What is the answer to Radical Islam?

onelongsong · July 2007

mammasan wrote:

And why do we have bases in the Middle east?

To protect the Saudi government and the oil fields.

we have bases everywhere to protect our allies. this was done mostly after WWII when we had to pull the world's ass out of the fire for the second time in 26 years. we got tired of sacrificing thousands of american's lives to save people that hate us. now we keep them in line.

mammasan · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

I would agree that Iraq is teetering on a lost cause and that we truly let the golden moment slip through our hands to rebuild that country.

I think we will most likely fail in the long run in Iraq becuase of of a severe lack of American leadership and the miss-trust that has formed between the government and a lazy, pampered citenzenry that isn't informed or concerned about the well-fair for the world at large.

What we need is about an extra 20 to 30 thousand troops each from countries like England, France, Germany, Russia, China, etc... That would say to the Sunni and Shia militants that the world is tired of your bullshit, and we are bringing authority to stop the bloodshed once and for all.

No we cannot fix wounded pride, or religous differences - but we can say that there will be no more killing because of it. If we have to put troops on every street corner of every town in Iraq and confiscate every weapon down to the last sling-shot in Iraq - we can bring the rule of law to that country. It just takes the will power.

Iraq suffers from the same disease that many countries in the Middle East are embroiled in. If we can fix Iraq, then we can bring hope and the prospect of prosperity to a large corner of the world. I wish people would realize this and support the effort.

I think people realize but they don't support it because many feel that the opportunity is lost. Why keep sacrificing our troops for a goal that is practically unattainable and for a people that don't really seem to be doing their share of the work.

This new strategy of clearing and holding neighborhood by neighborhood is a good one with one exception, the Iraqi military is not holding the neighborhoods we clear. The negative elements in the country have so permeated the military that they can not even perform their most basic function. We can't do it ourselves, most other countries aren't going to help us, because of the arrogant manner in which this administration handled their objections, and the Iraqis just don't seem to care enough about a unified Iraq to put their differences aside. i mean for Christ's sake we basically had to force them to stay at work instead of taking an extended vacation while their country was fucking falling apart. To me that does not seem like a government that wants to do all that is necessary to stabilize the country.

onelongsong · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

I would agree that Iraq is teetering on a lost cause and that we truly let the golden moment slip through our hands to rebuild that country.

I think we will most likely fail in the long run in Iraq becuase of of a severe lack of American leadership and the miss-trust that has formed between the government and a lazy, pampered citenzenry that isn't informed or concerned about the well-fair for the world at large.

What we need is about an extra 20 to 30 thousand troops each from countries like England, France, Germany, Russia, China, etc... That would say to the Sunni and Shia militants that the world is tired of your bullshit, and we are bringing authority to stop the bloodshed once and for all.

No we cannot fix wounded pride, or religous differences - but we can say that there will be no more killing because of it. If we have to put troops on every street corner of every town in Iraq and confiscate every weapon down to the last sling-shot in Iraq - we can bring the rule of law to that country. It just takes the will power.

Iraq suffers from the same disease that many countries in the Middle East are embroiled in. If we can fix Iraq, then we can bring hope and the prospect of prosperity to a large corner of the world. I wish people would realize this and support the effort.

well put and well thought out.

genie · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

I'm curious what people's thoughts are.

Do you think that if the West essentially abandoned the region (left Iraq, withdrew support from Israel), the jihadist movement would die down significantly? Or, do we need to defeat the ideology some other way?

for me it seems like the problem will never go away, because terrorists are people, ordinary people who might live next to anyone of us and be a normal and then gradually or however they do get into extremism.

by going away problem won't be solved, but even by staying problem wouldn't be solved either. Eastern people's attutudes to Western people should change, because picture this in your head.....

A mother talks about Western people and how bad they are infront of her children, what do you think this child will grow up to think about all the Western people??
there are people who think the way they want to think, but there are also people who will grow up on father's & mothers words.

mammasan · July 2007

onelongsong wrote:

we have bases everywhere to protect our allies. this was done mostly after WWII when we had to pull the world's ass out of the fire for the second time in 26 years. we got tired of sacrificing thousands of american's lives to save people that hate us. now we keep them in line.

