Where the West is wrong

[capthowdy]

You're a coastguard right on, my uncle is the coastguard represenative for homeland security, or at least he was, James Pitts, but I agree with you to a point. I'm not saying don't fight the war, just do it for the right reasons and don't replace one dictatorship with one masked by freedom, my point is let the iraqis choose there own type freedom let's not force our concept of freedom on them.

 

[Quahom1]

You're a coastguard right on, my uncle is the coastguard represenative for homeland security, or at least he was, James Pitts, but I agree with you to a point. I'm not saying don't fight the war, just do it for the right reasons and don't replace one dictatorship with one masked by freedom, my point is let the iraqis choose there own type freedom let's not force our concept of freedom on them.

Point taken and agreed.

I know your uncle by name...

v/r

Q

 

[capthowdy]

You know him by name, right on. It's always good to meet a nice person, my hat is off to you.

 

[Vajradhara]

i still don't know what the term "the west" is actually meant to indicate.


conversely, i hear that, in the Muslim view, beings that live in Europe and America are called "orientalists" when they study or critique Islam.

naturally, i find this term to be quite confusing and ultimately, non-communicative.

metta,

~v

 

[Devadatta]

i still don't know what the term "the west" is actually meant to indicate.


conversely, i hear that, in the Muslim view, beings that live in Europe and America are called "orientalists" when they study or critique Islam.

naturally, i find this term to be quite confusing and ultimately, non-communicative.

metta,

~v

Well, again we're dealing with perception, but perception that lies at the basis of a lot of thinking.

And of course it's tricky. As a Buddhist I'm sure you're up on phenomena like optical illusions, figure & ground, etc. Looked at in one way Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, etc. are all quite distinct countries; a slight shift in perspective and it's all one culture. I mean take a look at an average city dweller in New York, London, Madrid, Paris, and the trained eye will notice differences in style, but any outsider will see people dressing more or less the same, listening to the same music, eating the same fast food, having very similar views on what constututes worthwhile goals, what the word "society" means, and so on.

So again I agree that it's easy to deconstruct these umbrella terms of perception, and that this is the ultimate goal, but I also think there's no doubt that the minds of most of us are very much conditioned by these terms. I don't think there's any shortcut to dealing with their very real influence.

That said, I appreciate your raising the point again. We do well to bear in mind the provisional nature of these terms from the beginning, and only apply them when necessary.

Being specific about our own contexts may help. I'm Canadian, which means I'm a stick in the mud when it comes to all extreme views & a natural for compromise and the middle way in most things. It also means I know more about American politics than my own, and can sometimes slip into the sanctimonious of the mere observer. We Canadians are in no way morally superior than anyone else - we're just not in the position to cause much damage.

All the best.

 

[Curios Mike]

I'm not at all a conspiracy buff. I think the biggest conspiracies, the ones that really matter, are in plain sight. So I leave this line to others who share your interests.

Well I'm not really a conspiracy buff neither(more so now then I used to be), but more of a prophetic buff. If it has something to do with Prophecies and they appear to be coming true, especially when they are in plain sight. Like the veri chip. When I first heardof it I thought it was just a conspiracy theory but when the FDA approved of it.... Kinda cought my attention. But anyways back on topic.

I still pose the questions : Does Bush or Ben ladin actually represent their confessed relgions. And if they even appear that they do, how do we know they are not just using religion as a cover to gain support from the majority of their people?

 

[capthowdy]

I still pose the questions : Does Bush or Ben ladin actually represent their confessed relgions. And if they even appear that they do, how do we know they are not just using religion as a cover to gain support from the majority of their people?

Who says they aren't using religion as an exscuse? The real question is what can be done?




phrase of the day: "power corrupts, the most feeble minds blinded by their own glory" - P.R.

 

[Devadatta]

I'm sorry, the west did nothing wrong. They approached the "governments" of the area in the east and proposed a business transaction. That is called capitalism and good business. They secured deals with the eastern governments for lucrative assets, offered to help develop those assests, then negotiated a price and contractual agreements with said eastern governments, to make mutual proffits.

So far very legal and I suspect moral. Now, the West prosperred because of this contractual agreement, and because the west "spreads the wealth around" in order to maintain a profit margine. The governments of the east did not follow suit. Let me re-emphasise the governments of the east did not follow suit.
The masses were kept ignorant, the moneys and profits were not spread out, religion clashed with capitalism and that was just fine for the powers that be. They kept the money and became rich, while their respective peoples remained not so rich.

Only when the people figured out they were being taken for a ride, the governments blamed the west for the people of the east's plight. In the mean time, it was not the west's job to notify the people that they were being screwed by their own government...that would be interferring with a nation. (here I think the US screwed up, because as a Biblical nation, we are supposed to be our brother's keeper).

