|
I was trying to respond to this thread, but it got closed while i was writing this.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132382
My father is from Iran, but being a Christian Assyrian, he was persecuted and their family were forced to leave during the Islamic revolution. I can definitely see the influences that they have had on Assyrians, but in the end, Assyrians have been easily able to integrate into american society. Many assyrians in the town i'm from (turlock, ca) own businesses and are involved in the community. Even the mayor is now assyrian. I believe that the christian/catholic influence that they grew up with has had a deep impact on their integration with society. Some of the older assyrians definitely get "angry" easily and get offended from criticism, but the younger generation (my father) have easily adapted since anger is frowned upon by christians.
I think a part of the problem in europe though is the lack of multiculturalism in general. Most nations have a majority population of 90% or higher. In the united states, whites (europeans, middle easteners, arabs, jews) are barely a majority and are set to become a minority in the next few decades.
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
The best foreign policy the west can have is a tighter immigration policy, and a leave em alone policy. The muslim world is filled with civil wars and revolutions. Letting them fight amongst themselves is the best possible solution to end the animosity between the west and muslims. The most important step is solving the Israel problem. Israel represents the power of force and control to the muslim nations. In the west, israels creation is representation of trying to resolve the past misdeeds of the west upon the jews. From the crusades to the genocide, jews have been treated harshly and Israel is the west's plan of redemption. To muslims, however, it is an insult. They feel very threatened by their presence and their reaction as the article suggested is voilent and angry. No peace treaty will ever be agreed upon in israel while palestinians attempt to live there and I can only conclude that it will end up in bloodshed. The current situation there is who is going to strike first. Both sides know that if they strike first, then the world will support the other country as we witnessed with the flotilla raids.
That's all I have to say.
For a better understanding of this entire debate in the west vs islam I highly reccomend the following book I read in junior high.
http://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Year-War-Mideast-Affects/dp/0942617320
  
|
dont worry dude, Islam is a religion of peace.
We'd only be in trouble if Islam was a religion of War.
|
On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims."
I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical.
Sorry if this comes off a bit rough.
|
On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims.
Sure LoL..... i wanna examine those reports ^_^
|
I do NOT understand why Djzapz was warned for that post in the original thread. Other than that EXTREMELY good points all around. Gotta say. I agree with almost everything you posted.
|
On June 24 2010 12:05 intrudor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Sure LoL..... i wanna examine those reports ^_^
Europeon:http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/
I also can show you official FBI reports which show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980-2005 have been committed by adherents of the Islamic faith.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/
|
dude, on TL , you get warned.period. ive been warned for things like one liners before. oops..that was going to be a one liner...i gotta make it at least 2. see? 2 lines ^_^
|
On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims." I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical. Sorry if this comes off a bit rough.
I am saying it is wrong to associate the words radical muslim and terrorist together. Most muslims are "radical". Also, I believe it when you say that most terrorist acts are committed by non-muslims, however, if you add into the motivating factor, I believe muslims would dominate the "bomb for religious reasons" statistic. The word terror itself means to insight fear and panic. Most "terrorist" acts are simply criminal acts of agression and are improperly categorized. For example, Pearl Harbor was a war attack, not a terrorist attack, yet some definitions would include it as terrorism.
|
United States42180 Posts
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow.
|
On June 24 2010 12:10 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:05 intrudor wrote:On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Sure LoL..... i wanna examine those reports ^_^ Europeon: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/I also can show you official FBI reports which show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980-2005 have been committed by adherents of the Islamic faith. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/
dude...you gotta understand what methodology is here... if you gotta bring a report to disprove the fact that 99% of major terrorist attacks are committed by muslims, which is what we observe, than you gotta ask yourself; why are those reports in conflict with what we observe on our daily life and on CNN? gotta be the methodology...
whens the last time you heard about a Christian or a Jewish organization blowing up something that claimed more than say; 3 lives? its about methodology. lets start an investigation where we add up all terrorist attacks and see who commits them. Lets define things before we start. Please note, dear readers, that "terrorist attack" for the purpose of this expensive tax-financed report, denotes all attacks that are meant to bring TERROR!... i.e. we shall include all graffitis on buildings made by young 15 y-o white punks, and all bullying events at school. We shall also include verbal death threats and sexual assaults committed by famous actors and athletes.