Well first off we didn't save the world's ass. It was an equal effort by several countries, as far as WW II is concerned. In WW I we basically entered the war after the outcome was pretty much decided, so we didn't do much ass saving there.

Saudi Arabia is not an allie. Saudi Arabia is a fucking liability. How can you call a country that teaches and finances the very people that kill us an allie. I understand our dependence on their oil and the necessity in order to maintain our economy and way of life. My point is that 30 years ago we saw this coming and did nothing. We knew that depending on oil from that region was going to create massive problems. We knew 30 years ago that supporting the Saudis was going to be a huge liability but at the present time, and to this day, the financial pay-offs where beyond comprehension.

Much of what is happening today could have been averted if we had only acted 30 years ago. If we had only payed attention to the warning signs instead of the dollar signs. But what do you expect when our government's policy is dictated by lobbiest and think tanks who have only their interested to serve.

Cosmo · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

Well aren't THEY attacking and killing US? There are many reasons why there aren't bombs going off in Japan and China.

One of them is the same reason American's are fighting in the streets of Baghdad and not Rhiyad. We need the Saudi's right now although they stand in stark contrast to everything we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East.

In the same way, a terrorist group like Hezbollah needs the support of their state-sponsor Iran - who needs the petro-dollars it gets from china, although they stand in stark contrast to everyting the Jihadist stand for and are trying to accomplish in the world.

Another reason is that the Chinese and Japanese have no significant historical or religious ties to the region... they don't serve as a good scapegoat like the Brits and Americans do.

...
Then, You've anwered your own question... Japan and China do not mix their economic endevours with their political ambitions. That is, Japan and China just buy the fucking oil and say, "Arigato, Senior Fahd..." and don't seek to influence their politicians and meddle in their internal affairs. And Japan and China do not automatically side with Israel on every issue and incident that crops up over there. The Chinese and Japanese at least admit that Israel makes mistakes sometimes.
If we didn't do certain things, such as meddle in their internal affairs, we would NOT be their targets. It is possible that they would focus their energy and hatred towards their own governments... who they now percieve as puppets to our best interests.

chopitdown · July 2007

Kann wrote:

It's a cliché answer but, education. Let hope and eductation flow in the region and no one will be interested in the fundamentalism point of view anymore.

You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
-- Al Capone

Cosmo · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

I would agree that Iraq is teetering on a lost cause and that we truly let the golden moment slip through our hands to rebuild that country.

I think we will most likely fail in the long run in Iraq becuase of of a severe lack of American leadership and the miss-trust that has formed between the government and a lazy, pampered citenzenry that isn't informed or concerned about the well-fair for the world at large.

What we need is about an extra 20 to 30 thousand troops each from countries like England, France, Germany, Russia, China, etc... That would say to the Sunni and Shia militants that the world is tired of your bullshit, and we are bringing authority to stop the bloodshed once and for all.

No we cannot fix wounded pride, or religous differences - but we can say that there will be no more killing because of it. If we have to put troops on every street corner of every town in Iraq and confiscate every weapon down to the last sling-shot in Iraq - we can bring the rule of law to that country. It just takes the will power.

Iraq suffers from the same disease that many countries in the Middle East are embroiled in. If we can fix Iraq, then we can bring hope and the prospect of prosperity to a large corner of the world. I wish people would realize this and support the effort.

...
That was a good plan... note, I said WAS.
We already blew it by 'Going it on our own' and not looking at other possible outcomes than the sequel to Gulf War of 1991.
And why should Russia, Germany, France and anyone else step in now? I mean, if this were Russia's gig, would you be supporting a plan to send in our military to help them out of their mess?
We bought this shit when we broke it... just as Colin Powell had warned. We own it, we need to fix it. and trying to fix it one the cheap didn't work for the past 4 years... why would it work today?
You're right.. we need more soldiers on the ground over there. Not 20 to 30 thousand... more like 120 to 130 more U.S. troops. That number should be able to provide the security for the entire country, instead of the hit and migrate mission we have tasked our military with.

callen · July 2007

all we need is time.....and technology is decreasing this time....but we need to be patience. Sing it with me......GNR..."just a little patience..."