So, Corporations and Governments of the west are making money, as well as those in power in the east, while the masses suffer. Now you have a rebellion brewing. Throw in a radical perspective of religion plus the historical memories of being taken advantage of, or losing, combined with young people un-able to get a simple job that would decently support a family, and you have the ingrediants for a Jihad, suicide, warrior, with nothing to lose. Have a Cleric tell him that what he does guarantees a place in heaven...

Think about it, heaven has got to be better than the life he currently suffers in (while palaces are built around him, and the members of the government ride in cars he'll never own.

Now take a displaced people, that no one really cares about (figuratively speaking), who can't go back to their homeland of origin (because Jordan does not want them), and can't assume the land given them by the Romans 2000 years ago, (because Rome underestimated the tenacity of the original owners, and Britian gave the land back to the original owners...Israel and the Palistinians).

Three times the "neighbors" of Israel have tried to militarily remove the Israeli occupants of this strip of land, in recent history. Three times they failed miserably. In fact history shows that Irael "routed" the "enemy" despite all odds.

What makes you think that Palistinians are more powerful than the five or so nations that tried to remove the Israelis before?

The US backs Israel. No doubt. Will do it until the day the US no longer exists. Why? Don't know. But it seems to be in the blood.

Point is, the west did not go wrong. The east went wrong. The east decided to make money from the west, but never passed the wealth along, then blamed the west when the masses became disgruntled.

Greed is the culprit here.

Hi Q.

I think there’s no denying that your general thesis has merit. But in a way you’re offering here a kind of mirror image of what I’m getting from my friend Thipps and a few others. Leaving debate aside, I think if you look at these things in the round, you’ll find that the “fault” is not so simply distributed between East & West, whatever those words might mean.

First, you’ve painted a fairly ideal vision of the workings of capitalism in the region. I’m not anti-capitalist at all but I think things are little more complicated in the real world. For this sort of Ayn Rand/libertarian view of the purity of capitalism to truly obtain you need the basic condition of relatively equal partners. Only then can the ideal of true & noble exchange truly exist.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago, economic relations in the Middle East have been filtered through the conditions of colonialism. Now, first I’ll dispense with the usual extreme views: colonialism is neither an unmitigated evil of pure exploitation nor the pure-hearted spreading of the benefits of civilization. It’s quite simply the result of the old rule about power always filling a vacuum. Peoples that undergo periods of foreign domination are those who are already in some disarray. In the process, colonialism brings benefits (say railroads & infrastructure) and harm (a royal screwing, economically). But in the end, they can only throw off that domination by putting their own houses in order. In that sense, I would agree with your broad point that primary responsibility begins with the people who live in the countries in question, not with foreign powers.

But again economically speaking the conditions of colonialism are not the conditions of an equal partnership, especially when you add to the mix a long history of military intervention and clandestine support and the installation of “friendly” governments, i.e., friendly to Western business interests. This hardly makes for an ideal world of free exchange. (Even to this day, Europe in particular is suppressing the price of agricultural products with its domestic subsidies. This is helping to kill agriculture in places like Africa. Once again, free exchange can be a cruel joke when it’s between unequal partners.)

You mention corrupt governments in the Middle East who use oil revenue to build kingdoms rather than economies, Saudi Arabia as the outstanding example. Indeed, much money has been returned to the Middle East in this way, especially after the anti-colonial creation of OPEC. But you yourself admit that we failed here as “our brother’s keeper”. Once again, the West was content to create or support whatever government served its economic interests. Franklin Roosevelt made a deal with the Saudi’s, guns for oil, which has essentially held up intact for the roughly 60 years since. So when the murderous Osama Bid Laden, in revolt against the corrupt Saudi family, views their Western partners in the same light, and directs his heartless cruelties against us, why are we so surprised?

But to wind this part up, there’s also the psychological aspect to decolonisation that needs to be born in mind. I agree, as I’ve made clear, that the fundamental responsibility for the peoples of the Middle East lies in their own hands. But for people struggling with the psychological effects of colonisation, the natural impulse is to point the finger back to the perceived oppressors, and sometimes to grant them powers they don’t really have. So while I think there’s a whole list of Western interventions in the Middle East that have resulted in evil consequences – take a dispassionate look at the histories of Iran and Iraq and their relations with the West, for illustration – I agree that the responsibility of the West for the present disarray in many Middle Eastern countries is exaggerated.

Again, I return to my theme of a hard look in the mirror on all sides, and some no-spin honesty.

As for Israel, I don’t completely share your biblical perspective, as you know, and would probably put the land ownership question differently.

As to the general question, I think here we have a textbook case of two contrasting perspectives. In the West we see Israel through the lens of the holocaust. We see Israel as the admirable story of a people’s survival & revival against the most hideous odds. But Arabs in general see Israel through the lens of the history of colonialism. Israel to them is just another long & painful chapter of that history.