Dude, face the facts, those reports are bullshit or you misquoted them. ^_^ 
|
On June 24 2010 12:15 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims." I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical. Sorry if this comes off a bit rough. I am saying it is wrong to associate the words radical muslim and terrorist together. Most muslims are "radical". Also, I believe it when you say that most terrorist acts are committed by non-muslims, however, if you add into the motivating factor, I believe muslims would dominate the "bomb for religious reasons" statistic. The word terror itself means to insight fear and panic. Most "terrorist" acts are simply criminal acts of agression and are improperly categorized. For example, Pearl Harbor was a war attack, not a terrorist attack, yet some definitions would include it as terrorism.
I will agree that most muslims are radical compared to the Western Point of view, and also applaud you in saying the first sentence. However, at the same time, there are also extremist Christians who will bomb abortion clinics. This doesn't mean Christians are "violent", it means the extremists themselves are fricking retarded. The main reason why Muslims MIGHT dominate the "bomb for religious reasons"(a narrow topic itself) is because the countries where they dominate have been utterly thrown into chaos, so of course there would be some Muslims in there who would see themselves as doing God's work. I think the same would happen if Iran invaded the US.
Also, I'm pretty sure(not positive) that most historians and people regard Pearl Harbor as a terrorist attack. Source where its not?
EDIT: Also, actually according to the FBI reports, there were more terrororist acts commited by extremist Jews than extremist Muslims.
DOUBLE EDIT
dude...you gotta understand what methodology is here... if you gotta bring a report to disprove the fact that 99% of major terrorist attacks are committed by muslims, which is what we observe, than you gotta ask yourself; why are those reports in conflict with what we observe on our daily life and on CNN? gotta be the methodology...
whens the last time you heard about a Christian or a Jewish organization blowing up something that claimed more than say; 3 lives? its about methodology. lets start an investigation where we add up all terrorist attacks and see who commits them. Lets define things before we start. Please note, dear readers, that "terrorist attack" for the purpose of this expensive tax-financed report, denotes all attacks that are meant to bring TERROR!... i.e. we shall include all graffitis on buildings made by young 15 y-o white punks, and all bullying events at school. We shall also include verbal death threats and sexual assaults committed by famous actors and athletes.
Dude, face the facts, those reports are bullshit or you misquoted them. ^_^
Please read it all before you start to call BS on my sources. Heres a graph which breaks down the activities of the "terrorist acts".![[image loading]](http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/terrorismbyevent.jpg)
Finally, the media is biased. I'm going to say it right now. Its like how crime was going down for a while yet the reporting on it skyrocketed.
|
On June 24 2010 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow.
I am saying a relationship. Don't F*** with the middle east. Time and time again for the past 1000 years the west has gone into the middle east trying to solve their problems and time and time again we get kicked out. Let me give you an example. Imagine you are on an island living in a house called "america" and you live with your family. Now on the other side of the island is a family who have split up and built their own houses and now are fighting against each other. You tried helping one family, but the other got angry, then when you tried helping the other they both got angry at you so you backed off. Years later, you take some guns and control both houses telling them to get along with each other. You stay there for a long time and eventually they turn their hatred towards you. Now they unite against you for a while and you leave. Eventually they get back to fighting against each other.
My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites. You might say we should support the more democratic and humanitarian of the two, but the problem is they are almost identical in your point of view. Human rights are important, but sacrificing the lives of innocent soldiers isn't going to solve the problem. If I were to quote the Star Trek Prim Directive, do not interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures. If they want medical aid, fine, give it to both. If they want to trade, sure, trade anything except weapons, but do so in a fair manner so as to not support the shiites over the muslims. Western diplomacy does not work in the middle east. They are not europe. Their political views are stemed from their religion. Trying to treat them as a political entity and not a religious one is shortsighted. My analysis is based on the experiences my family has had there and the history of the middle east. Normal analysis does not work.
|
On June 24 2010 12:26 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:15 darmousseh wrote:On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Yet, in the public perception, 99% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims." I deeply dislike when non-muslims characterize muslims as "radicals" or even "terrororists." Yes, the middle east is deeply, deeply religious, but that does not make them terrorists! Heck, Palestine originally let Jews come into Palestine but only complained when they TOOK over Palenstine. Obviously your not completely or even mostly at fault, as sadly few select groups like Al-Qaeda ARE radical. Sorry if this comes off a bit rough. I am saying it is wrong to associate the words radical muslim and terrorist together. Most muslims are "radical". Also, I believe it when you say that most terrorist acts are committed by non-muslims, however, if you add into the motivating factor, I believe muslims would dominate the "bomb for religious reasons" statistic. The word terror itself means to insight fear and panic. Most "terrorist" acts are simply criminal acts of agression and are improperly categorized. For example, Pearl Harbor was a war attack, not a terrorist attack, yet some definitions would include it as terrorism. I will agree that most muslims are radical compared to the Western Point of view, and also applaud you in saying the first sentence. However, at the same time, there are also extremist Christians who will bomb abortion clinics. This doesn't mean Christians are "violent", it means the extremists themselves are fricking retarded. The main reason why Muslims MIGHT dominate the "bomb for religious reasons"(a narrow topic itself) is because the countries where they dominate have been utterly thrown into chaos, so of course there would be some Muslims in there who would see themselves as doing God's work. I think the same would happen if Iran invaded the US. Also, I'm pretty sure(not positive) that most historians and people regard Pearl Harbor as a terrorist attack. Source where its not? EDIT: Also, actually according to the FBI reports, there were more terrororist acts commited by extremist Jews than extremist Muslims.
