powerclown

Where do you think the preponderence of responsibility lies in this situation and why:

How the West deals with the Islamic World or how the Islamic World deals with the West?
What could each side do to manage the current situation better?

thesupermikey

there are major issues, on both sides that have lead to the conflicts that we are seeing today.

i think one of the 1st things that both sides need to understand, or admitte, is that much of this mess stems from the left over from western imperialism last century. Nations like iraq may never be united because the borders were drawn in the wake of WWI so that they would be easier for Britan and France to manage.

__________________
If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention!

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

ratbastid

mikey's onto something. Many of the world's major troubles can be traced to issues faced by nations in post-colonial times. Africa and much of the Middle East would be a very different place if it had been allowed to develop free of oppression from Europe. (See Kim Stanley Robinson's effing brilliant The Years of Rice and Salt for more on this).

First of all, I'm not crazy about the division of the world into "islam" and "the west". I don't think it's quite that simple. 99.999% of Muslims are perfectly peaceful individuals. It's the .001% who fly planes into buildings that cause trouble for the rest. So I think "the west" would do well to remember that.

That said: I think the Muslim world would serve itself well to be MUCH more vocal in their denounciation of those who use violence in the name of Islam. Islam is a non-violent religion, at its heart, and to commit violent acts in its name is a bastardization of its teachings. It's a damned shame that there hasn't been a major PR campaign on behalf of Muslims everywhere, because the perception that Johnny Lunchbucket has of Islam is not pretty.

I think the West (Well, who are we kidding: the US) would be well served to take responsibility for the political and economic climate in which people would choose to take up arms against it. People wouldn't want to destroy American so badly without some reason. Nobody's BORN an insurgent or a terrorist. They have some very good reason for the actions they take. I'm a little surprised that Americans aren't more interested to find out what that reason is. If somebody's hitting me on the head with a hammer, I'd like to know why they're doing that, so I can make it stop.

I grew out of hitting back when I was eight. Now I'm interested in root causes. America doesn't seem interested in root causes; it seems interested in treating the symptoms. We have a whole massive industry built around treating symptoms, with every week a bigger and scarier tool for treating symptoms, and great big lobbying efforts to make sure we keep right on treating those symptoms. And as long as we do that, the terrorism problem will never be solved. The actions we're taking in Iraq RIGHT NOW are guaranteeing that our children and grandchildren will be threatened by terrorism too.

I voted "both", but if there were a "both, but mostly the West" button, I'd have taken that one.

Willravel

ratbastid speaks the truth. Should be "Middle East" and "US", not Islam and west, as they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I was interested in particualr in ratbastid's last paragraph, about the industrial war machine. An industry of war guerentees the buisness of war will continue, and there will not be peace in the Middle East until either all natural resources are dried up for years or our war industry collapses. The road to peace runs though massive reform..and I've not seen any real US foriegn reform in my whole lifetime. Even I am not optimistic about US reform on the issue of war.

Charlatan

It isn't just the US that bears responsibility. I voted both becasue I feel there is a lot to be done on both sides. To say it is just the US is a tad myopic. Have we forgotten the riots in France and the bombs in Spain and England so soon?

Yes, moderate Muslims need to stand up and let their voices be heard more frequently and with more volume. The dictatorial goverments in place need to be reformed, free speech needs to flourish, etc.

The West needs to get rid of the attitude that says, "what is our oil doing under their sand?"

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

tecoyah

In my opinion, much of the misunderstanding between cultures would go away if certain factions of middle eastern thought decided to enter the 20th century at least, let alone the 21st. Much the way the United States is making a few backwards steps due to religious influence, parts of the Mid East deal with this 100 fold daily. It all comes down to Religion, and a failure to proceed beyond the limitation placed on Culture by various Gods telling everyone someone else is evil.

In a Nutshell....I see faith as the biggest danger mankind faces in much of the world, as it breeds hatred and distrust.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

The_Jazz

Since when has one side been totally to blame for a fight? What was was ever caused by just one issue?