ArmsinaV · July 2007

Well, it's a topic that interests me. I think people should do more to understand the history of Islam and how largely it affects Arab/Muslim culture. It's just as much a socio-political movement as it is a religion historically, or at least pretty close.

The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.

It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.

Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.

The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.

But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.

My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and

they dont' believe in Western democracy. So, here we are trying to force it on a country/culture that rejects it.

After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.

Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.

Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.

The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.

It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.

Edit:

Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.

gue_barium · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

Well, it's a topic that interests me. I think people should do more to understand the history of Islam and how largely it affects Arab/Muslim culture. It's just as much a socio-political movement as it is a religion historically, or at least pretty close.

Unlike, say, what other people, for example?

ArmsinaV wrote:

The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.

yee-haww.

ArmsinaV wrote:

It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.

wtf?

ArmsinaV wrote:

Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.

Lol. You're not giving any new info on warmongers, of any sect, including those on the Western front.

ArmsinaV wrote:

The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.

Bush, et al, wanted results, but so did their constintuents . And on we go.

ArmsinaV wrote:

But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.

you are overestimating a dumb idea.

ArmsinaV wrote:

My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and they dont' believe in Western democracy. So, here we are trying to force it on a country/culture that rejects it.

The goal was to make money. From us.

ArmsinaV wrote:

After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.

you're a loon.

ArmsinaV wrote:

Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.

there is no "next step".

ArmsinaV wrote:

Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.

If this is the case, then, media has won, and we're all putzes. I don't believe that.

ArmsinaV wrote:

The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.

It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.

I am a proud Caliphate Muslim. Praise Allah.

ArmsinaV wrote:

Edit:

Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.

Praise Al-Sadr!

inmytree · July 2007

I say the answer to radical islam is security, cheap food on the store shelves, cheap entertainment, booze, and good weed...

what I mean is, somehow the person must be able to shelter and feed his/her family without fear of being killed...it sounds simple, but for use and most modern countries, safety is taken for granted...

having food available, all the time, a wide variety, makes even the worst day go away...

after someone has safely made it home, after a good day of work, with a full belly...sit back and relax in front of the old boob tube...it sooths the soul....

have a drink...

and perhaps a toke...

nobody can plan on blowing themselves up if the have all that...

mammasan · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

Well, it's a topic that interests me. I think people should do more to understand the history of Islam and how largely it affects Arab/Muslim culture. It's just as much a socio-political movement as it is a religion historically, or at least pretty close.

The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.

It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.

Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.

The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.

But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.

My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and they dont' believe in Western democracy. So, here we are trying to force it on a country/culture that rejects it.

After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.

Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.

Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.

The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.

It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.

Edit:

Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.

To start off, unfortunetly, I think you are right on your assessment of Iraq. I think the problem is too far gone for us to be able to repair it.

Historically military force was the only way to defeat a caliphate, but there is no caliphate today. There is no Muslim country, save Iran, that has a somewhat modernized army that we could defeat with shear military strength. The dynamics of warfare has changed. It is no longer two large standing armies facing off on a field of battle. It is now people strapped with bombs blowing themselves up in crowded public places and we cannot fight that by using Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks. We have to rethink our stragtegy. I feel, and this is only my opinion, that the best way to stop radical Islam is to kill the roots. In this case one of those roots is Saudi Arabia.

It is true that we can't afford to do anything about Saudi Arabia because they basically have us by the balls. This didn't have to be the case though. As I ststed we knew 30 years ago that our dependence on them for oil would be a problem and we did nothing about it. Could you imagine if back then we decided to put our intellectual might towards creating a fuel source, arenewable fuel source, where we would be today. We would be able to cut off Saudi Arabia. No longer needing them for oil. They would no longer be the receipiants on billions of dollars of oil revenue which they would use to fund extremism. Even knowing this we still don't do enough to cut the ties with the Saudis simply because too many powerfull people are making too much money off of them. Untill that ATM runs dry, which will coincide with the oil wells running dry, our government will do nothing.

Iran is another country that if noone buys their oil and natural gas they will become a non threat. To me this is the only solution to curbing radical islam. Yes the ideology will still exist but it's ability to operate beyond it's own borders will be severly diminshed. It will no longer be the global threat that it is today.

