Where the West is wrong

[Devadatta]

A lot of what's missing in the public discourse over terrorism are discussions on what precisely is the nature of the grievances in the Arab or Muslim world that Al Qaeda and other extremists exploit.

As well, there is considerable support in parts of the Muslim world for jihad in the general, non-terrorist sense, of struggle against Western culture. There are 10,000 madrassas in Pakistan, for example, set up precisely to encourage a radically non-Western if not anti-Western point of view. The continuing viability of the Taliban is testament to this - and testament to the tacit if not outright support of parts of the Pakistan security forces. This is the same Taliban who gave shelter to Osama Bin Laden.

Unfortunately, we're almost censored in the West - I speak from North America - from even acknowledging there are such grievances, for fear of "justifying terrorism". I think everyone is ill served by this self-imposed censorship. We all need to know more.

So here I'm inviting all Muslim members of the CR community to address this question, Where the West is wrong, from whatever concrete situation you happen to be in, whether in KSA or London, Pakistan, Iran or the U.S.A.

And don't be afraid to offend.

Peace.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by thipps

No, i dont. Maybe because you missed where i mentioned "Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, considered a high authority for the world’s one billion Sunni Muslims, has repeatedly condemned terrorism in all its forms.".

Thank you. Correction noted.

Originally Posted by thipps

Let me add that earlier this year, a leading Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudeis told pilgrims to Makkah that “faith does not mean killing Muslims or non-Muslims living among us. It does not mean shedding blood, terrorizing or sending body parts flying.”

Excellent.

Originally Posted by thipps

I agree with Yaqinud Din. A few nut-heads blowing themselves up makes for better news than the saudis issuing rulings against terrorism. Thats why you think muslims are not doing enough. The thing is who's listening? Some fool comes on the television and (the news-caster having claimed the speaker being an expert and everyone obviously believing so) says 'Muslims arent doing enough'... people will believe it.

Well, I agree up to a point. There's a saying in the news business: if it bleeds, it leads. Blowing up people in that context makes such a huge impact that it is indeed difficult for anything less dramatic to attract attention. I mean, that's why they blow up people in the first place. That has to be frustrating. But I don't base my current opinions on those of talking airheads on TV. At the same time, I'm not nearly as informed as I need to be, so I'm open to your persuasion. But let's carry on.

Originally Posted by thipps

Firstly, stop using the word "jihadis" as if it is synonymous with terrorists.

Point taken. I guess the difficulty is that from my end it's hard to distinguish between the different applications of the term. Of the 10,000 madrassas funded by the Saudi government in Pakistan, only a very small proportion promote violence against the West; yet all these schools preach a form of jihad (struggle) against the West, in the culture sense. The applications of jihad appear to be rather fluid, and it's difficult from my perspective to sort them out.

Again, from this end I see that the Taliban, who harboured Al Qaeda, is alive and well, partly through the support of Pakistan security forces, and a significant level of support they still enjoy among sections of the Pakistan population. The lines are simply not clear to me between justified opposition to the West, its policies and culture, and violent action against the west, up to and including the virus of terrorism.

Originally Posted by thipps

The word terrorism came into wide usage only a few decades ago. One of the unfortunate results of this new terminology is that it limits the definition of terrorism to that perpetrated by small groups or individuals. Terrorism spans the entire world & manifests itself in various forms... Likewise, “carpet bombing” of entire cities, & using the weapon of sanctions that starve tens of thousands of children to death, is also an act of terrorism..

We're in absolute accord on this. The idea of a "war on terror" has always driven me up the wall. First of all, by definition you can't fight a war against a tactic, so it's an incoherent concept from the getgo. More seriously, it grievously distracts from really matters: the underlying causes & conditions that led to groups like Al Qaeda and gave rise to these atrocities in the first place. It puts us at several removes from reality, and it's reality we all need to return to.

As far as the idea of state terrorism, which you mention here, Noam Chomsky (for all his limitations) has rendered tireless service in pointing out the moral blindness in the West that allows so many of us to be unconscious of the carnage inflicted on "the other side", while being acutely aware of our own losses. I think of the Vietnam War. It's tragic that over 58,000 American soldiers were killed, and Americans are acutely away of that total. Much less often mentioned is the number of Vietnamese killed: one credible estimate has 1,000,000 soldiers and 4,000,000 civilians. And that's just Vietnam - never mind the carnage triggered in the rest of Southeast Asia during that period. But what's most disturbing, in my view, is the fact that the estimates can be so widely divergent. In some cases we're told we can only know the number within a half million or so. How do we "lose" a half million people? A more recent example of this attitude was the Pentagon's refusal to list civilian casualties in the Iraq invasion. I find this sickening and an insult to human dignity.