Yes, lots of the current problems in the Middle East can be traced back to end of colonialism, but lets also remember that most of the Middle East was colonized relatively late in whole era. Personally, I think that we're still paying for mistakes made by Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantines. Most residents of the area that is now Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Jordan vividly remember the Crusades and other incursions by Europe into Middle Eastern affairs. The easiest way to counteract Ottoman expansion into Southeastern Europe was to whip up anti-Muslim frenzies around Europe, which eventually resulted in the Inquisition in Spain and is one of the reasons that Spain has always been super-Catholic and was so militant about imposing their brand of Catholizism on the New World.

The West by no means ever had a monopoly on shell games, and the Arabs (as opposed to the Ottomans) have very successfully played both ends against the middle during WWI and the Crimean War. All sides (not "both" since there are mulitple players here including the Chinese and the Indians, just to pick the most obvious) need to move closer together before any real peace can happen. That's not going to happen in my lifetime. There is no compelling reason for any cooperation among nations now, and there never has been.

Conflict in the Middle East is eternal since that's where the 4 most powerful cultures physically collide - Western (US and Europe [you can't separate the two at this point in history since our interests are too close together - sorry, ratbastid]), Islamic, Indian and Chinese.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Charlatan

Jazz... you raise a very good point. We would do well to not forget China and India's increasig roles in the Middle East.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Seaver

Blaming Colonialism is a very popular opinion right now but it simply does not work.

If you want to blame Colonialism, you can look at the Southern Americas, Africa, and Asia. The Middle East was left amazingly alone in comparison. The only countries that have room to complain are Egypt and the Maghrab countries.

One major argument is that the countries are given false borders, that we can not expect people to live together in peace within the borders. That is probably the worst and elitest argument I've ever heard. First it ignores the history of the people living together in peace the majority of years they have coexisted. Second it points the blame in the wrong direction, yes the nation may not have a long history, however it IS up to them to learn how to live in peace. And finally it implies that they are unable to coexist in peace and thus must be separated. This is how you treat 3year olds that dont want to share their toys, not intelligent adults.

The reforms that are needed to undergo are on their side. When the Crusaders marched into Jerusalem and massacred half the city and proclaimed all infadels must die (sound familiar?), no one would argue now that it was the Muslims (who allowed the brothers of the book to worship as they may, and were granted great freedoms and protections under the law... sound familiar?) who must make reforms.

The_Jazz

Seaver, do you at least accept the proposition that colonialism contributes to the problem? While I agree that portions of the Middle East were largely free from colonialism (with the notable exception of the 1920-45 period between the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the destruction of the colonial system following WWII), the boundaries as they exist today are largely a product of French and British mapmakers. While I certainly accept your arguement that we are talking adults and not 3 year olds, you have to admit that the world would certainly be different right now if there were an independent Kurdistan or if the UAE didn't exist (ports deal aside).

I have to disagree that these people have lived or would live in peace within these defined borders. There has certainly been ethnic tensions for years, as seen by the Kurdish independence movement and the Ottoman slaughter of the Armenians. There is tension because the various factions are constantly jockeying for position with the ruling one putting their people in policital and economic domination over the others. The same scenario in various forms has played itself out in quite a few other conflicts around the world - the former Yugoslavia, Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Rwanda, Cambodia, southern Mexico and even the US during Reconstruction.

Your basic assumption is that people living in these areas lived in peace prior to colonialism, and I think that you need to go back and check your history. The longest periods of prolonged peace in the Middle East were under the Ottomans, which was an empire under any definition of the term. Any prolonged peace between, say, the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis of modern Iraq was enforced by the central authority who didn't want anyone messing up their power structure. The Ottomans allowed a great measure of local governance in small provinces, which, notably, didn't look anything like what the Europeans concocted 80 years ago.