According to wikipedia "The attack on Pearl Harbor (called the Hawaii Operation or Operation Z by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, and the Battle of Pearl Harbor by some Americans)[6] was an unannounced military strike"
The military of the nation was involved in order to respond to the economic embargo against their nation (Embargos are an act of war and agression)
Also, I never perpetuated anywhere that I was concerned about terrorism in the OP. Most of the fighting happens internally or against Israel. What I am concerned with is the definite takeover of european politics by muslims. It almost happened in Spain a long time ago. They don't need to commit terrorist acts in order to increase their influence. To me terrorism is just a small symptom of a much larger problem.
EDIT:
A small problem called blowback.
|
On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 24 2010 12:31 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow. I am saying a relationship. Don't F*** with the middle east. Time and time again for the past 1000 years the west has gone into the middle east trying to solve their problems and time and time again we get kicked out. Let me give you an example. Imagine you are on an island living in a house called "america" and you live with your family. Now on the other side of the island is a family who have split up and built their own houses and now are fighting against each other. You tried helping one family, but the other got angry, then when you tried helping the other they both got angry at you so you backed off. Years later, you take some guns and control both houses telling them to get along with each other. You stay there for a long time and eventually they turn their hatred towards you. Now they unite against you for a while and you leave. Eventually they get back to fighting against each other. My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites. You might say we should support the more democratic and humanitarian of the two, but the problem is they are almost identical in your point of view. Human rights are important, but sacrificing the lives of innocent soldiers isn't going to solve the problem. If I were to quote the Star Trek Prim Directive, do not interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures. If they want medical aid, fine, give it to both. If they want to trade, sure, trade anything except weapons, but do so in a fair manner so as to not support the shiites over the muslims. Western diplomacy does not work in the middle east. They are not europe. Their political views are stemed from their religion. Trying to treat them as a political entity and not a religious one is shortsighted. My analysis is based on the experiences my family has had there and the history of the middle east. Normal analysis does not work.
While I value your expierence and the obvious insights it has brought into this discussion(such as that the Middle Eastern politics IS deeply attactched to the Islamic religion, I disagree with your analogy. Its more as if the "perfect" house comes in, invades over your house, smashes it into the ground, and declares itself the head. That's basically it.
|
United States33146 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region.
So relevant to so many people on TL.net!
That said, I can't say one thing or another about the OP myself :O
|
I feel like I am begining to sound rough, so I will still skim over this, but probably stop commenting. I feel like either I or you(probably me) am/are starting to become "enemies." I feel like we agree on certain major points, and we can live to disagree on the others. Nice discussion though, it did not resort to personal attacks.
Finally, when I started comenting on the "extremists are bad" I was just trying to make sure for others they didn't view harshly if I didn't clarify.
|
On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region.
Lol, I don't think anyone here is an "expert", but I am entitled to a view from my perspective. Other than turkey, the majority of the parties are influenced by religion. Khameni in Iran, the different parties in Iraq, afghanistan, etc.
|
On June 24 2010 12:49 Pandain wrote:
I feel like I am begining to sound rough, so I will still skim over this, but probably stop commenting. I feel like either I or you(probably me) am/are starting to become "enemies." I feel like we agree on certain major points, and we can live to disagree on the others. Nice discussion though, it did not resort to personal attacks.
Finally, when I started comenting on the "extremists are bad" I was just trying to make sure for others they didn't view harshly if I didn't clarify.
