cthulu23

If it is only a minority of fanatics that we are clashing with, is it really accurate to say that we are in a "clash of cultures?" This is the point that I've been trying to make all along.

wonderwench

RB,

I obviously have a different opinion than you - that does not mean I know nothing.

I am trying to conduct myself in a civilized and respectful manner; I would appreciate some courtesy in return. Holding different points of view does not make the other party ignorant.

There is a link in the post to the original source.

wonderwench

Yes it is. The fanatics control the culture. Until the moderates are able to overcome them, they set the agenda.

cthulu23

Perhaps the fanatic side of the culture is all that you are cognizant of. It's definitely what gets the airplay. There are hundreds of millions of muslims globally. Does bin Laden control all of their cultures? Are you letting the bin Laden define your interpretation of what is Islam?

wonderwench

Certainly OBL colors my interpretation of Islam. He is promoting a belief that Allah will reward Muslims who kill the infidels. The Islamic world has been tellingly silent about the atrocities. This is not surprising given that they mostly live in totalitarian societies (largely theocracies) which suppress and terrorize them.

This is precisely why a reformation is necessary: to free the moderate majority from the fanatics.

cthulu23

Of course a reformation is needed, what is debatable is the best way to approach that goal. Since you do see that the majority of Muslims are not involved with the violent fundamentalists, can you understand how approaching the problem as the battle of cultures can cause the moderates to draw back from us? If we are serious about reform then we have to be careful not to push away our potential allies. To use the Vietnam parlance, we must win their hearts and minds. That isn't going to happen if they think we want to invade and de-Islamicize thir country.

wonderwench

I don't think anyone is suggesting de-Islamicizing their countries. The furthest we should go is to help the moderates gain political control and then support them while they transition to sovereignity.

I do believe that is what we are accomplishing in Iraq.

roachboy

this is more than a "difference of opinion"

you are empirically wrong and the conceptual framework that you use to organize your faulty information is dangerous.

but since you do not address the problems raised for your position at all i assume that underneath it all, you believe that all positions are equally arbitrary, and that yours is correct because it is yours.

this generates considerable frustration for me. your way of arguing your positions makes conversation almost impossible.

i dont suppose the fact that saddam hussein was a secular ruler, presiding for better of worse over a secular state, in any way makes a problem of your position?

i dont imagine that the reports on bbc [[for example]] last night that the resistance in iraq is both alot bigger than was thought and is mostly secular in orientation--this from american intelligence sources--complicates your view in any way?

i dont imagine that your opinion can accomidate the fact that such al-qeada style influence as there might be in iraq at the moment is a function of american actions themselves---that the ideology might be a series of signifiers that pulls together politically otherwise unrelated groups/tendencies? and that the outcome you attribute to a series of ridiculous assertions about the nature of islam--as if it is one thing, as if it can be understood using the categrories that you routinely bring to bear on it--could be entirely situational?


where does bin laden come from?
what is his basic position relative to the government of saudi arabia?
why do you imagine his ideology looks as it does, then?
do you imagine that you could explain **anything** about it from your own frame of reference? try it.

you want to know one of the major reasons why the iranian revolution turned out as it did? because the only spaces that were not suppressed by savak were the mosques. what did that mean? the only spaces where dissent could be expressed in iran before the revolution were mosques--so the dissent got wrapped in the language used there--because it had to function in a kind of code--and so the nature of the revoltuion was a kind of outcome of shaped profoundly by attempts to suppress dissent undertaken by the shah...

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

RB - I cannot engage in a discussion with you if you are going to continue to belittle me. Do not take my silence in future to be a concession that you are correct.

I will make one final comment. The fact that Iraq was quasi-secular (Saddam made himself the god) makes it a fertile ground for an Islamic reformation.

roachboy

look, i am checking out of this.

i do not understand why you choose to conflate critique of your position with personal attack.

attacking an argument is not the same as attacking a person.

and if you make an argument in a public space on a political topic, it is not unreasonable to assume that you will be willing to defend it.

defending an argument is not ignoring what people say and repeating your premise.

such stuff as slides around inside my posts that might offend is a result of a mounting frustration with how you operate in this space.

frustration--nothing more, nothing else, nothing bigger.

you might answer the questions....maybe the conversation could actually turn into something.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cthulu23

I was saying we must avoid the appearance of wanting to de-islamicize their culture. You never answered my question....don't we risk alienating the moderates if we speak of this conflict as some culture clash?

wonderwench

Possibley. Correctly identifying a thing may always offend someone who doesn't wish to acknowledge its true nature.

It is all in how we say it. By identifying that the fanatics are the architects of the "clash" and then supporting the moderates to overthrow them, we may actually earn their goodwill. This is the experiment currently underway in Iraq.

cthulu23

The problem is, the culture of the moderates is closer to that of the radicals than to western culture, which makes sense, right? If we continue on with blustery language about crusades and defeating another culture, there is a very real chance that moderates will identify that culture as their own. We've probably tortured this idea beyond recognition, but my intent this entire time has been to highlight the dangers in macho diplomacy that brands entire nations evil-doers.

wonderwench

Who is blustering about crusades and defeating another culture?

I do not confuse liberating oppressed people from totalitarian despots and theorcrats with defeating a culture.

cthulu23

Our esteemed President has used language that can easily be interpreted in such a way, language that may have been intended to appear tough.

You've consistently phrased the Western conflict with Islamic extremists as a "clash of culture" and have advocated defeating them, so you, too, have talked of this. Personally, I don't believe that extremists compromise the whole of a culture (except their own micro-culture), but I'm not interested in debating semantics.