posted on October 10, 2001 04:41:50 PM new
I just got this weeks Newsweek magazine and found a very well-written and, more importantly, in-depth article:
A few tidbits that I found particularly enlightening:
THE ONES WE HAVE HEARD so far have been comforting but familiar. We stand for freedom and they hate it. We are rich and they envy us. We are strong and they resent this. All of which is true. But there are billions of poor and weak and oppressed people around the world. They don?t turn planes into bombs. They don?t blow themselves up to kill thousands of civilians. If envy were the cause of terrorism, Beverly Hills, Fifth Avenue and Mayfair would have become morgues long ago. There is something stronger at work here than deprivation and jealousy. Something that can move men to kill but also to die.
Osama bin Laden has an answer?religion. For him and his followers, this is a holy war between Islam and the Western world. Most Muslims disagree.
* * *
But bin Laden and his followers ... come out of a culture that reinforces their hostility, distrust and hatred of the West?and of America in particular. This culture does not condone terrorism but fuels the fanaticism that is at its heart
* * *
The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ?true Islam? or quoting the Quran. The Quran is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern strictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare.
* * *
By the late 1980s, while the rest of the world was watching old regimes from Moscow to Prague to Seoul to Johannesburg crack, the Arabs were stuck with their aging dictators and corrupt kings. Regimes that might have seemed promising in the 1960s were now exposed as tired, corrupt kleptocracies, deeply unpopular and thoroughly illegitimate. One has to add that many of them are close American allies.
* * *
This disillusionment with the West is at the heart of the Arab problem. It makes economic advance impossible and political progress fraught with difficulty. Modernization is now taken to mean, inevitably, uncontrollably, Westernization and, even worse, Americanization. This fear has paralyzed Arab civilization. In some ways the Arab world seems less ready to confront the age of globalization than even Africa, despite the devastation that continent has suffered from AIDS and economic and political dysfunction. At least the Africans want to adapt to the new global economy. The Arab world has not yet taken that first step.
* * *
America?s greatest sins toward the Arab world are sins of omission. We have neglected to press any regime there to open up its society. This neglect turned deadly in the case of Afghanistan. Walking away from that fractured country after 1989 resulted in the rise of bin Laden and the Taliban. This is not the gravest error a great power can make, but it is a common American one. As F. Scott Fitzgerald explained of his characters in ?The Great Gatsby,? ?They were careless people, Tom and Daisy?they smashed things up and creatures and then retreated back into their money, or their vast carelessness ... and let other people clean up the mess.? America has not been venal in the Arab world. But it has been careless.
Yet carelessness is not enough to explain Arab rage. After all, if concern for the Palestinians is at the heart of the problem, why have their Arab brethren done nothing for them? (They cannot resettle in any Arab nation but Jordan, and the aid they receive from the gulf states is minuscule.) Israel treats its 1 million Arabs as second-class citizens, a disgrace on its democracy. And yet the tragedy of the Arab world is that Israel accords them more political rights and dignities than most Arab nations give to their own people. Why is the focus of Arab anger on Israel and not those regimes?
* * *
On Israel we should make a clear distinction between its right to exist and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. On the first we should be as unyielding as ever; on the second we should continue trying to construct a final deal along the lines that Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak outlined. I suggest that we do this less because it will lower the temperature in the Arab world?who knows if it will??than because it?s the right thing to do. Israel cannot remain a democracy and continue to occupy and militarily rule 3 million people against their wishes. It?s bad for Israel, bad for the Palestinians and bad for the United States.
* * *
The United States must help Islam enter the modern world. It sounds like an impossible challenge, and it certainly is not one we would have chosen. But America?indeed the whole world?faces a dire security threat that will not be resolved unless we can stop the political, economic and cultural collapse that lies at the roots of Arab rage. During the cold war the West employed myriad ideological strategies to discredit the appeal of communism, make democracy seem attractive and promote open societies. We will have to do something on that scale to win this cultural struggle.
posted on October 10, 2001 04:53:01 PM new
What both discomfits and surprises me is...