No problem, I blame it on my middle eastern family. JK!! lol.
|
On June 24 2010 12:44 Pandain wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 24 2010 12:31 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You can't simply not have a relationship with the Muslim world, especially when there are serious human rights issues going on. Your analysis seemed extremely shallow. I am saying a relationship. Don't F*** with the middle east. Time and time again for the past 1000 years the west has gone into the middle east trying to solve their problems and time and time again we get kicked out. Let me give you an example. Imagine you are on an island living in a house called "america" and you live with your family. Now on the other side of the island is a family who have split up and built their own houses and now are fighting against each other. You tried helping one family, but the other got angry, then when you tried helping the other they both got angry at you so you backed off. Years later, you take some guns and control both houses telling them to get along with each other. You stay there for a long time and eventually they turn their hatred towards you. Now they unite against you for a while and you leave. Eventually they get back to fighting against each other. My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites. You might say we should support the more democratic and humanitarian of the two, but the problem is they are almost identical in your point of view. Human rights are important, but sacrificing the lives of innocent soldiers isn't going to solve the problem. If I were to quote the Star Trek Prim Directive, do not interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures. If they want medical aid, fine, give it to both. If they want to trade, sure, trade anything except weapons, but do so in a fair manner so as to not support the shiites over the muslims. Western diplomacy does not work in the middle east. They are not europe. Their political views are stemed from their religion. Trying to treat them as a political entity and not a religious one is shortsighted. My analysis is based on the experiences my family has had there and the history of the middle east. Normal analysis does not work. While I value your expierence and the obvious insights it has brought into this discussion(such as that the Middle Eastern politics IS deeply attactched to the Islamic religion, I disagree with your analogy. Its more as if the "perfect" house comes in, invades over your house, smashes it into the ground, and declares itself the head. That's basically it.
Hahaha, probably closer to that.
|
'Almost happened in Spain a long time ago'. Uh, the Caliphate of Cordoba (if that's what you're referring to didn't 'almost happen'. They ruled most of modern-day Spain and Portugal for the better part of 300 years. And did a pretty good of it, compared to how most of the rest of Europe was faring.
As for any kind of 'takeover' of European politics, you'll have to be completely out of your mind to see anything resembling that anywhere in Europe. There are numerous reports and investigations into this, and I challenge you to find me one where islamism (the political movement of incorporating islam into politics) has been shown to make any kind of significant steps towards actual influence. The evidence simply is not there.
The assertion that 'most muslims are what the west would consider radical' is equally unsustantiated. And most people seem to think that a complete conversion of the entire world to their way of thinking would solve a lot of problems. Most people think they have the solution to the worlds problems, is a more accurate statement.
Shutting off immigration will solve exactly no problems, and create massive problems for the people actually suffering from persecution (such as your father, apparently). However, shutting down aggressive military action and support for undemocratic regimes (case in point: Saudi Arabia) will probably help. The problem with that (from the US point of view) is that a) the resulting governments will most likely not be as passive towards Israel as the US-enforced ones and b) oil, let's leave it at that.
You make quite a few good points, but there simply is no basis for fearing a 'muslim takeover' in either Europe or the US.
|
On June 24 2010 12:50 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region. Lol, I don't think anyone here is an "expert", but I am entitled to a view from my perspective. Other than turkey, the majority of the parties are influenced by religion. Khameni in Iran, the different parties in Iraq, afghanistan, etc.
You claimed that parties exist only based on the Sunni-Shia divide, which is false. There are a vast number of parties in many of the states you mentioned that have secular differences (economic, social policy for example) despite having similar religious ideals. Iran has many political parties, as does Egypt, Turkey, etc. In fact, your claim that Turkey is not influenced by religion is also false. The AKP (Turkey's most powerful political party) is also an Islamic party. I'm not saying that Turkey is an Islamic state in the sense that Saudi Arabia or Iran is, but the AKP clearly has Islamic leanings despite the fact that Turkey is supposed to be a secular state.
So again, while I agree that you have the right to your viewpoint, it doesn't mean it is necessarily correct, because some things you've said are factually wrong.
|
On June 24 2010 13:07 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:50 darmousseh wrote:On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region. Lol, I don't think anyone here is an "expert", but I am entitled to a view from my perspective. Other than turkey, the majority of the parties are influenced by religion. Khameni in Iran, the different parties in Iraq, afghanistan, etc. You claimed that parties exist only based on the Sunni-Shia divide, which is false. There are a vast number of parties in many of the states you mentioned that have secular differences (economic, social policy for example) despite having similar religious ideals. Iran has many political parties, as does Egypt, Turkey, etc. In fact, your claim that Turkey is not influenced by religion is also false. The AKP (Turkey's most powerful political party) is also an Islamic party. I'm not saying that Turkey is an Islamic state in the sense that Saudi Arabia or Iran is, but the AKP clearly has Islamic leanings despite the fact that Turkey is supposed to be a secular state. So again, while I agree that you have the right to your viewpoint, it doesn't mean it is necessarily correct, because some things you've said are factually wrong.