What I really don't understand is why you seem to think that all the necessary reforms are on their side. Your example makes little to no sense in a historical perspective. Are the Crusaders a metaphor for the 9/11 bombers et al? If so, you need to remember that Al Qaida refers to Western nations as Crusaders, and they still vividly remember the Crusades in that part of the world along with all of what we would now retrospectively call war crimes.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ratbastid

Spurious. The world was totally different then. There WAS no such thing as global politics. There were no superpowers. There was no single nation whose economy and culture was hedgemonically exported worldwide, to the general detriment of other nations. You've compared an apple and a hubcap.

roachboy

once again, a simplistic way of framing an extremely complex issue witht he result that part of the thread ends up being about the way the thread is framed, and another part about the topic.

such is the nature of the Beast, perhaps.

if you are going to refer to 'islamic reform" in the singular, then it requires that there be some kind of template that functions to orient what you are saying.

let's assume for a moment that the template is iraq.

the link to colonialism that i have been hearing most often refers to iraq--the arbitrariness of the colonial construct iraq are obvious, if you look at the history of it--but this information does not enable anyone to simply map the 1920s onto the present and from that assume that a functional explanation has been developed---this because it skips over the particular mode of domination practiced by saddam hussein, which was predicated on a repeating of the british colonial model--generation of strict borders that divide factions (itself a colonial notion) and then a move to play factions off each other.

this is not a typical pattern, and so cannot function as the basis for general statements about "islamic reforms".

but if the unifying idea is not iraq, then what is it?


second, the category "islamic reform" presupposes that all middle eastern political regimes are dominated by clerics such that to refer to "islamic reform" refers to political reform in any direct way.
that presupposition is false.

the worst offense committed by the category is grouping together the self-evdently antagonistic elements within islam--if you focus on the conflict between "fundamentalist" groups and mainstream islam, and then, by extension, on "the west", the basic logic would be otherwise: it is obvious, if nothing else is, that these "groups" conflate the existing power structure within islam with the domination of globalizing capitalism/neocolonialism/americanization (take your pick).
so the huntington thesis is once again demonstrated to be incoherent.


another hobbling of actual thought that occurs through the repetition of the huntington thesis in a poll like you have in the op is that it not only makes thinking about conflicts that are ongoing like those referid to above extrememly difficult, but it also poses a kind of ridiculous seperation between "islam" and "the west"--what are these two categories?
where do they stop and start?
what are the implications of "thinking" this way for how you would understand the significant muslim populations that live, and have lived, in "western" countries" how does this not simply posit them as outsiders, as Other?
how is this any different from the rest of neofascist discourse in western europe, which recodes is racist understanding of islam through the same procedure, the same distinctions?
it is on the basis of this kind of non-understanding that a nitwit like jean-marie lepen can argue that muslims who live in france, who have lived in france, who are french citizens, whose children as a french as any other, should be "sent home"?
does that follow for folk here as well?
is that what you are saying?

it is hard to respond to the poll because i do not know what you are talking about across it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

Global politics have existed since the first time a person stepped from Africa to Asia, the powers that be back then knew what was going on.

Yes there was a single nation that expected hegemony, it was what remained of the Byzantine Empire. It was only after the 2nd Crusade that the split was permanent between the West and Constantinople. Even the Arabs greatly admired and formed themselves after them.

You're giving the British way too much credit here. While it was true the British divided peoples for easier governance, this is a very ancient practice used by even the Assyrians who were native to the region.

My point is that if the post-modern thinking of blaming Colonialism was truely the cause, we would have problems in the areas of the world which WERE truely affected by it. Instead the colonialism which existed outside the Maghareb affected almost no one until WWII. If it were such a light touch how can it be the cause of the massive troubles in the region?

There are many problems in post-colonial countries. But if the post-modernist historical thinking held any weight, we'd have terrorism origionating in Martinique or Australia (some of the most influenced areas) instead of Jordan which suffered under Colonialism mere years instead of centuries.