NCfan · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

Well, it's a topic that interests me. I think people should do more to understand the history of Islam and how largely it affects Arab/Muslim culture. It's just as much a socio-political movement as it is a religion historically, or at least pretty close.

The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.

It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.

Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.

The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.

But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.

My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and they dont' believe in Western democracy. So, here we are trying to force it on a country/culture that rejects it.

After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.

Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.

Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.

The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.

It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.

Edit:

Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.

I think there has been a false stutus quo when it comes to Muslims and Democracy, and even Democracy itself.

First - Too many people equate Democracy with Nike's and McDonalds, but that is simply not the case. Democracy is simply the ability for a group of people to decide their own future through voting and establishing institutions that help self-govern. That's all it is folks! Democracy allows for the formation of some type of consitituion and "bill of rights" that protect people from their government and gives them rights that no one can take away.

Look at Japan and South Korea, they are both democracies yet they are still able to hold on to many traditional aspects of their culture. They do not worship celebrities and obsess over body image, wealth, sex, etc. like Americans do. If a culture does not want a Wal-mart on every corner they are free to spend their money elsewhere. If they do choose to support these types of businesses, then whose to blame - the system or the culture???

Second - How is it that people think "Muslims" or "Arabs" do not want Democracy??? That idea is absurd to me. EVERYBODY wants democracy people. That is like saying people don't want free speech or freedom of religion. There are literaly millions of Muslims around the world who have assimilated and prospered in democratic nations.

Too many people look at Iraq, see a mess and then have a knee-jerk reaction that we are "forcing" democracy on a people that "don't want it". The reality is that the situation is so complex and so fucked up that it is unfair to make such a statement.

Take the Muslim whose kid was killed by a US soldier, or simply killed in the middle of a fireright between US soldiers and others. Suppose they are upset and oppose the US occupation. How can you honestly say that they don't want democracy?

Take the Muslim who witnessed the abandoment of Iraq by the US in 1991 and therefore doesn't trust us. How can you honestly say they don't want democracy?

Take the Muslim who is scared to support the US becuase for past 4 years we came to his neighborhood, got in a couple gun battles and then left. Many Iraqi's are scared to support a side right now becuase they fear retribution if their side loses. And right now it is too early to tell who the hell is going to win. And with most of our senior leadership in congress already trying to leave, that sure doesn't bode well for our side. How can you say they don't want decmocracy?

There are dozens and dozens of different reasons that people in Iraq are opposed to the US, and many MANY of them have absolutly nothing to do with not wanting a democratic government - a concept that is litteraly lost on many as they are ignorant to the prosperity and freedom it can bring to their lives.

With over 70% of the country facing down threats from various groups to go to the polls 3 times already in Iraq, isn't it a bit too soon to say that Muslims or Iraqi's or Arabs refuse the democratic process?

Can people responsibly make the claim that the two are just not compatible???

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

Kann wrote:

It's a cliché answer but, education. Let hope and eductation flow in the region and no one will be interested in the fundamentalism point of view anymore.

I would have to agree. Anyone that allows their religion to consume them to the point of committing murder DEFINITELY did not continue on with their education far enough. This includes population on both sides of the Atlantic.

Talk about the mentally fragile. Actually it's fucking pathetic.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

The US abandoned Afghanistan (Iraq) after ousting Russia by secretly training and arming the local mujahaideen "freedom" fighters. This gave rise to the Taliban btw...

Should the US now duck and run and repeat this process again to create Taliba part 2 bigger badder stronger?

They say you can always judge a man by how he does business.

Why must the US always meddle and fuck with things instead of just doing business?

Cosmo · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

I think there has been a false stutus quo when it comes to Muslims and Democracy, and even Democracy itself.

First - Too many people equate Democracy with Nike's and McDonalds, but that is simply not the case. Democracy is simply the ability for a group of people to decide their own future through voting and establishing institutions that help self-govern. That's all it is folks! Democracy allows for the formation of some type of consitituion and "bill of rights" that protect people from their government and gives them rights that no one can take away.