As you say, emotionally it’s hard for most of us not to support Israel. Unfortunately, it means that to us the Palestinian case has been mostly invisible. One has to do one’s own research into the history to remotely understand the justice of the Palestinian cause. In fact, to seriously support the Palestinian cause will probably still mark you as a person on the margins, and even an anti-Semite (always a bit of irony there, since Arabs too are Semites).

But I won’t attempt to argue the case here. I'm hardly qualified to sort it out - but then who is?. I’m only pointing out how much we are prisoners of perception complexes like the “West” and the “Arab World”

All the best.

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Q.

Hi Dev.

I think there’s no denying that your general thesis has merit. But in a way you’re offering here a kind of mirror image of what I’m getting from my friend Thipps and a few others. Leaving debate aside, I think if you look at these things in the round, you’ll find that the “fault” is not so simply distributed between East & West, whatever those words might mean.

I wrote a thesis? My English teacher in high-school would be proud, since I could not figure out what a thesis was to save my life (math is my strong point, not english comprehension). I agree, in a "wal-green" world, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

First, you’ve painted a fairly ideal vision of the workings of capitalism in the region. I’m not anti-capitalist at all but I think things are little more complicated in the real world. For this sort of Ayn Rand/libertarian view of the purity of capitalism to truly obtain you need the basic condition of relatively equal partners. Only then can the ideal of true & noble exchange truly exist.

Ideal or not, these are the basic facts. I can not account for "side deals", and other underhanded practices that may have (most likely), occured.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago, economic relations in the Middle East have been filtered through the conditions of colonialism. Now, first I’ll dispense with the usual extreme views: colonialism is neither an unmitigated evil of pure exploitation nor the pure-hearted spreading of the benefits of civilization. It’s quite simply the result of the old rule about power always filling a vacuum. Peoples that undergo periods of foreign domination are those who are already in some disarray. In the process, colonialism brings benefits (say railroads & infrastructure) and harm (a royal screwing, economically). But in the end, they can only throw off that domination by putting their own houses in order. In that sense, I would agree with your broad point that primary responsibility begins with the people who live in the countries in question, not with foreign powers.

Ok, but...(as the other shoe drops)

But again economically speaking the conditions of colonialism are not the conditions of an equal partnership, especially when you add to the mix a long history of military intervention and clandestine support and the installation of “friendly” governments, i.e., friendly to Western business interests. This hardly makes for an ideal world of free exchange. (Even to this day, Europe in particular is suppressing the price of agricultural products with its domestic subsidies. This is helping to kill agriculture in places like Africa. Once again, free exchange can be a cruel joke when it’s between unequal partners.)

I hope you notice that the US is systematically doing away with this "subsidising", and tarrif provoking concepts as of late. NAFTA, and CAFTA are coming into effect. Look, no body is perfect. But the idea is to fix the faults. And that is happening as we speak (write/read). Also, America as a whole, does not "colonize" anyone. And if we do show behaviors similar to "colonization", they are short lived. "Get 'em on their feet, get 'em moving, then back off. It is the American way. It is historically proven.

You mention corrupt governments in the Middle East who use oil revenue to build kingdoms rather than economies, Saudi Arabia as the outstanding example. Indeed, much money has been returned to the Middle East in this way, especially after the anti-colonial creation of OPEC. But you yourself admit that we failed here as “our brother’s keeper”. Once again, the West was content to create or support whatever government served its economic interests. Franklin Roosevelt made a deal with the Saudi’s, guns for oil, which has essentially held up intact for the roughly 60 years since. So when the murderous Osama Bid Laden, in revolt against the corrupt Saudi family, views their Western partners in the same light, and directs his heartless cruelties against us, why are we so surprised?

Point taken.

But to wind this part up, there’s also the psychological aspect to decolonisation that needs to be born in mind. I agree, as I’ve made clear, that the fundamental responsibility for the peoples of the Middle East lies in their own hands. But for people struggling with the psychological effects of colonisation, the natural impulse is to point the finger back to the perceived oppressors, and sometimes to grant them powers they don’t really have. So while I think there’s a whole list of Western interventions in the Middle East that have resulted in evil consequences – take a dispassionate look at the histories of Iran and Iraq and their relations with the West, for illustration – I agree that the responsibility of the West for the present disarray in many Middle Eastern countries is exaggerated.

Then the "blame" rests in the hands of Great Britan, and not the United States? Or do you mean we got slammed in New York, because of misconceived greivances about the west and colonialism? Look I could care less, about the grievances of a nation, or nations, after 9/11. These PEOPLE, took over 3000 lives, who had nothing personal to do with them. They claimed a specific cause as their reason and "right" to do so. They attempted to disrupt the economy of the entire world. They attempted to create economic anarchy. They claimed their actions in the name of God, as described or defined by them. And they assumed there would be no route. They made a serious mistake in their logic... and so does anyone else who thinks we should just let this go, and apologise for "percieved injustices". In short, the Middle East has our attention, Full attention.

