at a nation like Afghanistan.

I think if people wanted to change their politics, their culture, then they would.

And a quick look at history shows that it's not that easy. No, the suppression is not at North Korean levels, but neither is any real dissent allowed in any of those countries. Any movement that at all threatens the ruling elite, has been crushed quickly. Only place where people have been allowed to gather is at the mosques, which explains the religious tone of those calling for change. Many of the ruling elites down there also have so much oil-money they can buy themselves goodwill among the populace that way (and buying weapons).

I dont think people down there want to be western all of a sudden, nor should we demand that. But I do think blaming the religion is going the wrong way, as history do show that poverty and need brings out fundamentalist and heavy traditionalist interpretations of the religion. You dont have shit, but you can take pride in having your "pure" faith.

Also, why would Bush wage a war to create a democracy in Iraq if that would only destroy the status quo of "Power Politics" you talk about. The authoritarian elites you talk about are threatened by the war in Iraq, not helped. Please explain that.

Saddam didn't play ball anymore, hence he went from ally to problem. The politics there is that he was inconvenient enough for the US elite to take action. How is that anything but power politics? That's my point. Power politics in no way implies status quo, but it implies that the rulers down there "play ball" with one or several other big countries. If not, face the consequences.

I dont see how the elites are anything but helped down there. They can now blame america for more stuff, and their most problematic zealots go to Iraq to fight instead of in their respective countries. I suspect many of them have gotten some sweet deals from the US too, in order to help out in many small ways. Iraq does nothing to threaten them. What would threaten them is if Iraq happened because of internal revolt, and the west had stayed out of it. Then it might spread. As it is, Iraq was invaded by the US, which causes resentment in large parts of the populations also in neighbouring countries. The Iraqi Saddam elite was destroyed (or at least that's what we're led to believe. I think several of those have been silently been re-instated many places), but it has done nothing to harm the neighbouring elites.

But generally, I wouldn't disagree as much if you switched "islamic culture" for "arab culture". I still dont condone that holier-than-thouism towards different cultures, but I would have far less of a problem with it.

Peace
Dan

even flow?

I get a chuckle out of the stories you post about the bad muslims in the world. It is as if you think that the rest of us don't know they exist. It is like the people on here from the states distancing themselves from what their government does in their name. The majority of those people seem to outweigh the people who seem to agree and don't like to sign up in advance of the war. You know.

Anyway if this is what the writer likes to believe all the power to him/her. I will take satisfaction in the fact that I walk everyday at lunch with a Muslim and work with many more who seem to fit right in with the Cdn way.

Open

NCfan wrote:

That's all fine by me, but a few points.

1. It appears you chalk a lot of the voilence and problems in the Middle East to politics. I have to disagree here. Yes, politics are certainly in play - but religion is very much intertwined. In fact, I would argue that Middle Eastern politics can't evolve due to Islam. Take Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine for example.

Your judging the middle east by what you see in the news not by reality. Not everybody there is a psycho neo-con. THere are millions of people who get by everyday just like the average citizen here. It would be like judging the states by Klan rallies that still take place. An organization of psychos who use fear and religion to justify their actions.

You have to look at the whole picture, you cant just listen to every 15th word of a song and make a judgement based on what you hear.

You can replace the word islam above with the word religion and things wouldnt change.

sweetpotato

i've heard this argument before, that there are no true "moderates" in the muslim world, that the religion itself calls for the destruction of infidels, etc. in fact, sam harris' book The End of Faith is practically based on this assumption.

my problem with this argument is, if the current terrorist activity is indicative of the overall historical beliefs of most muslims, why is it relatively new? wouldn't there be thousands of years in the of history of islam of terrorism? aside from the normal wars, etc, that have been fought in the name of religion (christianity being one of the biggest perpetrators, btw), have there been times in history when "terrorists" were almost exclusively muslims? if i'm missing something, please educate me.

sweetpotato

a whole week has gone by (well, 5 days...) and NO ONE can answer me?