I have yet to hear a full-throated and angry disavowal of Bin Ladin's version of Islam by an American Muslim cleric. Not one. All I've heard are entreaties for Americans to learn about the loving nature of Islam...or anger at current or future possible "profiling."
Not one furious denunciation of Bin Ladin...or his beliefs. Have I missed it?
posted on October 10, 2001 05:20:14 PM newtoke: Yes, I think you have missed it. I don't have a readily available link, but I have heard a number of American Muslim leaders strongly denounce the actions of Bin Laden and stress over and over again that suicide, murder, and "holy wars" are not part of "true" Islam.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 10, 2001 05:27:09 PM new
You're not going to hear the condemnation from the Mosques. The common thread that runs through the countries and populations that passively or actively support or harbor terrorists is the Islamic religion. The terrorist network includes religious leaders and the religious connection between the terrorists groups.
The people who bombed the WTC the first time included the Imam from a NJ Mosque, and the terrorists met and planned the bombing at the Mosque.
This will be a fun world once these folks get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. I only hope the West settles these matters before it is too late.
posted on October 10, 2001 05:41:09 PM new
If you have access to the online New York Times, Andrew Sullivan's article in the October 7 issue, "This is a Religious War," is definitely worth a read.
posted on October 10, 2001 05:48:43 PM newNebula5: Interesting article, but I think the title is a little misleading. You have to read a ways through the text before you get to this:
"In that sense, this surely is a religious war -- but not of Islam versus Christianity and Judaism. Rather, it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity."
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 10, 2001 06:06:09 PM new
I have an Uncle who was a planner and estimater for Aramco oil company.
What does a planner do? He sits down with the information about what is going to be built such as a refinery or a nuclear power plant and says OK we are going to need 1200 hours of survay time and 380 hours of bore testing.
SO many hours of earthmover work using x number of these machines. and so on right up until the ribbon is cut and the new owner has official possesion of the plant. Obviously he has to know a lot about a great many things to estimate the total cost and time for a complex project. He is one of the six smartest people I have ever known. I used to play chess with him and never ever even came close to winning. Once in my twenties I determained that I was going to win and we played all day no limit on time for moves. I would study the board for a half hour and move he would always move within about 30 seconds. I did beat him but found out I had to consider all the reasonably probable moves 8 plays ahead to beat him. He was delighted and amused I beat him and I went upstairs threw up and went to bed with a pounduing headache. I say all this because he spoke to me about the Arab culture and I take what he said very seriously. He is smart enough to value his opinion.
He pointed out a defect of the culture that does not even touch on religion.
He worked with everyone from the people out in the field right up to the oil minister of Saudi Arabia and said that there is a lack of respect for the person who actually works. That it is OK to be an administrator but that the closer you get to someone who actually touches not only a drill rig or a wrench but even a computer or works in an experimental lab you slide down the scale quickly to being a menial. They will never have control of their destiny and be independant because they hire foreigners to do all the skilled jobs. They are simply not interested in training chemists and engineers and technicians because all those jobs are undesirable and nobody advances from the ranks like in the US to be a boss who has experience and knows what he is doing from the shop floor so to speak.
He said that everyone he knew in the Kingdom who worked at an official position spent two thirds of their time each day calling around on the phone lining up entertainment for the night where they would suck up to whoever could advance their career, and shoring up their alliances with all the right people.
Some of it was tribal some was at the family level.
So he concluded they will never be a power the same way the Europeans or the Americans are until they lose this distain for honest work and stop importing all their skilled people at inflated wages. They spend and huge amounts of time and money just watching and controlling all the foreigners in their land, and are basically afraid of them being there even though they can't do without them. They will always be consumers rather than producers in a modern global economy.
posted on October 10, 2001 06:10:55 PM newBarry...
Good. I want you to be right. I'll keep listening for it...it's been bothering me. I can't imagine why they aren't truly angry with the terrorists for using Islam as their impetus to murder. I devoutly hope they are.
posted on October 10, 2001 06:14:58 PM new
I'm tired of hearing how the Arab world is so poor and depressed. Haven't we paid them trillions of dollars in the last 30 years for their oil? I can see Afghanistan being destitute because of no resources, but what of Saudi Arabia? Iran? Iraq?