Again, I return to my theme of a hard look in the mirror on all sides, and some no-spin honesty.

Government look in the mirror, or Joe Citizen look in the mirror?

As for Israel, I don’t completely share your biblical perspective, as you know, and would probably put the land ownership question differently.

We agree to disagree here. But try to tell the Israelis to leave...they seem to throw off such demands, pretty regularly. You can justify as you wish. No one has been able to remove them since 1948. I also submit, that in light of the current mind set of the Palistinians, they are not long for this world. And Israel will be more than happy to accomodate their suicide wishes. But I digress.

As to the general question, I think here we have a textbook case of two contrasting perspectives. In the West we see Israel through the lens of the holocaust. We see Israel as the admirable story of a people’s survival & revival against the most hideous odds. But Arabs in general see Israel through the lens of the history of colonialism. Israel to them is just another long & painful chapter of that history.

Disagree. Arabs see Israel as the brother that was favored by the father (Abraham), and that they were cast out. Arabs see Israel as a scourge to be eradicated. NOT ISLAM...Arabs, want Israel defunct. People love to mix the two concepts together.

As you say, emotionally it’s hard for most of us not to support Israel. Unfortunately, it means that to us the Palestinian case has been mostly invisible. One has to do one’s own research into the history to remotely understand the justice of the Palestinian cause. In fact, to seriously support the Palestinian cause will probably still mark you as a person on the margins, and even an anti-Semite (always a bit of irony there, since Arabs too are Semites).

Would you like to know how I personally feel? Palestinians...go home, back to your original land. Go back to Jordan. Make peace with your own kind. Or else stay, and accept the fact that your neighbor may be an Israeli, and learn to deal with that in a civil and acceptable social manner.

In studying Arab languages, I learned an interesting point. There is no word in Arabic, for "comprimise"...none. I submit, the Arab world better learn the meaning of such a concept...

In fact the Qu'ran warns the Arab Muslim, of the folly of his/her hard headedness. In the end, many will pay for such.

But I won’t attempt to argue the case here. I'm hardly qualified to sort it out - but then who is?. I’m only pointing out how much we are prisoners of perception complexes like the “West” and the “Arab World”

It would be hard to argue things that are not physically evident. I agree. I also know the "enemy" when approached by such. I suspect you will too, if in time you are brought to such a state and position. And you will then remember this dialogue.

All the best.

May you and yours be blessed and watched over, with zealousness.

v/r

Q

 

[Devadatta]

May you and yours be blessed and watched over, with zealousness.

Hi Q. Thanks for the blessing.

- I hadn’t intended to send another reply, but I’m inherently weak-willed.

- In my preceding post, I was trying to put a really complicated situation in a rounded perspective and that’s hard to do on the fly in this kind of format, without having to go back and forth forever clarifying points.

- My effort at giving perspective was not to provide excuses for any murderous ideology or suggest we should cut Osama some slack because he’s misunderstood. I was only trying to sum up the most basic background to all of this and suggest how this background conditions thinking on the respective sides.

- When I use the word “colonialism” it’s not as leftwing jargon, but simply a collective term for summing up a concrete situation. Since the break up of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 or thereabouts, the Middle East has been dominated by Western powers, by the French and English in the first half of the 20th century and by the U.S. ever since. And when I say “dominated”, I mean that Western powers, to protect their interests in the region, have repeatedly justified political and military intervention, which local governments are in general powerless to prevent. A country that is unable to secure its own borders, except through the acquiescence of a foreign power is at the very least not fully independent. So having colonies in a legal sense is not the point; foreign domination equivalent to colonialism is.

- Sure, the situation has been in constant evolution. The British operated in one way, the French in another, and the U.S. has its own style. (I appreciate what you said about the changing trade deals; for all the controversy, I give the U.S. credit whenever it makes progress in this direction.) Each dominant nation will claim its own virtues and tend to be blind to its own faults. But in the end many of these interventions have ended in disaster, making life worse not better for people in the Middle East.

- Take Iran, for example. British Petroleum had big interests there; a new government came in intent on nationalizing the oil industry, which the British were naturally not in favour of. Many complications later, the British were replaced by Americans; the CIA helped thwart the nationalist government, brought in the Shah and supported his U.S. business-friendly government until he was overthrown by a popular revolution in 1979. And ever since, we’ve had the rule of those charming Mullahs. (The optimistic point here is that if Iran had a popular revolution once they can have one again, hopefully soon, to put the Mullahs on a leash.)