The_Jazz

Seaver, I have to reject your rejection of the "post-modernist historical thinking". I think that I can successfully argue that the same issues of colonialism ARE showing up all over the world. A list of examples - Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Algeria, Western Saharah, Nigeria, Ethiopia/Eritrea, India/Pakistan, China (up until the mid to late 1970's) and southern Mexico. All of these (with the notable exception of China) are artificially created entities that have or have recently had struggles for power among various ethnic groups who live in close proximity. China made my list for the reason that it was a closed society that rejected Western trade and influence for 40 years stemming from the colonialism and open racial warfare practiced by the European powers at the turn of the last century.

Honestly, I think your examples of Martinique and Austrialia are pretty ridiculous since Martinique is a French Department (the equivalent of a US state) and is considered an actual part of France with representatives and a say in national policy. It is no way, shape or form a colony and has not been for a number of years. Australia, on the other hand, is thoroughly overrun by Europeans, primarily by descendants of British expatriots. By your same logic, Canada and the US would be on your list of terrorist producing states, as would South Africa, Brazil and Mexico.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are many problems facing post-colonial countries, but one that cannot be rejected is the artificial nature of many of these entities.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

powerclown

A remarkable video has been circulating the net lately.

Wafa Sultan is a 47 year old Arab-American Psychologist from Syria, living in Cerritos, California. She was recently interviewed on al-Jazeera TV, speaking out with extraordinary candor on issues of Muslim society in the 21st century. It is a must-see video. Not surprisingly, her words have drawn sharp condemnation from clerics throughout the muslim world.

Is it possible that a reform movement in the muslim world will be spearheaded by...muslim women! Will it be the women who, like their American counterparts, unite and organize themselves in demanding their civil rights, and in so doing completely reshape the cultural, social and political landscape of their society? Will women be the driving force in the reformation of the entire islamic world?

Dr. Wafa Sultan's Interview on Al-Jazeera TV (.wmv format)




For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats

LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.

Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.

Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."

Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.

She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.

--

DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."

The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.

After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.

BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.

An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.

Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.

The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.

One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.

"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."

thesupermikey

a few things

Im not trying to say that colonialism is the key to understanding the problem. its something that is important to understand. Just as this area of the world has not had the benefit of democratic rule, freedom of the press for a long time, if ever. This issue is SO complex that scholars have spend years just trying to understand the SCOPE of the issue, let alone how to fix the gap between east and west.

2nd in regards to powerclown's post

I saw a scholar from NYU on MSNBC a few weeks a back, right after Bin Ladan's last tape showed up. He talked about ho Islam is going through something no unlike the protestant / catholic spit in the 1500s right now. 25 years ago it would have been unheard of for anyone outside the formal structures of Islam to make statements like Bin Ladan, and have anyone listen, let alone act on them. A lot of the 'anti-west' actions one sees in the Muslim world are as much a result of this splintering than conflict with the west.

__________________
If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention!

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

Seaver

No, they had democratic rule and free press. THEY turned to the dictatorships in search for international power, it didn't work and now they're stuck with said dictatorships of their own accords and attempt to blame us.

The_Jazz

Please cite an example of a free and fair election in the Middle East prior to 2000. Turkey, pre-civil war Lebanon and Israel are excluded from consideration due to their unique circumstances. For the record, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are monarchies and Syria and Iraq (until recently) have been run by the proto-facist Baath parties since the 1940's. Egypt has never had a free election by anyone's standards, although they are moving that way.

I'm anxious to hear your examples.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Seaver

You count King Faysal II as a monarchy in Iraq, however by that point he had no power such as the British Monarcy. In Iraq Parliament held power until 1958 in which the Ba'athist Party took over, amazingly during the time that Abd al-Nasser's biggest power surge. It was the intellectuals and the people who turned away from the liberal era and embraced totalitarianism.

While it is true Egypt never had truely free elections, it is because when they rose up and kicked out King Faud they had deserted the Wafd which worked for 30 years for Democratic elections and embraced the Free Officer's view of Arab Socialism. The Wafd was by far the largest and most powerful political party in Egypt, however their support washed away as they could not secure Egypt international power wich the people wished, so turned twards totalitarian socialism of Nasser. They had the opportunity, and as I said.. THEY turned away from it.