What I should have said was "heavily influenced by the sunni shiite divide".
|
I realise I come off as somewhat of a douche in the above post (not editing since you probably have already started replying), which I apologise for. You do make a lot of good points, and I was mostly having a reflex reaction to certain statements.
My point is still, however, that tightening immigration is not a good solution. Insisting on human rights is, actually, but those demands must be applied to allies as well as enemies. Also, it would help if the west wasn't already moving in the entirely wrong direction themselves when it comes to human rights..
|
On June 24 2010 12:50 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region. Lol, I don't think anyone here is an "expert", but I am entitled to a view from my perspective. Other than turkey, the majority of the parties are influenced by religion. Khameni in Iran, the different parties in Iraq, afghanistan, etc.
Also, Khamenei isn't a political party... he is the Supreme Leader of Iran. He actually doesn't exert much day-to-day influence on what goes on in the government, he kinda just gives a nod of approval here and there. In the past year actually, his influence has declined as he has taken a less active role because of the post-election backlash against him. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a political party being religious.
I also disagree with your main assertion, that "we" should just "leave the Middle East alone" and its problems will somehow solve themselves. In today's globalized world, it is very unlikely that a region as volatile as the Middle East will be able to solve its problems by itself. Think we should also let North and South Korea solve their differences by themselves? What would happen... :p
|
I do agree with pettter that there isnt some sort of takeover going on... terrorism in my opinion is fueled more by economics rather than religion.. Thats the story most places i've been!!!
|
On June 24 2010 13:12 sas01 wrote:
I do agree with pettter that there isnt some sort of takeover going on... terrorism in my opinion is fueled more by economics rather than religion.. Thats the story most places i've been!!!
There is a surprising lack of evidence that supports the commonly-held belief that higher rates of poverty correlates to any significantly increased amount of terrorist activity. And, of course, the definition of terrorism is always debatable and plays a huge role in any such argument. Naturally, we can turn on a television set and see terrorist activities in the Middle East, Africa, and other "poor" nations and regions of the world, but the overarching argument that economics is a driving force for terrorism is relatively unsupported by empirical evidence once you take into consideration political, social, and historical imbalances as well.
As for the OP, much of it must be held to be suspect. Anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, this statement:
Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same
is highly questionable at best. The "Muslim" world hasn't existed in any real sense for years. What is the "Muslim" world? Does it include the secular Turks? The rabidly anti-Israel Iranians? What about the Egyptians, surely a "bastard" state to many hardcore Islamists in the region when they concluded a peace treaty with Israel? To speak of the "Muslim" world as one big region would make sense if we were operating under the political situation of the region a few hundred years ago, but now, with the many divisions and feuds between states in that region, such a generalization must be held suspect.
No peace treaty will ever be agreed upon in israel while palestinians attempt to live there and I can only conclude that it will end up in bloodshed. The current situation there is who is going to strike first. Both sides know that if they strike first, then the world will support the other country as we witnessed with the flotilla raids.
This is also, to put it bluntly, completely wrong.
In a nutshell, each side (Israel and Palestine) each want a particular set of goals. Many of those goals, such as the prospective borders of the Palestinian state, are negotiable. Some, such as the complete demilitarization of such a state, are Israeli demands that are relatively etched in stone. All argument about who is "WRONG" is irrelevant; successful negotiations are what matter here. Some of the traditional Palestinian demands, such as the right of return, will probably not happen. Again, each side has its hardline points that it cannot be seen to deviate from and embedded in those demands are operational clauses that can be modified and enforced to promote a peaceful resolution.
It is without a doubt that we can Israel is the only one in the position to be willing to truly make a legitimate efforts towards "peace". I would bet my career that if Israel unconditionally withdrew from every settlement it holds in violation of international law and proposed a truly sovereign Palestinian state (one that shares borders with other nations so it is not enclosed completely by Israel), a peaceful settlement could definitely be had.
To draw from history, let's take a look at Europe from the mid 1870s onwards. Surely the idea of a peaceful resolution to the two titans of European affairs (France and Germany) would seem unthinkable! An ignominious defeat at the hands of a newly born German state rendered France both insecure of itself and wary of losing its traditionally dominant position as the hegemon of continental European affairs. And so we see decades of tension, hate, and a steady buildup towards violence until, of course, WW1. Fast forward twenty years and again, what do we see? A traditional rivalry, tempered and masked with many other "historical" wrongs, once again leads to a terrible defeat of the French. During the postwar period, what was France's primary goal? Simple: prevent the formation of a unified Germany that could ever harm France again.