- This is not pointing fingers. This is not blame America. This is not conspiracy theory. These are matters of public record. And it’s just one example out of many in the history of Western interventions in the Middle East over the past century.

- So yes, the fundamental problem for these countries is their own weakness & disarray, which invite interventions in the first place, but these interventions can have devastating consequences.

- A foreign intervention is a kind of jujitsu; a small pressure applied at a critical point can have a huge effect. And in the minds of the colonized it’s a kind of psychological jujitsu, creating a kind of demon out of the foreign power who can become the scapegoat for every failure.

- Speaking of failure, it may be that I’ve failed again in getting these points across, but let me try to be as frank as I can be.

- It’s not a matter of excuses for either side. It’s a matter of dropping the b.s.

- For any Muslim to claim that this whole phenomenon is simply a matter of U.S. foreign policy, as has been claimed, unfortunately, on this very forum, is frankly unacceptable, if not altogether incredible. And I think it’s an insult to every Muslim to imply that they are so bereft of the ability to manage their own affairs that they can only scapegoat foreign powers.

- On the other hand, for any Westerner, American or otherwise, to claim simple incomprehension and a status of complete innocence while refusing to even glance at the historical roots is at best a head-in-the-sand, and at worst a straight out hypocrite. (Note to Q: this is not directed at you, but at the extreme case.) Innocent people from all nations were murdered in New York on 9/11. These were indeed innocents. But governments, however well managed, are never innocent. How could they be, in this fallen world? And no Western government that has been involved up to its ears in the Middle East for decades can claim innocence in the face of terrorism arising from that region.

- It’s my view that unless we understand the underlying conditions & mindsets we may be doomed, as I’ve said, to a downward spiral.

- So yes, let’s hunt terrorists, violent ideologues, psychotics, Islamo-fascists to the ends of the Earth, but lets use our heads as well as our guns.

- Lynden Johnson famously said that Gerald Ford couldn’t chew gum and walk at the same time. But this is precisely what we have to do.

- Chasing bad guys with no understanding on the part of the public of where in blazes they’re coming from will only result in a hideous version of the Keystone Kops, ending in holocaust.

- We must act. But we must understand.

All the best. And a non-theistic blessing to you, if that carries any weight.

P.S. - I've stayed away from the Palestinian/Israeli issue; it's a can of worms of course and we may be operating from different planets on this. I thought I'd have a better chance of communicating my point of view on the broader issues.

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Q. Thanks for the blessing.

- I hadn’t intended to send another reply, but I’m inherently weak-willed.

No, weak wills give up when things get dicey and tough.

- In my preceding post, I was trying to put a really complicated situation in a rounded perspective and that’s hard to do on the fly in this kind of format, without having to go back and forth forever clarifying points.

My father has "commented" on my attempts to simplify the complex as well...

- My effort at giving perspective was not to provide excuses for any murderous ideology or suggest we should cut Osama some slack because he’s misunderstood. I was only trying to sum up the most basic background to all of this and suggest how this background conditions thinking on the respective sides.

- When I use the word “colonialism” it’s not as leftwing jargon, but simply a collective term for summing up a concrete situation. Since the break up of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 or thereabouts, the Middle East has been dominated by Western powers, by the French and English in the first half of the 20th century and by the U.S. ever since. And when I say “dominated”, I mean that Western powers, to protect their interests in the region, have repeatedly justified political and military intervention, which local governments are in general powerless to prevent. A country that is unable to secure its own borders, except through the acquiescence of a foreign power is at the very least not fully independent. So having colonies in a legal sense is not the point; foreign domination equivalent to colonialism is.

Good point.

- Sure, the situation has been in constant evolution. The British operated in one way, the French in another, and the U.S. has its own style. (I appreciate what you said about the changing trade deals; for all the controversy, I give the U.S. credit whenever it makes progress in this direction.) Each dominant nation will claim its own virtues and tend to be blind to its own faults. But in the end many of these interventions have ended in disaster, making life worse not better for people in the Middle East.

However I think you will find that history shows that the US is its own worst critic. That is to say we beat ourselves over the head harder than anyone else can, and we do it publicly...

- Take Iran, for example. British Petroleum had big interests there; a new government came in intent on nationalizing the oil industry, which the British were naturally not in favour of. Many complications later, the British were replaced by Americans; the CIA helped thwart the nationalist government, brought in the Shah and supported his U.S. business-friendly government until he was overthrown by a popular revolution in 1979. And ever since, we’ve had the rule of those charming Mullahs. (The optimistic point here is that if Iran had a popular revolution once they can have one again, hopefully soon, to put the Mullahs on a leash.)

People naturally want balance. The Shah's form of government for the people of that region was out of balance, and the current heiarchy is also out of balance. I think you are correct that the Iranian goverment as it stands is not long for this world, and the people will see to it.