If 1/100th of the revenue had been used for social improvement instead of polo ponies, palaces, and SCUD missiles there'd be a lot fewer terrorists to kill.
posted on October 10, 2001 06:17:25 PM new
Cooltom - Yes - but read above and see how that fits. They are not interested in becoming a bunch of busy worker bees like us. That is what servants are for. Gentlemen don't work. Heavens!
posted on October 10, 2001 06:23:06 PM newcooltom: Well, one of the thing the Newsweek article points out is that the LEADERS of these countries have obscene amounts of wealth and that little, if any, of it trickles down to the masses.
I just wonder why the people don't revolt more often....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 10, 2001 06:29:24 PM new
Barry, I had read the newsweek article and it does present a good analysis. All the points in the article I have heard or read in various media a number of times the last few weeks, but of course they are presented in isolation and encountered in a random fashion, especially on the news stations and CNN in particular.
The link that Nebula5 gives is actually to a series of inter-related articles exploring the nature of fundamentalism, first in Islam, but then by way of extended analysis to highlights of its influence in western culture and politics up to contemporary American society. Excellent thinking and writing in those articles.
Thanks to both of you for sharing those thought provoking pieces.
posted on October 10, 2001 07:03:13 PM new
Godzilla: I guess I should have read the article but my point was that America is always blamed for the disparity.
Very good info about the work ethic. My thoughts have always been that they're be a lot fewer street demonstrations if the unemployment rate was less than 40% (can't say if that's the true number but I assume the rate is bad). Add in that in the Middle East, being a religious stutent is a paid position -- no wonder.
It has been my hope that an infusion of capitalism, a smidgen of education and democracy would cool the fires there. Being there seems to be no trace of self initiative save being a suicide bomber there is no hope for them.
So dial in the coordinates on the nukes and let them fly. Killing these clowns one-by-one is a waste of time and money so let's just do it on the quick and cheap.
Harsh words, yes. I am a non-violent person but these people have cast off any vestiges of humanity and civilization voluntarily.
posted on October 11, 2001 05:29:11 AM new
Cooltom, you are saying what I said several weeks ago. I still stand by that.
There has been fighting in the middle east since the beginning of time-we have been involved in the mess since at least Truman's presidency.
These people don't play by the same rules we do. They don't have the same beliefs about what constitutes civilized society, religion, work ethics, decency, not anything! They are truly in a 'different world' from us. It is very foolish therefore, to expect them to work with us, it ain't gonna happen. We have been trying diplomacy, embargoes, foreign aid, and the like for 50 years and the situation has not improved one iota. As shown by this recent attack on our country, condoning, even by omission, their fanaticism has just brought their fanaticism to our country.
So it's time to forget about diplomacy and put a stop to all this-we don't want their war in our country! And it appears that the only way to keep it out is to completely destroy their civilization, as harsh as that may seem. It is obvious after so many centuries that nothing else is going to work.
posted on October 11, 2001 05:37:02 AM newSo dial in the coordinates on the nukes and let them fly. Killing these clowns one-by-one is a waste of time and money so let's just do it on the quick and cheap.
and
And it appears that the only way to keep it out is to completely destroy their civilization, as harsh as that may seem.
There's no problem too big that a little genocide can't cure, eh?
If I were a religious man, I'd be praying for your souls for even THINKING about this option. I'm not, though, so all I can do is express my extreme disgust at the thought of wiping out [or trying to wipe out] an entire civilization comprized of countless millions of people in numerous countries.
Yeah, I'm upset about the September 11th attacks as much as anyone, and I agree that military action is necessary against the countries that supported the terrorists, but the idea of nuking millions and millions of people is just plain sickening.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 06:37:31 AM new
Nuking millions of people is a sickening prospect- at least for the West.
However, these people will do it to us and celebrate in the streets when it is done. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Iran has built a nuclear power plant with the help of Russia, and is going to get S300 SAM missiles from Russia to protect the plant from Israeli bombers.
The question is not should we destroy our enemies, but rather - what will happen if we do not destroy them ?