The_Jazz

The Baathists took over in 1963, not 1958. Iraq was formally independent as of 1932, but were for all intents and purposes a British protectorate, especially on economic issues. The 1958 revolution was basically a communist seizure of power and there were no elections bringing anyone to power. The US worked with the Baathists to keep Iraq out of the USSR's sphere of influence and the 1963 coupe was the direct result of CIA meddling and has been admitted as such. I fail to see the relavence of Nasser's seizure of power in Eqypt with the Baathist's seizure in Iraq unless you want to open the discussion to US foreign policy in the late 50's and early 60's.

By the way, a coupe is not a "turn away" from democracy. It is the exact opposite - a seizure of power by a minority, usually the military. How can you say that the "people" rejected democracy when the military declares martial law and seizes the reins of government?

Your arguement still falls short of finding a free and fair election in the Middle East. Three coupes do not an election make, to coin a phrase.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Charlatan

I am just looking at the poll results.

As of this moment:

15 believe the reform needs to be solely in Islam
2 believe the reform needs to be solely in the West
20 believe the reform needs to made by both.


To those who vote that reform is needed solely in Islam, do you honestly believe that the Western nations have done no wrong?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

tecoyah

No....(yes I voted Islam)....but this was the actual question:

"Where does the preponderence of responsibility lie?"

I do feel the underlying issue is the failure of Islamic States to evolve with world society, and thus gain the benefits (as well as the downsides) of entering a world culture. There is a certain inevitability to the way western thought and prosperity are spreading across the globe, Albeit over century timeframes, not decades. It just seems that in some ways, Islam hinders the ability to grasp technology and the realities of our likely future as a species, thus my stance that there needs to be a change in path.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Seaver

If you read the intellectual thinking of the time you'll begin to understand it.

Maybe it was because of the decade of anti-democratic propoganda Nasser spread throughout Iraq. It is very relevant outside of US policy, Nasser led the Arab world to a vision of unified Arab Socialism which though failed ended up turning much of them away from the liberal ideas that were until then predominant. Everytime Nasser made a speach proclaiming Arab unity it would create riots in Iraq and Jordan, and led to the overthrow of the monarchy in Syria.

You fail to understand that Egypt was not a simple coupe. While it may have started that way it became something entirely different. Even after the disasterous '67 war Nasser remained so popular they riotted when he left office for him to return. This alone proves that it was NOT a mere coup.

His popularity caused a Revolution in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Yemen. His message of anti-democratic socialistic state was embraced by the people. THIS is why it matters, THIS is why you should read the intellectual readings at the time in order to understand the mindset of the people. The people were not merely people oppressed (though much of it went on), but the actual leaders of change.

The_Jazz

I refuse to accept that the Egyptian revolution happened in a vacuum. I've read "Towards Freedom" and "Philosophy of Revolution", and while interesting, they're both odd mixes of facism and ethnic pride. Nasser was a totalitarian leader in the style of Stalin, and he violently exterminated any political resistance. Rioting because he left office is more of a case for his cult of personality than any sort of democratic movement.

Let's also remember how brilliantly he played the US and the USSR off one another at the height of the Cold War.

What you're arguing here is truely bizarre - Nassar inspired anti-democratic movements among the people. No political system that I've ever heard of has the people demanding that leaders take power from them. Nasser inspired other military strongmen to seize power and use Nasserism as an excuse, but to say that the people forceably handed over power to the military is laughable.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Seaver

If it's laughable why did they use violence to bring back Nasser when he self-abdicated instead of toppling the regeim during it's weak period.

No the revolution did not take place in a vaccum. There was a large anti-western and thus anti-democratic movement accross the globe.

What you're saying is simply castle in the sky thinking of historical perspective. That it was not the people who actively decided but the big bad government did it to them. This just does not work, the popularity and the quick spread of the movement proves that the movement was spread by the people, not government agents.