So, yes, I'm with you in denouncing all terrorism and every disregard for human life, from whatever quarter it comes.

Originally Posted by thipps

Secondly, i feel that either you are confused or you just put the blame for all these terrorist acts on Muslims worldwide when you said "It’s based on the simple observation that a virus originating from Muslim countries". Nothing could be further from the truth as we have been trying to tell people around the world that these are individual acts not sanctioned by Islam. it seems it is falling on deaf ears. you admit that "American money, Western money" has stirred the pot... The reality is that you seem not to understand that the latter made the pot and put the fire under it as well. As you sow, so shall you reap. You seem obsessed with Bin laden. who do you think trained and armed him?

Here again, I can agree with you up to a point. As you note, I've already mentioned Western involvement. The political back-story on this reaches across the world, and includes major factors like U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

But with all respect, once again you're evading responsibility form your end of things, and again slipping into "public relations". It's not a question of "Islam" sanctioning anything; as Muslims often point out there is no Pope in Islam to effect such a sanction. But the reality is there:

-- Al Qaeda and all the terrorists groups we're talking about use Islam to justify their actions
-- Much of the ideological background for Al Qaeda it's said derives from the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood, original to Egypt, a Muslim country
-- 15 of the 19 highjackers at 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country
-- Charities in Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country, have been know to channel money to terrorists organizations
-- Saudi Arabia has funded thousands of madrassas in among other places Pakistan, and some of these madrassas have been known to encourage violence against the West
-- The Taliban gave shelter to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, a Muslim country
-- The Taliban still enjoys support from both official and non-official sources in Pakistan, a Muslim country

I could go on, and I apologize if it sounds like a rant, but I'm only trying to focus once again on reality. Leaving aside all the past and present culpabilities of the West, how is this not fundamentally a Muslim problem? How can anyone except Muslims deal with this exploitation of their faith, which can only lead to the long-term detriment of Muslims everywhere?

Originally Posted by thipps

You wont find me apologizing for the actions of a few nut-heads either.

I would never ask you to. What I would ask you to do, to the extent it's within your power, is to hunt these nut-heads down and expel them from your midst. And more importantly, I'd ask you to eradicate their idiotic ideology from the body of Islam altogether.

Originally Posted by thipps

And lets not insult the intelligence of people by thinking and making others think that these things are done because "they hate our way of life. they hate freedom..." bla bla bla. I've heard it enough times from Bush/Blair and Co. On american radio shows etc. I seriously wonder who is foolish enough to believe what these people are saying.

Again, complete agreement. That drives me up the wall too. It's an extension of the "war on terror" inanity; it just gets in the way of any thought process that could lead to understanding what on Earth is going on. You know, it started immediately after 9/11, especially on this side of the pond. To explore in any way the concrete background of these acts was to be a "moral relativist" and was to somehow justify terrorism. I think this has had a really damaging political effect. If it continues, it can only lead to more disasters & more war. Again, my greatest fear is not the immediate threat of attack but a continuing downward spiral of terrorist attack & military response. (Incidentally, my second gut response to 9/11, after the initial horror & anger, was terrible trepidation at what might be a disastrously violent response on the part of the U.S. At this juncture, the best thing I can say is that the response could easily have been worse.)

Originally Posted by thipps

Everyone should condemn terrorists who kill innocents. And similarly, we should surely condemn leaders of the international community for allowing millions of Palestinians to be deprived of their land, freedom & rights for more than half-a-century;for ultimately condoning the illegal invasion of Iraq, which we all know was waged on a succession of false pretexts;the 500,000 Iraqi children who lost their lives due to US-led sanctions on their country, a loss that was termed by a former US Secretary of State as being “worth it”. thier foriegn policies are geared in the wrong direction..

I can't disagree.

Originally Posted by thipps

As far as I can see, if the West were to put its own house in order, the terrorists would either fade away or be completely & utterly isolated so that they would choke to death.

Originally Posted by thipps

Hope that was honest enough for you.

Yes, as I've suggested as well, the West desperately needs to move off its self-righteous posturing, seriously come to grips with the facts on the ground, and decisively transform its thinking on foreign policy.

But I must also maintain that the Muslim side of the equation also desperately needs to put its own house in order. For the reasons I've already advanced Al Qaeda and its friends is a more intimate problem for Muslims than for any other culture. For you the biggest danger is to the nature of Islam itself. How do you insulate its deeper principles from the abuse it's currently undergoing? As well, while I more than suspect George Bush of hypocrisy when he talks democracy, the plain fact is that the Muslim world does need institutional reform, if not at the level of religion, than certainly at the level of the various governments.

So in a way we're back where we started. You've made some excellent points about the culpability of the West, while conceding no responsibility from the side of the Muslim world, other than having a few "nut-heads". You've held to your role as defender of your culture and your way of life. And again I respect your honourable intentions.

However, since we so largely agree on the faults of the West, we may one day also agree, a least a little bit, on the faults of the Muslim world.

If that doesn't come to pass, and you feel you cannot, out of a sense of loyalty, concede any of the points I've made, I will naturally honour your feelings on this topic.

In any case, I really appreciate your frank, spirited and eloquent replies. And however little this conversation may mean in the larger scheme, I think it's been a good thing in itself.

Cheers to you & yours.

[Quahom1]

Unfortunately that presents a bias in and of it self by excluding non Muslims from partaking in this discussion, especially when addressing faults by the "west".

Just a thought.

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Unfortunately that presents a bias in and of it self by excluding non Muslims from partaking in this discussion, especially when addressing faults by the "west".

Hi Q.

Well, you're not wrong there. My impression from these forums is that Muslims in general don't feel that Western media gives them a fair break, especially in terms of airing their just grievances. So this was my clumsy attempt to encourage Muslim members of CR to speak directly & bluntly.

As for the "West", as well as the "Muslim World", these mysterious entities do unfortuantely exist - let's all look forward to the day when we we inhabit the same world.

But point taken. As official thread-meister I hearby open it up to all persuasions!

Cheers.

[InLove]

Hello--Salaam/Peace to All Here--

Is it just me, or is there some dialogue missing in this thread? Was it moved from another board? Guess I could look around for myself, but for the sake of context, maybe we need some reference here to the thread (or threads) where the original quotes may be found? Interesting topic, stimulating discussion, but the reader is left wondering about the original comments that resulted in these replies. I am kind of a hound when it comes to documentation. On the other hand, if these quotes were posted here by permission, that is a different deal altogether--in that case, just say so.

Hope you understand my concern?

InPeace,
InLove

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hello--Salaam/Peace to All Here--

Is it just me, or is there some dialogue missing in this thread? Was it moved from another board? Guess I could look around for myself, but for the sake of context, maybe we need some reference here to the thread (or threads) where the original quotes may be found? Interesting topic, stimulating discussion, but the reader is left wondering about the original comments that resulted in these replies. I am kind of a hound when it comes to documentation. On the other hand, if these quotes were posted here by permission, that is a different deal altogether--in that case, just say so.

Hope you understand my concern?

InPeace,
InLove

Hi In love. You're right. Should have mentioned this at the top. The exchange between Yaqinud and I is a continuation from "Fatwas and Osama Bid Laden" in the Islam section. I moved it here because we're pretty definitively in the realm of politics; also, I want to call attention to this new thread.

All the best.

[InLove]

Thanks, Devadatta--this clears up a lot. Good idea that you mention it on the other thread as well.

Hope this did not detract too much from the discussion.

InPeace,
InLove

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by InLove

Thanks, Devadatta--this clears up a lot. Good idea that you mention it on the other thread as well.

Hope this did not detract too much from the discussion.

Oops! My exchange above was with Thipps, not Yaqinud.

And no detraction intended, no detraction taken.

[Faithfulservant]

And don't be afraid to offend.

Intelligent discourse does not have to be offensive

you can state your feelings and beliefs without offending other people.