If something drastic isn't done, our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are going to have a hellish existence - should they survive. These countries are actively seeking technology of mass destruction, and it was amply demonstrated on 9-11-01 that they will use it on us at the earliest opportunity.
Anyone who thinks that a man living in a remote, desolute outpost in Afghanistan can kill 6000 people on American soil without the help of other Islamic countries and the web of Mosques around the world is naive.
As information about this terrorist "network" is uncovered, it will become increasing difficult for Bush to act on the information due to political considerations. However, once these nations have weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, the task becomes impossible.
What we have is a baby python growing in our midst. Some wish to just let it grow because it is mostly innocent, as the fangs and venom represent only a small fraction of the body of the beast. Let it grow until it is too large to safely handle or contain. Some would rather cut its head off. If the python grows to maturity, the future is unpredictable regarding where, when, or who it will kill. But if the python is dead, it can harm no one.
The alternative to destroying those who will murder Americans at every opportunity is to give up oil and economically starve the region to oblivion.
posted on October 11, 2001 06:53:31 AM newreamond: If something drastic isn't done, our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are going to have a hellish existence - should they survive
And do you truly believe that the world would be a better place if we were to nuke the entire Middle East in an attempt to wipe out an entire civilization? Environmental impact? Socio-economic impact [we'd definitely need a new source for oil, unless you like your gasoline radioactive]? The knowledge that we've committed genocide on a scale not dreamt of even by Pol Pot and hitler? Earning the fear and loathing of every other nation on the planet? The eventual nuclear counter attacks by other nations who now feel that anything is fair game? The fact that we have hundreds of thousands of peace-loving Muslims in the U.S.A. who may not feel so peaceful after we've attempted to "wipe out their civilization" [that one doesn't count, I guess, since we would obviously have to round all of them up as well and shoot them]?
If this were a single country at war with us, such as Japan during WWII, you might be right. We did some horrific damage, the government surrendered, end of story. But to try and do the same thing with this situation would leave a good chunk of the world an uninhabitable wasteland for thousands of years and STILL might not solve the problem.
No, I wouldn't want to live in a world where we allowed terrorists to use weapons of mass destruction against us. But neither would I want to live in a world where we did it to them first. Hopefully there are other options available, or else the human race as a whole can pretty much kiss its collective butts goodbye.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 07:28:04 AM new
Barry, your entire premise is wrong. This is not genocide-this is self defense. I've said it before and will say it again, we have arrived at the 'us or them' point.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:36:43 AM new
Such a thing might be done in the name of "self-defense," but it would still be genocide. And would put us on the same footing as a roach like Hitler, who used the same excuse. No thank you. I'm all for going after those responsible, but the idea of wiping out an entire region because of what it might do to us is disgusting. And then what--do the same to Indonesia because after all, that is the home of another large population of Muslims? Will we bomb sections of the US where Muslims live--or simply line up & shoot any Muslims living here? And, of course, we'd have to target the Muslims living in various other countries around the world...could you wait to bomb Fiji (8% Muslim) until after I get back from my dive trip? It would put a real damper on my vacation, you know.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:38:11 AM newbearmom: This is not genocide-this is self defense.
I respectfully disagree. "Self defense" is when you have an identifiable foe and you attack them. "Genocide" is when you're not sure who attacked you so you decide to just kill anybody who might have been responsible, or who might decide to attack you in the future, and then go ahead and kill everyone else in the region for good measure, firm in your conviction that anybody of Arab birth or who practices Islam [regardless of what form of Islam or what personal beliefs they espouse], is potentially a terrorist and therefore needs to be wiped off the face of the earth, just to be on the safe side.
Have I overstated your case? Possibly. But those are the things I think of when I read statements like "the only way to keep it out is to completely destroy their civilization". Maybe you know of some way to "completely destroy their civilization" that would stop short of genocide, but franky I can't think of one.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 07:58:19 AM new
Genocide has nothing to do with not being able to identify the wrong doer. There is/are no wrong doer(s) in the subject group.
Genocide is the killing of a group for no other reason than they are a member of the group.
We have a reason to destroy these people and it has nothing to do with them being a member of that group.