I just showed it. When he abdicated they used violence to bring him back. After he revolked ALL rights of the people, and enforced military rule. They litterally killed people to bring him back when the government itself did not want him (the many conflicting ministries), that's voluntary if you ask me.

joshbaumgartner

I am presuming that the basis of the question was a presumtion that better relations between the two sides was the overarching goal for both parties, and thus a question of who has the furthest to go to reach the common ground that will allow such communal relations. The more a party values positive relations, the more that party should be willing to go to meet the other at such a point. Thus how much responsibility one has is driven by the value one has for a positive relationship.

Where is that common ground in this situation, and who is farther from it?

From either perspective, the common ground appears closest to them and farthest from their opposite number. This is only natural. Common ground is that area that represents a reasonable, rational position acceptable to all involved. Since one's idea of what is rational, reasonable, and acceptable is firmly rooted in the values and positions one has, it is only natural that one sees common ground as being closest to their own positions. From the Islamic POV, they have already made enough compromises and are being more than reasonable in their response to Western attacks on Islam. From the Western POV, they have alreade made many compromises and are being very fair in dealing with attacks by Islamists.

Since we are measuring distance between two points, it is really impossible to say who is farther from the other, as any two bodies will always be an equal distance from eachother. We can only compare distances to a third point, and since this third point defies definition, such comparison remains impossible.

Thus I can only answer to the above question: Both.

jwoody

__________________
.

powerclown

I agree that there are different perceptions of the word "colonialism".

Was it colonialism when muslims invaded Spain and established a Caliphate on the Iberian pennsula?
Was it colonialism when the the muslims defeated the Byzantine armies thus taking over what is today Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Jerusalem?
Was the muslim conquest of North Africa in 698 (and resulting Caliphate) considered colonialism?
Was muslim exapansion to the shores of the Indus River in India considered colonialism? When turkish muslims invaded and conquered India in 1192?
Was the muslim conquest of Sicily in 820 considered colonialism?
Was muslim dominance of China's commercial maritime interests during the Song dynasty considered colonial interference?
Was the invasion and establishment of an Islamic Caliphate in Egypt by Saladin considered hostile expansionism?
When Saladin temporarily captured Jerusalem from the Crusaders was it considered terrorism?
Was it colonialism when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453, which until then had been a Christian city for more than a thousand years?
Was the muslim occupation of southern Italy in 1480, or the incursions into Vienna in 1529 considered colonialism?
Was the subjugation of the Hindus and establishment of the muslim Mughal Empire in India in 1601 considered colonialism?
Was the muslim invasion of Sudan in 1820 considered colonialism?

I think what might be relevant is that the muslim understanding of jihad (holy war) has historically demanded that successful conquest, ordained by god, must be inevitable. Therefore, defeat and humiliation at the hands of christians and jews in the 19-20-21st centuries could explain the type of cognitive dissonance, confusion or anger we see today.

Seaver

Actually it started in the 15th Century, it's been a long decline since.

The main problem is during the Liberal Era the premise was that by absorbing western culture and government the Islamic countries would be able to attain the power western countries weilded. However while great strides were made, they failed to understand that said power took a minimum of multiple generations to become effective, they only gave it a decade in some countries before turning away.

The_Jazz

Powerclown,

I think that you need to differentiate "colonialism" and "invasion" and "hostile expansionism". In my opinion, these are all mutually exclusive terms.

Colonialism is economic and political dominance of a formerly sovereign nation without the benefit of an invading army. The classic examples that I point to are the British domination of India, the Great Powers' adventures in China c. 1870-1920 and the French and British territories in North American c.1600-1750. All of these examples have several things in common - the stage was set for later military expansion by traders, economic dominance led to military dominance not vice versa and the domination was absolute in the intended areas. Colonization is the generally understood terms both historically and politically has more to do with exploiting the resources of one country for another country's benefit. That's obviously a very simplistic way of looking at the issue, but it's a good enough nutshell for this discussion I think.

Invasion is something completely different. Classic examples - French and later British gains in Eqypt c. 1770-1920, the British subjugation of the Zulus and later the Boers in South Africa, the Spanish siezure of Mexico by Cortez et al. Here the military led the way for the traders to follow.