- This is not pointing fingers. This is not blame America. This is not conspiracy theory. These are matters of public record. And it’s just one example out of many in the history of Western interventions in the Middle East over the past century.

- So yes, the fundamental problem for these countries is their own weakness & disarray, which invite interventions in the first place, but these interventions can have devastating consequences.

Even the best of intentions can really muck of the works...

- A foreign intervention is a kind of jujitsu; a small pressure applied at a critical point can have a huge effect. And in the minds of the colonized it’s a kind of psychological jujitsu, creating a kind of demon out of the foreign power who can become the scapegoat for every failure.

- Speaking of failure, it may be that I’ve failed again in getting these points across, but let me try to be as frank as I can be.

- It’s not a matter of excuses for either side. It’s a matter of dropping the b.s.

- For any Muslim to claim that this whole phenomenon is simply a matter of U.S. foreign policy, as has been claimed, unfortunately, on this very forum, is frankly unacceptable, if not altogether incredible. And I think it’s an insult to every Muslim to imply that they are so bereft of the ability to manage their own affairs that they can only scapegoat foreign powers.

What you are describing seems to be a people that can not accept responsibility for their own plight...but I digress.

- On the other hand, for any Westerner, American or otherwise, to claim simple incomprehension and a status of complete innocence while refusing to even glance at the historical roots is at best a head-in-the-sand, and at worst a straight out hypocrite. (Note to Q: this is not directed at you, but at the extreme case.) Innocent people from all nations were murdered in New York on 9/11. These were indeed innocents. But governments, however well managed, are never innocent. How could they be, in this fallen world? And no Western government that has been involved up to its ears in the Middle East for decades can claim innocence in the face of terrorism arising from that region.

- It’s my view that unless we understand the underlying conditions & mindsets we may be doomed, as I’ve said, to a downward spiral.

The west is guilty of many things, granted. But the west did not keep the people in impoverished conditions, nor keep them ignorant about the world around them. While the rest of the world begins to move into the 21st century, the Middle East is stuck in the 16th. And their governments like it that way...

- So yes, let’s hunt terrorists, violent ideologues, psychotics, Islamo-fascists to the ends of the Earth, but lets use our heads as well as our guns.

- Lynden Johnson famously said that Gerald Ford couldn’t chew gum and walk at the same time. But this is precisely what we have to do.

Gerald Ford may not have been able to chew and walk at the same time, but he is famous for his ability to focus on a specific issue and not waiver, despite outside influence attempts to distract him. Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, couldn't keep his finger off the "bomb" release button, for even a moment. Had Kruschev been in power when Johnson was...we probably wouldn't be having this conversation...

- Chasing bad guys with no understanding on the part of the public of where in blazes they’re coming from will only result in a hideous version of the Keystone Kops, ending in holocaust.

Believe it or not, the American public does not blame Islam for this behavior of terrorism. Not Islam in general. Nor does the majority consider Islam a bad religion (latest polls). The public on the other hand is not the police, or the military. And the terrorists have violated their own rules, by taking the lives of their own. Jihad expressly forbids the claiming of innocent lives. Yet the terrorists are doing just that. There is no rational for such behavior, save forcing compliance to a particular expectation.

- We must act. But we must understand.

I think the American and western public do understand (but the Americans in particular). There is an entity that wants us to conform to its way of thinking. That, my friend will not happen. History is rift with examples of the same. If this "war" becomes personal to the American public (and it hasn't yet), I fear the sleeping giant will once again awaken. Once that happens, there will be no reasoning down...and there will be a final conclusion to this war.

I've stated in past posts, that we alone are guilty of going to extremes to end a war, unspeakable extremes. What makes the world think we wouldn't go to extremes again?

I assure you this isn't rhetorical talk. It is historical fact...

All the best. And a non-theistic blessing to you, if that carries any weight.

I will take any blessing I can get, and cherish it.

P.S. - I've stayed away from the Palestinian/Israeli issue; it's a can of worms of course and we may be operating from different planets on this. I thought I'd have a better chance of communicating my point of view on the broader issues.

Americans always root for the underdog...you should know that by now...

v/r

Q

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Americans always root for the underdog...you should know that by now...

But who is the underdog?

 

[Devadatta]

However I think you will find that history shows that the US is its own worst critic. That is to say we beat ourselves over the head harder than anyone else can, and we do it publicly...

Hi Q.

One of the great qualities of Americans in my opinion is that they are capable of standing up and saying enough is enough to their own government. This may be your best export, and what a lot of other countries could use.

The west is guilty of many things, granted. But the west did not keep the people in impoverished conditions, nor keep them ignorant about the world around them. While the rest of the world begins to move into the 21st century, the Middle East is stuck in the 16th. And their governments like it that way....

Fair enough.

Gerald Ford may not have been able to chew and walk at the same time, but he is famous for his ability to focus on a specific issue and not waiver, despite outside influence attempts to distract him. Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, couldn't keep his finger off the "bomb" release button, for even a moment. Had Kruschev been in power when Johnson was...we probably wouldn't be having this conversation...

You could be right there. Frightening to think how much can turn on a single personality.

Believe it or not, the American public does not blame Islam for this behavior of terrorism. Not Islam in general. Nor does the majority consider Islam a bad religion (latest polls). The public on the other hand is not the police, or the military. And the terrorists have violated their own rules, by taking the lives of their own. Jihad expressly forbids the claiming of innocent lives. Yet the terrorists are doing just that. There is no rational for such behavior, save forcing compliance to a particular expectation....

Basic agreement here. But this doesn't speak to my point. I've been talking about the political & economic back story, not religion. The implications of what I'm saying is that it's important for everyone to understand this back story to provide the basis for effective actions - political & military - to be taken in the long run. I think we've had too much fear of providing excuses for the enemy by exploring these roots when it's precisely these roots we must understand in order to fight the enemy. How is it that they are able to operate so freely in the first place? How is it that there has been so much tacit if not outright support for this kind of terror in the Muslim world? Why have so many Muslims - in my view - been so passive in the face of a movement that threatens the very survival of Islam? The political/economic back story we've been talking about provides some of the answers.

The only effective way to fight an insurgency, they say, is draining the swamp; that is, undercutting their sources of support in the community. In this case, the swamp has spread through Muslim communities across the world. Many hands, Muslim & non-Muslim, have gone to provide the conditions that led to this swamp, many hands, Muslim & non-Muslim will be required to drain it.

I fear the sleeping giant will once again awaken. Once that happens, there will be no reasoning down...and there will be a final conclusion to this war.
I've stated in past posts, that we alone are guilty of going to extremes to end a war, unspeakable extremes. What makes the world think we wouldn't go to extremes again?.

Well, here's the true definition of: the terrorist will have won. They are the only ones intent on bringing on the apocalypse. Let's be smarter than that. But I take your words as a wake-up call to those in the Muslim world who don't realize the true scale of the risk the terrorists have placed them in.

Here's to the return of less interesting times.

All the best.

 

[Kaspar]

The way you guys are going on is portraying the enemy that Bush wants.

Bush wants a invincable enemy that is going to destroy america and the west. that he can justify doing horrible things for. Eg Guantanomo bay. No human rights laws. The WRONG people locked up nothing done.

I think this is an over reaction. When the IRA were bombing england the birmingham 6 were locked up for ages and they were innocent. It is the prophetic talk and pressure in the mainstream that makes people go round locking up any muslim or arab.

The way i see it is that different people have differnent reactions when they are put in tricky situations. Some respond with violence, some with talk, some with love, some with hate. It all depends on how ur brought up. I know i respond with all of them at different times. I think when you are taking other peoples lives into your hands you have to care for them. When someone puts you in charge of reacting for a whole state say after a terrorist attack it is important to exercise understanding and not rush into a big war like thats going to make anything any better. How may i ask did bombing afganistan make anything any better? Except swapping the Taliban for a new northern Alliance that are more america friendly.

This is the logic i don't understand. We are going to fight a terrorist organisation who is underground and experienced in their terrain so you decide to bomb any buildings you see as you fly over. Around 23 people were killed at a wedding when a bomb fell through the roof. What terrorist are going to be stupid enough to go to a wedding when they know they are being hunted down. All bombing afganistan did was increase Al-Quaidas message and kill lots of Iraqi civilians. (oh and secure a pipeline)

I don't mean to rant about the US, Britian are equally foolish except a little bit less influencial these days. I Think terrorism and the wrongness of the west are in the eyes of the beholder.

Peace

 

[Quahom1]

The way you guys are going on is portraying the enemy that Bush wants.

Bush wants a invincable enemy that is going to destroy america and the west. that he can justify doing horrible things for. Eg Guantanomo bay. No human rights laws. The WRONG people locked up nothing done.

I think this is an over reaction. When the IRA were bombing england the birmingham 6 were locked up for ages and they were innocent. It is the prophetic talk and pressure in the mainstream that makes people go round locking up any muslim or arab.

The way i see it is that different people have differnent reactions when they are put in tricky situations. Some respond with violence, some with talk, some with love, some with hate. It all depends on how ur brought up. I know i respond with all of them at different times. I think when you are taking other peoples lives into your hands you have to care for them. When someone puts you in charge of reacting for a whole state say after a terrorist attack it is important to exercise understanding and not rush into a big war like thats going to make anything any better. How may i ask did bombing afganistan make anything any better? Except swapping the Taliban for a new northern Alliance that are more america friendly.