We are in a fight for survival, and the identified group has promised to kill us, and has acted on that promise.
The problem with finding the "wrong doers" is that it will lead to exactly the same place - the enablers and supporters are throughout the Muslim world, in the governments, in the Mosques, in the streets, and in the homes.
These Muslim countries have populations that actively and passevily support these murders. The Mosques are meeting places and communication points towards the destruction of the America.
Using a geo-political definition of a "country" is out dated and serves to blur the issue of responsibility. This web of murders is throughout the Muslim world. It is a shadow government run through the Mosques around the world.
Why do you think the US has already notified the UN that other countries will be attacked by the US ? Even the leader of Pakistan has said that getting bin Laden will be like stripping a single leaf from the terrorist tree.
Like I already said, there has not been enough carnage and murder of innocent Americans yet to steel our resolve to destroy our enemy.
posted on October 11, 2001 08:01:34 AM new
What happens when they try to commit geocide on the United States with their own WOMD? Will the US be a footnote in history because they were too nice survive?
posted on October 11, 2001 08:03:25 AM new
So you're in favor of gathering up all the American citizens who happen to be muslims, and shooting, gassing, or giving lethal injections to them? How about those living in the UK? South America? Where do you draw the line in your "self defense"?
posted on October 11, 2001 08:04:50 AM new
It's obvious that you can't kill a billion people. Not practically and not morally. What are you guys smoking?
posted on October 11, 2001 08:09:19 AM newREAMOND: We are in a fight for survival, and the identified group has promised to kill us, and has acted on that promise.
I'm sorry, but who is "the identified group" of whom you speak? Is it all Arabs? All Muslims? If so, then killing all Arabs or Muslims, based solely on the fact that they ARE Arabs or Muslims, would certainly have something to do with them "being a member of that group".
Is the "identified group" just the Islamic fundamentalists [who make up a very small percentage of Muslims worldwide]? If so, how do you propose we identify which are the fundamentalists and which are not? Again, if the only way to be sure is to kill them all, then you are still talking about killing people because they are "members of a group".
Who, exactly, are "these people" that you're so keen on nuking? And if you're willing to wipe out an entire ethnic group, religion, or civilization just to make sure you don't miss any of the "bad guys", then I'm afraid you are indeed talking about genocide.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 08:24:46 AM new
Thanks for asking those questions, Barry. You saved me some typing. I'd be interested in RAEMOND's response.
posted on October 11, 2001 09:07:51 AM new
We didn't have the means in WWII to discriminate between the good Germans and the good Japanese, we leveled their countries, and killed thousands of innocent men,woman and children. We are faced with the same problem now.
The challenge is not thinking in terms of "countries", as we did in WWII. This is not about a country, it is about a religion and culture steeped in hatred and cold blooded murder of innocent Americans.
What shall we do when the money trail leads to Saudi Arabia and the OAE ( which it already has); what shall we do when we find that the terrorists met with an Iraqi intellegence officer; what shall we do when we find out that the terrorists are trained and operate with impunity in Libya, Lebanon, Indonesia, and the Sudan? What shall we do when we find that Iran and Iraq are supplying WOMD to these "independent" evil doers. What shall we do when we find that the terrorist communications system moves around the world through Mosques ? What shall we do when these "holy men" rally the people to murder Americans ? What shall we do when entire populations knowingly harbor and succor these "singular" and "independent" "evil doer" terrorists ?
Innocent and good people being killed ? Yup- 6000 of them murdered right here in America, 280 million to go. Regarding the "good" Arab Muslims visiting here in the US- deport them and/or turn them into spies.
The terrorists are knowingly using our own value system against us. This will become an ineffective police and criminal investigation until we realize it is war. The Viet Cong used the same tactics. I remember well a Cong General spouting about their tactic to intentionally wound US soldiers and wait for their comrades to try to save them so they could kill them too. They knew Americans would try to save their buddy and also try to recover the bodies.
Like I said- they just haven't murdered enough Americans yet for many to see the light.
We need to address our survival as a free nation first. We can study the moral implications after our survival is assured.
Until these populations are hit and hit hard, the survival of America is at risk.