To address your specific questions:

I think that I see where you're going with this, but you need to define your terms better. Colonialism is a relatively late arrival in the political spectrum, and it had to wait until there were nations strong enough to impose their economic will on an area without reverting to military incurrsion. The US and Britain colonized Hawaii, but the US invaded Cuba. Panama might have been considered a US colony in the early 1900's, but there was never an outright seizure of territory, although annexation of the canal zone was a foregone conclusion. The Islamic world is ethnically heterogenous, so the spread of the religion involved violence in many cases, although certainly not all.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

powerclown

My point is that for hundreds of years the Muslims were the ones invading, expanding, conquering, converting, enslaving, colonizing, looting and killing. Now in the 21st centruy the tables have turned, the Islamic world has been surpassed, and Osama Bin Laden seeks to legitimize Muslim rage when he finds his people in the same position the Muslims had the Jews, Christians, Hindus...ages ago.

aKula

I'm not angry at islamic states invading parts of europe centuries ago though. Much like I'm not angry at the French for Napoleon invading the Germanic states. That was so long ago, in a completley different world. If someone tried to invade your country today though you'd be angry (not to justify Osama Bin Laden's reaction). I think you are reading much too much into the historical aspect. I see ustwo do this all the time, saying something about the Ottoman empire laying siege to Vienna.

The British had a grip on French power for centuries. That wouldn't justify France acting imperialistically toward Britain today.

__________________
"I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

Seaver

No but it does throw a wrench in their intellectual arguments and justification for what they do.

xepherys

I think it's unrealistic to blame oil for much of this trouble. I also find it a bit shortsighted to fault colonial influences over the past couple of centuries. While I agree that there are a majority of Muslims that are peaceful folk, I don't think I can swallow a statistic like 99.999%. Maybe 75%... perhaps even 80%. While the remaining may or may not fly planes into buildings, or blow up boats or embassies, or teach their children to strap bombs to themselves in the name of Allah (this is a bigger issue than 9/11, and even in recent modern times has gone back a good couple of decades) we must remember that the Middle East has been rife with turmoil for oh... roughly 3000 years now? The biggest thing to remember about that is that trouble in "The West" over the course of say, the same 3000 years, has had many players, Jews and Christians, Romans and Greeks, the Byzantines. And by "The West" I am referring to those not directly of mddle eastern decent. However, in the middle east it's more or less been the usualy suspects. The Arabs and the Persians, The Muslims, The Kurds and the Turkomen, this little tribe vs. that little tribe. While "The West" has gone through a great deal of reform, growth and change over even the last 1000 years, the middle east is not significantly different that it was 2000 years ago. The political, religious and cultural mindsets are, at least basically, exactly the same. "The West" is no longer about colonialism, expansionism and world conquest (no, not even the US). However, the middle east IS still about exterminating the Infidels and bring glory to Allah. While I think culture is great, and am often saddened by the lack of true culture in the United States... I do believe that culture still has room for growth and rebirth.

So then to the original point. I would say that "The West" has far, FAR greater tolerance for Islam then Islam does for "The West". Therefore, I'll point my angry little wagging American finger at the middle east and blame them. While it's certianly not 100% their fault, they've done a signifactly smaller amount trying to rectify situations and disagreements that we have. That, I firmly believe!

The_Jazz

But many of the Russians are still mad at the French for invading in 1812 and the Germans for 1941. And the Croats are still mad at the Serbs for things that happened during the time that the Ottomans controlled the country. The Koreans and Chinese are mad with the Japanese for the 1930's and 40's.

I think that most of the Islamists that point to the Crusades are just using them as another figurative straw in their arguement. They're mad that the US stood by and let the Israelis kick around the Palestinians. They're mad that there are American bases near their holy sites. They're mad at the perception that American foreign policy has allowed a few to get filthy rich and kept others in abject poverty. It's an easier arguement if you can say, "look this same stuff has been happening for 1000 years. We're mad as hell and we're just not going to take it anymore."

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo