Humiliating" the Arabs? And if so... so what?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Where's MtG to set you all straight on the origins of fundamentalist movements in the Arab world? I want to hear some more analysis of Qutb...

Somewhere between too busy and too lazy.

Oh, and don't forget al Maududi, he's a real charmer too.

Here's your happy al Maududi tidbit for the day:

Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world. It does not want this in order that one nation dominates the earth and monopolizes its sources of wealth, after having taken them away from one or more other nations. No, Islam wants and requires the earth in order that the human race altogether can enjoy the concept and practical program of human happiness, by means of which God has honoured Islam and put it above the other religions and laws. In order to realize this lofty desire, Islam wants to employ all forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal all-embracing revolution. It will spare no efforts for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called jihad.

This is the beginning of the introduction to Ma'alim f'il Tariq ("Milestones"), your happy al Qutb quote of the day.

Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice, not because of the danger of complete annihilation which is hanging over its head - this being just a symptom and not the real disease - but because humanity is devoid of those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy development but also for its real progress. Even the Western world realizes that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind. It knows that it does not possess anything which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence...

It is essential for mankind to have a new leadership...

It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which positive and constructive, and which is practicable.

Islam is the only system which possesses these values and this way of life.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


At times I think there is no principled opposition to wars of this kind. It seems that the opposition is highly dependent upon the political party proposing the intervention.

Kissinger (and many other Republicans) opposed Clinton's war against Milosovic, and gave a lot of cogent reasons why we should not intervene. But the end result has been good, making a lie of the initial opposition by Kissinger and may other Republicans. I assume they would say, just as much as you have here KH, that they were right in their opposition to the war but were glad with the result.

Rethink ned.

I'm not happy with the overall result. I am happy with certain pieces of it. In other words, if you ignore all the downsides but think about all the upsides, then yes, the picture is pretty rosy.

[KrazyHorse]

Don't you ever get tired of bieng wrong, sweetheart?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
actually, pace both yourself (above) and Oerdin, Islamic fundamentalism was growing more in the 1980's, but was declining in the '90s, notably in Egypt and Algeria, and even in Sudan. Its takeover of Afghanistan was largely a response to local factors (disorders among warlords from 1992 to 1995) To a great extent Al Qaeedas attack on the US was a response to this decline, an alternate strategy for fundamentalism, given that attacks on regimes in the region were failing.

Right, that puts it better. Iwas just reducing the point to an oversimplified argument to counter the "all Arabs were/are/will be Fundamentalists, because it's their culture.

[Whaleboy]

I cant be bothered to read the thread. Can someone summarise?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I cant be bothered to read the thread. Can someone summarise?

Saddam, yadda yadda, Arabs, yadda yadda, lefties, yadda yadda, imperialism, yadda yadda, globalization, yadda yadda, Qutb, al Madoudi and scary quotes, yadda yadda.

That help?

[Whoha]

the picture I posted is a decent enough summary of this thread

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Rethink ned.

I'm not happy with the overall result. I am happy with certain pieces of it. In other words, if you ignore all the downsides but think about all the upsides, then yes, the picture is pretty rosy.

Among the reasons Kissinger opposed Kosovo, was that we would have to take charge of reconstruction in a region filled with ancient hatreds, etc., and that civil unrest would continue for some time. To some extent that has happened in Kosovo, but it has turned out to be manageable

I'm surprised that anyone in the administration or the military was unprepared for a military resistance by the Ba'athist régime. The reason I say this is because the US military also fully expected significant guerrilla resistance to US occupation of Japan if we overthrew the Emperor and arrested him for war crimes as advocated by State. The situation in Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is very similar to situation in Japan at the close of World War II had we overthrown the Emperor and the Japanese government. Why the analysis of the potential for guerrilla resistance would be different this time is a puzzle.

To be consistent, those who opposed Kosovo because of the risk of a guerrilla war should have opposed Iraq for the same reason.