If we bring ourselves back to today, is this issue so different? Does the individual Palestinian UNCONDITIONALLY HATE Israel? Does the average Israeli DETEST his Palestinian counterpart? I would argue no, no more than the average Frenchmen hated his German counterpart in, say, 1919. The idea that both peoples are forever locked in a battle of hate against their counterparts with no hope for a peaceful process is both pointless, useless, extremist, and fairly ignorant.
|
On June 24 2010 13:21 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 13:12 sas01 wrote:
I do agree with pettter that there isnt some sort of takeover going on... terrorism in my opinion is fueled more by economics rather than religion.. Thats the story most places i've been!!! There is a surprising lack of evidence that supports the commonly-held belief that higher rates of poverty correlates to any significantly increased amount of terrorist activity. And, of course, the definition of terrorism is always debatable and plays a huge role in any such argument. Naturally, we can turn on a television set and see terrorist activities in the Middle East, Africa, and other "poor" nations and regions of the world, but the overarching argument that economics is a driving force for terrorism is relatively unsupported by empirical evidence once you take into consideration political, social, and historical imbalances as well.
From that article in a previous post it asserted that something like 90% of terrorist attacks were by spanish or french seperatist groups.
|
On June 24 2010 13:30 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 13:21 Elegy wrote:On June 24 2010 13:12 sas01 wrote:
I do agree with pettter that there isnt some sort of takeover going on... terrorism in my opinion is fueled more by economics rather than religion.. Thats the story most places i've been!!! There is a surprising lack of evidence that supports the commonly-held belief that higher rates of poverty correlates to any significantly increased amount of terrorist activity. And, of course, the definition of terrorism is always debatable and plays a huge role in any such argument. Naturally, we can turn on a television set and see terrorist activities in the Middle East, Africa, and other "poor" nations and regions of the world, but the overarching argument that economics is a driving force for terrorism is relatively unsupported by empirical evidence once you take into consideration political, social, and historical imbalances as well. From that article in a previous post it asserted that something like 90% of terrorist attacks were by spanish or french seperatist groups.
Yes I know, my point is that most people think terrorism = Muslim and poverty = terrorism, when the evidence for the former claim disproves that statement and evidence for the latter is questionable at best and usually does not take into consideration other factors.
I am saying a relationship. Don't F*** with the middle east. Time and time again for the past 1000 years the west has gone into the middle east trying to solve their problems and time and time again we get kicked out. Let me give you an example. Imagine you are on an island living in a house called "america" and you live with your family. Now on the other side of the island is a family who have split up and built their own houses and now are fighting against each other. You tried helping one family, but the other got angry, then when you tried helping the other they both got angry at you so you backed off. Years later, you take some guns and control both houses telling them to get along with each other. You stay there for a long time and eventually they turn their hatred towards you. Now they unite against you for a while and you leave. Eventually they get back to fighting against each other.
My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites. You might say we should support the more democratic and humanitarian of the two, but the problem is they are almost identical in your point of view. Human rights are important, but sacrificing the lives of innocent soldiers isn't going to solve the problem. If I were to quote the Star Trek Prim Directive, do not interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures. If they want medical aid, fine, give it to both. If they want to trade, sure, trade anything except weapons, but do so in a fair manner so as to not support the shiites over the muslims. Western diplomacy does not work in the middle east. They are not europe. Their political views are stemed from their religion. Trying to treat them as a political entity and not a religious one is shortsighted. My analysis is based on the experiences my family has had there and the history of the middle east. Normal analysis does not work.
Whoa! Samuel Huntington would be proud!
This argument is soooo overused and soooo terrible. The "West", presumably the Christian Western states, goes into the Middle East during the Crusades and, after many decades of intermittent fighting, eventually collapses when the KoJ falls. Uh....then what? The medieval Roman state hardly classifies as a Western power, so its struggles against Islam from the East are irrelevant. The Italian states and the Habsburgs had many conflicts from the 1500s onwards, but again, Ottoman aggression, not Western. To illustrate, the Austrians never tried to drive towards Istanbul and Ankara post 15th century, but the Ottomans sure tried to go the other way, did they not?
I'm just going to stop here because I lack the will to bother continuing. I read this:
My point is, there is no logical solution to solving the middle east civil war problem between the sunnis and the shiites
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!
|
I lived in bangladesh, a muslim country, for almost all my life, and am currently here for vacation, and to be honest its easy to see why people persecute muslims as terrorists.