Look at Japan and South Korea, they are both democracies yet they are still able to hold on to many traditional aspects of their culture. They do not worship celebrities and obsess over body image, wealth, sex, etc. like Americans do. If a culture does not want a Wal-mart on every corner they are free to spend their money elsewhere. If they do choose to support these types of businesses, then whose to blame - the system or the culture???

Second - How is it that people think "Muslims" or "Arabs" do not want Democracy??? That idea is absurd to me. EVERYBODY wants democracy people. That is like saying people don't want free speech or freedom of religion. There are literaly millions of Muslims around the world who have assimilated and prospered in democratic nations.

Too many people look at Iraq, see a mess and then have a knee-jerk reaction that we are "forcing" democracy on a people that "don't want it". The reality is that the situation is so complex and so fucked up that it is unfair to make such a statement.

Take the Muslim whose kid was killed by a US soldier, or simply killed in the middle of a fireright between US soldiers and others. Suppose they are upset and oppose the US occupation. How can you honestly say that they don't want democracy?

Take the Muslim who witnessed the abandoment of Iraq by the US in 1991 and therefore doesn't trust us. How can you honestly say they don't want democracy?

Take the Muslim who is scared to support the US becuase for past 4 years we came to his neighborhood, got in a couple gun battles and then left. Many Iraqi's are scared to support a side right now becuase they fear retribution if their side loses. And right now it is too early to tell who the hell is going to win. And with most of our senior leadership in congress already trying to leave, that sure doesn't bode well for our side. How can you say they don't want decmocracy?

There are dozens and dozens of different reasons that people in Iraq are opposed to the US, and many MANY of them have absolutly nothing to do with not wanting a democratic government - a concept that is litteraly lost on many as they are ignorant to the prosperity and freedom it can bring to their lives.

With over 70% of the country facing down threats from various groups to go to the polls 3 times already in Iraq, isn't it a bit too soon to say that Muslims or Iraqi's or Arabs refuse the democratic process?

Can people responsibly make the claim that the two are just not compatible???

...
Think about what you have just stated...
Now... think about an Arab Country where the vast majority believe Israel is evil and does not belong where they are.
Give them the power to elect leaders by themselves... guess who they will vote for. And look at the election results in Iraq. The majority of people are Shi'ites. guess who's in charge. There is a reason why Muqtada Al Sadr wields influence over there... he has a ton of supporters. There is a likely possibility that Al Sadr (or like minded religious fundamentalist) will rise to power in Iraq through the Democratic process we have enabled. A Shi'ite controlled power who aligns themselves with the other Shi'ites in the region... Iran. Maybe you've forgotten that these are the SAME SHI'ITES that gave us Ayatollah Khomeini and Hezbollah.
Yeah... Democracy as a Principle is a good thing. In practice, the "Good" depends upon which side of the fence you are on... America or Iran.

PJSkier · July 2007

Why not get some insight on this matter from a former participant?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

mammasan · July 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
Think about what you have just stated...
Now... think about an Arab Country where the vast majority believe Israel is evil and does not belong where they are.
Give them the power to elect leaders by themselves... guess who they will vote for. And look at the election results in Iraq. The majority of people are Shi'ites. guess who's in charge. There is a reason why Muqtada Al Sadr wields influence over there... he has a ton of supporters. There is a likely possibility that Al Sadr (or like minded religious fundamentalist) will rise to power in Iraq through the Democratic process we have enabled. A Shi'ite controlled power who aligns themselves with the other Shi'ites in the region... Iran. Maybe you've forgotten that these are the SAME SHI'ITES that gave us Ayatollah Khomeini and Hezbollah.
Yeah... Democracy as a Principle is a good thing. In practice, the "Good" depends upon which side of the fence you are on... America or Iran.

Well said, but this problem isn't only in Iraq and Iran, Look at Palestine where Hamas won the majority in their last elections. Look at Lebenan where Hezbollah's political faction is gaining power in that government. Look at Egypt where the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining strength. All of these parties have steadily grown in size and power, within their respective governments, through the democratic process.

Ahnimus · July 2007

Everyone needs to accept total determinism.

What is the answer to Radical Islam?

Comments

Categories