This is the logic i don't understand. We are going to fight a terrorist organisation who is underground and experienced in their terrain so you decide to bomb any buildings you see as you fly over. Around 23 people were killed at a wedding when a bomb fell through the roof. What terrorist are going to be stupid enough to go to a wedding when they know they are being hunted down. All bombing afganistan did was increase Al-Quaidas message and kill lots of Iraqi civilians. (oh and secure a pipeline)

I don't mean to rant about the US, Britian are equally foolish except a little bit less influencial these days. I Think terrorism and the wrongness of the west are in the eyes of the beholder.

Peace

Good Evening Kaspar,

I have served a tour of duty or two at GITMO (Guantonamo Bay). I can tell you that the "prison" the prisoners are staying in, is a far cry better than the "Brig" sailors in trouble stayed in, there. As for abusing the "prisoners", well, we haven't cut off anyone's head and burned their corpse and hung them from a bridge, or the yard arm...yet. And of the several hundred or so released (for doing nothing wrong), half have been picked up again for doing something wrong, eh, trying to kill people.

President Bush, would like nothing more than for this whole mess to stop...but that ain't going to happen anytime soon. And I'd like to know what "horrible things" you suspect Mr. Bush of condoning?

It is the actions of a human being against society that makes people go "round" and locking others up. If you think the United States is pulling another Japanese internment camp thing again, then query the status of the 25,000 Arab Americans living in Michigan (for example). Yep, they are still in their homes, still being bakers, doctors, policemen (yes I said policemen), firefighters, steel workers, automakers, etc...and their children are still in public and private schools, and their homes are secure under the fourth ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and their right to free speech (under the first Ammendment), are all still intact.

Let me ask you something. When did the war in Iraq begin? And what brought the United States and the coalition into the fray? And what started the whole thing?

If you say 1990, with the invasion of Kuwait, you would be mistaken. It started in 1988, with the bombing of the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf, by two Iraqi fighter jets, launching two exocet missiles at a frigate that was not at battle stations (had no reason to be). 24 sailors died, because Iraq wanted to test the waters, with the US. Saddam Hussein decided that because we did not retaliate, that we (the US) were weak willed. That was his mistake. We turned the other cheek (when by all rights we should have leveled his capital, RIGHT THEN).

The "War" came to fruition, at the plea of the Kuwaiti government, while it was being besieged by Iraq in 1990. Since Kuwait was an "ally" of the United States, we had no choice but to assist. There is no difference between Kuwait and Taiwan...now do you get my point?

In any event, your concern about "innocent civilians" being targeted is a good point. However, when citizens do not give up the perpetrators, then they become accomplices to the fact. That my friend is universal law, in any land you go to.

The US and Britian are foolish? Yes. We should have cleaned clock a decade ago. But we haven't been made angry enough...yet. However, once we are, there will be hell to pay...

I understand your frustration. But you haven't stood at the base of the twin towers, wondering where your loved one lies. That is frustration my friend. That is rage in the making...

v/r

Q

 

[Postmaster]

The US and Britian are foolish? Yes. We should have cleaned clock a decade ago. But we haven't been made angry enough...

Do you believe the war on Iraq was out of anger?

 

[Quahom1]

Do you believe the war on Iraq was out of anger?

Postmaster...you don't?

 

[Postmaster]

I don't think any politics should be done out of anger because that's how vicous circles are created. One that has already started and too late to stop might I add.

 

[capthowdy]

I have to agree with postmaster......



wars can be fought in anger and won, but if you aren't careful anger can turn to rage and rage will blind you. when you are blinded by your own rage you act out of hate and end up doing more harm than good.



and Q I had a family member that was there when the towers went down, but I didn't go around throwing moltov cocktails and commiting hate crimes on muslims when it happened, and a lot of people did that in california. don't get me wrong though I'm not saying you did anything like that, I'm just using the incedents as an example of how rage can blind you.

 

[Quahom1]

One that has already started and too late to stop might I add.

Oh it can stop, in a new york second. Let those that started it stop...'cause we aren't going to, until we see change. And if we don't see change...we won't stop, Postmaster.

Cap, rage is what keeps a nation alive, during war. We are at war, and the enemy is unknown. Doing more damage than good is not the issue, because we don't care...(you might).

Morons lash out blindly, and california has it's share. Cold rage is a different matter alltogether. Every move is calculated for maximum effect. There is an end in sight, and that end WILL be reached. And when finished, there will be only one standing.

No, you two have ideals, which are great. I've seen reality, which is not so great.

And before you two point out that I will not suffer personally from this 'war', tell that to my sons pounding the sand over there. They are all I've got, and they understand...that is why they are there.

By the way, I go over there in a short time...and I go gladly, so you two don't have to.

v/r

Q