The huge majority of bangladeshi people are cowardly and violent, while somehow paradoxically being ridiculously religious even though the Quran condemns violence against fellow human beings
if someone steals something in america and gets caught? The police take him away.
if someone steals something in bangladesh and gets caught? The police take him away. With his arms or legs broken, because the mob of angry people that caught him will have probably beat him to near death.
I do not blame intrudor at all for saying what he did because it is damn near impossible for me to see these people pounce on every chance to be as violent as possible and say 'we're all human and we all deserve the same benefits.'
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:24 intrudor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 12:10 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 12:05 intrudor wrote:On June 24 2010 12:03 Pandain wrote:On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Finally, I hate political correctness. Attempting to rationalize someones behaviour as radical is a misstep. They call the terrorists "radical muslims", but the problem is that the majority of muslims in muslim nations would be called radical, meaning that they believe that only a complete conversion of the entire world to islam is a solution to the worlds problems. Western society as a whole should evaluate the muslim world as just that, muslim. The most important part though is that in those countries, religion and politics are the same. Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
"According to official Europol reports, less than one percent (0.4% to be exact) of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by Muslims. Sure LoL..... i wanna examine those reports ^_^ Europeon: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/I also can show you official FBI reports which show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980-2005 have been committed by adherents of the Islamic faith. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/ dude...you gotta understand what methodology is here... if you gotta bring a report to disprove the fact that 99% of major terrorist attacks are committed by muslims, which is what we observe, than you gotta ask yourself; why are those reports in conflict with what we observe on our daily life and on CNN? gotta be the methodology... whens the last time you heard about a Christian or a Jewish organization blowing up something that claimed more than say; 3 lives? its about methodology. lets start an investigation where we add up all terrorist attacks and see who commits them. Lets define things before we start. Please note, dear readers, that "terrorist attack" for the purpose of this expensive tax-financed report, denotes all attacks that are meant to bring TERROR!... i.e. we shall include all graffitis on buildings made by young 15 y-o white punks, and all bullying events at school. We shall also include verbal death threats and sexual assaults committed by famous actors and athletes. Dude, face the facts, those reports are bullshit or you misquoted them. ^_^
Are you fucking retarded? It's extremely easy to find incidents of Christian terrorism in the West. The reason why it's not reflected by what we see on CNN is because CNN does a truly, truly awful job. CNN is detrimental to the world.
No wonder you get warned a lot.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:42 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 11:32 darmousseh wrote:
Parties exist only between differences in muslim identity (shiite or sunni). (Note that i said muslims in muslim countries. I know a few muslims here in the states and they do not share the jihadist teaching of the muslim world).
This is simply wrong. Makes me question your entire understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Just because your family is from a certain part of the world doesn't give you a license to be a political expert of the region.
With the SC2 influx, I don't have the energy anymore to respond to everyone, since it just gets flooded out anyways. :|
|
On another note, it's critically important that hard empirical evidence exists for everything you say. If I argue that Muslims cause more terrorist attacks on Western soil, I'd better be able to back that up. If I argue that raising the GDP per capita of a state by $1000 decreases crime by X percent, I have to be able to back that up. Statements like these, when taken out of context and without hard evidence, can lead to very bad consequences. Clearly the State Department isn't going to be reading TL for policy decisions, but you'd be surprised how often when, in the grand scheme of governmental structure, simple statements that appear to be facts end up influencing policy decisions when they definitely should not have.
With the SC2 influx, I don't have the energy anymore to respond to everyone, since it just gets flooded out anyways. :|
I had an account from late 2007 but I can't log in =(
|
Yea you're right. Anyways for a pretty popular instance of non-Islamic terrorism, Timothy Mcveigh (or however you spell his name). Have you Americans forgotten about that so quickly?  !
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 24 2010 13:30 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 13:21 Elegy wrote:On June 24 2010 13:12 sas01 wrote:
I do agree with pettter that there isnt some sort of takeover going on... terrorism in my opinion is fueled more by economics rather than religion.. Thats the story most places i've been!!! There is a surprising lack of evidence that supports the commonly-held belief that higher rates of poverty correlates to any significantly increased amount of terrorist activity. And, of course, the definition of terrorism is always debatable and plays a huge role in any such argument. Naturally, we can turn on a television set and see terrorist activities in the Middle East, Africa, and other "poor" nations and regions of the world, but the overarching argument that economics is a driving force for terrorism is relatively unsupported by empirical evidence once you take into consideration political, social, and historical imbalances as well. From that article in a previous post it asserted that something like 90% of terrorist attacks were by spanish or french seperatist groups.
It's usually socio-political, but it doesn't necessarily translate into economics. It's also on a state by state basis. The PKK in Turkey ARE a marxist group so economic development is an issue, but so is cultural autonomy.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 24 2010 13:53 TheAntZ wrote:
I lived in bangladesh, a muslim country, for almost all my life, and am currently here for vacation, and to be honest its easy to see why people persecute muslims as terrorists.
The huge majority of bangladeshi people are cowardly and violent, while somehow paradoxically being ridiculously religious even though the Quran condemns violence against fellow human beings
if someone steals something in america and gets caught? The police take him away.
if someone steals something in bangladesh and gets caught? The police take him away. With his arms or legs broken, because the mob of angry people that caught him will have probably beat him to near death.
I do not blame intrudor at all for saying what he did because it is damn near impossible for me to see these people pounce on every chance to be as violent as possible and say 'we're all human and we all deserve the same benefits.'
Do you think Bangladeshis would be different if it was another religion?
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 24 2010 14:06 Xeris wrote:Yea you're right. Anyways for a pretty popular instance of non-Islamic terrorism, Timothy Mcveigh (or however you spell his name). Have you Americans forgotten about that so quickly? !
Or Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Jewish American doctor walks into a mosque and guns down 29 people and wounds 100+ others.
Hell, even Rabin's assassination.
On June 24 2010 14:06 Elegy wrote:
I had an account from late 2007 but I can't log in =(
I don't mean it as in people with new accounts are less intelligent. I'm sure the ratio is quite similar, it's just there's 10x more now.
|
On June 24 2010 14:12 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 13:53 TheAntZ wrote:
I lived in bangladesh, a muslim country, for almost all my life, and am currently here for vacation, and to be honest its easy to see why people persecute muslims as terrorists.
The huge majority of bangladeshi people are cowardly and violent, while somehow paradoxically being ridiculously religious even though the Quran condemns violence against fellow human beings
if someone steals something in america and gets caught? The police take him away.
if someone steals something in bangladesh and gets caught? The police take him away. With his arms or legs broken, because the mob of angry people that caught him will have probably beat him to near death.
I do not blame intrudor at all for saying what he did because it is damn near impossible for me to see these people pounce on every chance to be as violent as possible and say 'we're all human and we all deserve the same benefits.' Do you think Bangladeshis would be different if it was another religion?
I dont think so. They are violent by nature and seek to find a justified outlet for it. I think though that most of the countries that are fully muslim are populated with a lot of these kinds of people. It sounds super racist but from my experience (i've been to saudi arabia as well) its just true
|
|
|
On June 24 2010 14:30 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 14:12 Jibba wrote:On June 24 2010 13:53 TheAntZ wrote:
I lived in bangladesh, a muslim country, for almost all my life, and am currently here for vacation, and to be honest its easy to see why people persecute muslims as terrorists.
The huge majority of bangladeshi people are cowardly and violent, while somehow paradoxically being ridiculously religious even though the Quran condemns violence against fellow human beings
if someone steals something in america and gets caught? The police take him away.
if someone steals something in bangladesh and gets caught? The police take him away. With his arms or legs broken, because the mob of angry people that caught him will have probably beat him to near death.
I do not blame intrudor at all for saying what he did because it is damn near impossible for me to see these people pounce on every chance to be as violent as possible and say 'we're all human and we all deserve the same benefits.' Do you think Bangladeshis would be different if it was another religion? I dont think so. They are violent by nature and seek to find a justified outlet for it. I think though that most of the countries that are fully muslim are populated with a lot of these kinds of people. It sounds super racist but from my experience (i've been to saudi arabia as well) its just true
It took many centuries of christian brainwashing on one hand and philosophical developments on the other to make europeans "less evil". I don't think this is something that can be changed within a generation, but improving general education should slowly do the job. Your observation is true yet you can't really blame muslims for this because you would have to blame history altogether.
|
I'm glad for this thread. It's pretty depressing to see how many people have an extremely one-dimensional view of the Middle East.
|
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.
|
On June 24 2010 15:03 darmousseh wrote:
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. 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.
|
Zurich15317 Posts
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?
|
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.
|
Are you kidding? Iran is backwards? By what definition? By your glamorous American ones? Iran is a different place, it's pretty rude to call it a backwards nation, especially since it's one of the most advanced in the Middle East (with the exception of Turkey and Israel), and most of mainland Asia for that matter, with the big exception of China....
Your understanding of historical facts and evidence is pretty appalling considering the kind of claims you are trying to make T_T
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