[Vajradhara]

Devadatta,


when you say "west" what are you actually meaning?

from my point of view, Saudi Arabia is "the west" as much as Britian and America are.

of course, i tend to use India as the dividing line between "east" and "west".

i hear that, if you go east long enough, you will wind up where you started... fancy that

metta,

~v

[Kaspar]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i hear that, if you go east long enough, you will wind up where you started... fancy that

metta,

~v

so does that mean If you travel fast enough you can enjoy an everlasting sunset?

[Curios Mike]

I think and this may already have been stated that their are far more greater powers behind this....Jihad,or crusade depending on which extremist group you look at. One question i have If Ben ladin was behind 9-11 does he really represent Islam as a whole or just a minute fraction. And second How do we know Pres Bush is actually a Christian? Or even representing Christ! I'm not saying we shouldnt defend ourselves, but again I mention I think their are greater powers at work here.

Bush like pretty much the rest of our own presidents in the U.S. always claim to be Christian. But if you look at the histories even from Christian web sights(that are not biest) their lives neither reflected Christ or his teachings. They would praise him for votes. (Dont believe me do a google search on founding fathers of the U.S. and religion) Granted their are a few aithiest sites, but what nailed me was also a few Christian sites as well. Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State

Anyways another search you may want to do is (operation norwoods) Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962 If you read this it sounds very familier to what has happend. I'm not saying this is what happened, but It throws some doubts in my head. Especially when you consider the globalistic veiws Bush and the other pres hopefulls have. Not to mention this new Very chip... Which is legalized by our own FDA. You also have Nafta, Cafta, the Euro, European constitution, and possibly in the near future North american curreny or A world currency. Add this to Terrorist attacks weather by Islamic extremist or another entity, makes for a good excuse for a police state... I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Intelligent discourse does not have to be offensive

you can state your feelings and beliefs without offending other people.

I certainly agree with you there. But there is the matter of perception. It's very possible to offend while still offering intelligent discourse, if the person you talking to for whatever reason perceives offense.

I was only making the point that I think a lot us fall prey to self-censorship, which in the end doesn't advance the dialogue. So I was certainly encouraging intelligent discourse, but also direct discourse, without fear of citing real facts on the ground.

All the best.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

a good excuse for a police state... I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Bit of a contradiction there I feel.

But that's not what I wanted to say.

Devadatta, I think this is the best thread Ive seen anyone come up with for a long time. Why? What is the reason for these terrorist attacks? What do the terrorists hope to achieve?

I know that now it's all blamed on the war in Iraq, but that's just recent, there was terrorism by Muslim extremists before Iraq and I really do not know what it was all about. (in fact it could be argued that the Iraq war is the direct result of terrorism)

Thipps has made some excellent points about the way the west has acted. He says that the Bush'n'Blair line, "They hate our way of life, they hate our freedom" is way off target. Laugh if you will, but I never questioned it until I read this thread! Simply because I have never been offered any other explanation.

As for the sanctions killing 500,000 children, of course, nothing is "worth it" but I think Saddam could have gone a long way towards feeding them if he had spent a bit less money on Palaces, Chemical weapons and gold plated AK47's (I saw one on the news).

So as I see it, the western powers saw that trade sanctions were hurting the people of Iraq rather than it's leadership and so they went in and removed him from power. I think that was a good thing. And now, all the coalition forces want to do is go home, I am certain of it, but they cant because suicide bombers keep blowing up stuff (and people) and setting back the whole democratic process. We cannot just leave now, with Iraq in such a mess! We caused the mess and we must clean it up before we go. So again, I ask, why these attacks in Iraq? Why kidnap and behead charity workers and engineers who are rebuilding Iraq? Why bomb troops who would leave of their own accord if you just wait and watch? It makes no sense.

I hope someone can explain it to me.

Forever
Awaiting The Fifth

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Devadatta,


when you say "west" what are you actually meaning?

from my point of view, Saudi Arabia is "the west" as much as Britian and America are.

of course, i tend to use India as the dividing line between "east" and "west".

i hear that, if you go east long enough, you will wind up where you started... fancy that

Of course I agree. Ultimately, these are metaphysical and in no sense real entities. But like so many metaphysical entities in human affairs they have real and easily observable effects. Most of us act instinctively out of these magical kingdoms, as any objective review of posts even at CR will clearly show.

So I guess you'll need some of your good old fashioned Buddhist suspension of disbelief to play this game.