EPTThe Islamic World - Page 3
| Blogs > darmousseh |
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
| ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On June 24 2010 13:46 Elegy wrote: And I wonder...the hell? Middle Eastern politics definitely take religion into account, no doubt about that. But politics and "Western" diplomacy, sure as hell, definitely work. If they didn't, the entire region would be engulfed in conflict, Sunni vs Shiite everywhere with entire populations engaged in conflict. Instead...none of that. Where is this civil war problem you speak of? Is it in Iraq? Shiite vs Sunni there is definitely a problem, no doubt. But that's one example and an extremely poor one at that. Does Saudi Arabia experience similar levels of violence between Shiiite and Sunni? How about Iran? Or are we now talking about relations between states? Yes, relations between Sunni SA and Shia Iran are poor. Is that because Iran is a Shiite state or is it because Iran's political system is in direct conflict with Saudi Arabia's? The great Revolution! and its blame for the relations between Shiite and Sunni states in the Middle East is significant but you're missing out on a large amount of very important concepts here. To end, I think you need to perhaps look into this a bit more deeply. It's always tempting to say "religious conflict, we need to leave, yada yada yada...." but it's never that simple. ah missed my 100 post! Here you go, evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi'a–Sunni_relations#Modern_Sunni-Sh.C4.AB.E2.80.98.C4.AB_relations And that is only talking about stuff in the last 100 years. Go back to the year 700 AD for the beginning of the conflict. Wars in the middle east don't last one generation like western wars (WW1, WW2, american revolution), they last 50 generations. Right now there is less violence because most of the middle east has a common enemy called the united states. When we leave the middle east in a few years the unrest will become apparent again. The sad reality of the situation is that it DOES come down to being a religious and political mess. The best example is the Iranian revolution. A nation with a secular ruler that began to modernize Iran. My dad told me about Iranians wearing jeans and going to see Star Wars at the movie theatre. The Shah being a king did do some things like waste money, etc. But to compare the Shah to Khomeni it becomes a horrible realization of how backwards Iran has become. Even according to wikipedia (which my father and his family has confirmed with me) Reasons for the revolution. "His strong policy of Westernization and close identification with a Western power (the United States) despite the resulting clash with Iran's Shi'a Muslim identity.[16] This included his original installation by Allied Powers and assistance from the CIA in 1953 to restore him to the throne, the use of large numbers of US military advisers and technicians and the capitulation or granting of diplomatic immunity from prosecution to them, all of which led nationalistic Iranians, both religious and secular[17] to consider him a puppet of the West;[18][4] Unpopular disregard for Islamic tradition in his 1976 change from an Islamic calendar to an Imperial calendar, marking the birth of Cyrus as the first day, instead of the flight of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. Overnight, the year changed from 1355 to 2535. [19] Extravagance, corruption and elitism (both real and perceived) of the Shah's policies and of his royal court.[20][5] His failure to cultivate supporters in the Shi'a religious leadership to counter Khomeini's campaign against him.[21][22] Focusing of government surveillance and repression on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, the communist Tudeh Party of Iran, and other leftist groups, while the more popular religious opposition organized, grew and gradually undermined the authority of his regime." and "Underestimation of the strength of the opposition — particularly religious opposition — and the failure to offer either enough carrots or sticks. Efforts to please the opposition were "too little too late,"[38] but no concerted counter-attack was made against the revolutionaries either.[" [FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#Policies_and_policy_mistakes_of_the_Shah］ Many of the reasons are deeply embedded in the religious influence of the revolt. Another good example is Iraq [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#History] These articles are filled with examples of sunni-shiite conflict. So where is the conflict now? Like i said, its on hold as long as the US maintains its military presence in the region. To say it is a religious conflict is an understatement I believe. It is a religious war. There are aspects like communism, socialism, and capitalism in there, but they are understood within the confines of the religion itself. It is impossible to discuss middle eastern economics, culture, politics, human rights, etc without talking about Islam and this is the realization that western countries need to make. The approach and the cause of so many conflicts in the past has been the lack of this understanding. The most important thing I want to get out of this is that as long as western countries try to treat the middle east without a religious understanding, there is nothing that we can do to solve our problems there and their problems internally. Political correctness needs to be put aside in order to really solve those problems. Until we even acknowledge that there is a deep religious influence on politics there, we are helpless. My ways of dealing with it in the OP are pretty harsh and probably not practical nor desirable. | ||
|
Shatter
United States1401 Posts
On June 24 2010 15:03 darmousseh wrote: Whether the media or random people portray it differently, policymakers and governmental leaders already know this. Obviously they acknowledge Islams effect in political structures. It's just handling the situation and coming up with a solution is the real problem, they already see the connection. And you haven't given any solutions besides leaving them alone which is really too late now. All I get from what you are saying is "religion is a big part of middle eastern governments" which I think is obvious and especially to policymakers. So where is the conflict now? Like i said, its on hold as long as the US maintains its military presence in the region. To say it is a religious conflict is an understatement I believe. It is a religious war. There are aspects like communism, socialism, and capitalism in there, but they are understood within the confines of the religion itself. It is impossible to discuss middle eastern economics, culture, politics, human rights, etc without talking about Islam and this is the realization that western countries need to make. The approach and the cause of so many conflicts in the past has been the lack of this understanding. The most important thing I want to get out of this is that as long as western countries try to treat the middle east without a religious understanding, there is nothing that we can do to solve our problems there and their problems internally. Political correctness needs to be put aside in order to really solve those problems. Until we even acknowledge that there is a deep religious influence on politics there, we are helpless. My ways of dealing with it in the OP are pretty harsh and probably not practical nor desirable. | ||
zatic
Zurich15352 Posts
Who in their right mind does not think that there is "deep religious influence on politics" in countries that are Islamic theocracies? I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Care to explain it in one sentence? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 24 2010 20:47 zatic wrote: Well I read this a 3rd time now and I still have no idea what your point is other than you don't like political correctness. Who in their right mind does not think that there is "deep religious influence on politics" in countries that are Islamic theocracies? I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Care to explain it in one sentence? He's trying to say they're fundamentally different from us and normal interaction is impossible, therefore we should only touch the middle east with a 10 foot pole, or else their culture and religion will corrupt and damage our own (Samuel Huntington's shitty thesis. Just an aside, almost everyone I know in the State Dept. and other countries' foreign ministries think Huntington is horribly wrong.) Religion ties into culture and culture/nationality are huge influencing factors in both the Middle East, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe. This hasn't really been going on for millennia or even that many centuries, because cultural autonomy and sovereignty were considered completely differently. The majority of religious dissent in the Ottoman Empire was from other Sunnis . What we see today is much more recent and it's certainly not isolated to the Middle East or Islam, as the former Yugoslavia or E. Timor shows us. The line about "eternal conflicts" is bullshit fed to the media to justify extreme action. It makes conflict and violence seem Cosmic in some sense, and therefore more necessary. 99% of the time it's used, that's just not true. I also don't understand why he says European wars don't last long. Did he not have any competent history professors? Is there no similar connection between Prussia and France -> WW1 -> WW2? Yeah, the issues were different by the 1930s but each problem built to a new one. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
Your understanding of historical facts and evidence is pretty appalling considering the kind of claims you are trying to make T_T | ||
| ||