And, vice versa. Those who favored Kosovo despite the risk of a postwar guerrilla war should have also favored Iraq despite that same risk.

But, no one is being consistent here. The position on the two conflicts seems primarily to depend upon one's party affiliation.

[KrazyHorse]

That was the most mindless analysis I've ever seen.



Two different wars waged in two diferent parts of the world for two different reasons in two completely different manners, and you've managed to decide that if you supported one you should support the other.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Right, that puts it better. Iwas just reducing the point to an oversimplified argument to counter the "all Arabs were/are/will be Fundamentalists, because it's their culture.

Boy you sure enjoy misquoting people don't you? Please provide a quote where I said "all Arabs were/are/will be Fundimentalists, because it's their culture". Does lying and mischaracterizing what other people say make you feel better?

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's your happy al Maududi tidbit for the day:

This is the beginning of the introduction to Ma'alim f'il Tariq ("Milestones"), your happy al Qutb quote of the day.

Thank you for scaring the **** out of me.

[Oerdin]

I think we need to be scared by the truth more often. It helps us to keep our feet on the ground and our head out of the clouds.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I've been reading alot about Arab culture and Arab societies since I will be spending the next year in Iraq. I must admite that the more I look the more I find I dislike.

Well, don't knock it till you tried it.

There are many good things about Arab culture but they are being drowned out by a vast number of negatives.

Like what? A tendency to get shot at by Israelis?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Can I say find that response a tad personal? I have been using the utmost restraint to avoid pointing out that certain posters (im not thinking of you in particular Ge, so much as some of our European friends) have an "Israeli hangup" or even more broadly "a Jewish hangup" but i know that hinting at antisemitism in that manner is a hot button for many, and so ive self-censored. If Oerdin has an interest in the arab world, at a time when over a 100,000 US troops are in an arab country, and when the US is in a global war against an organization whose top leadership is composed of arabs (principally Egyptians and Saudis, in case anyone was thinking im confusing arabs and muslims) I hardly see that as evidence of a hangup.

Anti Israeli <> Anti Semetic (we've been here before).

And, before I get lambasted again, it's not the Israeli people that get on my tits, it's the policy of the administration.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That was the most mindless analysis I've ever seen.



Two different wars waged in two diferent parts of the world for two different reasons in two completely different manners, and you've managed to decide that if you supported one you should support the other.

... and vice-versa

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Here's your happy al Maududi tidbit for the day:

Quote:

This is the beginning of the introduction to Ma'alim f'il Tariq ("Milestones"), your happy al Qutb quote of the day.

Thank you for scaring the **** out of me.

You're welcome.

Here's another Ma'alim f'il Tariq tidbit for you, on the subject of Jihad:

In spite of this, these defeatist-type people try to mix the two aspects and want to confine Jihad to what today is called 'defensive war'. The Islamic Jihad has no relationship to modern warfare, either in its causes or in the way in which it is conducted. The causes of Islamic Jihad should be sought in the very nature of Islam and its role in the world, in its high principles, which have been given to it by God and for the implementation of which God appointed the Prophet-peace be on him-as His Messenger and declared him to be the last of all prophets and messengers.

This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth.

Asalaam aleikum.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That was the most mindless analysis I've ever seen.



Two different wars waged in two diferent parts of the world for two different reasons in two completely different manners, and you've managed to decide that if you supported one you should support the other.

I was pointing out from that the right is very guilty of "hypocrisy." The implication is that the left is similarly guilty -- which actually is self event to everyone.

[Az]

Like what? A tendency to get shot at by Israelis?

Yep, we sure shoot those Iraqis a lot.

[Lord Merciless]

Ned, would you shut up with your partisan ramblings? Even though I support your argument lots of the times, saying Clinton/Dems are **** and Bush/Reps are great is not helping our position at all.

I honestly don't care who is sitting on power. I only care whether they make the right decision or not, and I hope they make the right one.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Azazel
Poor Saddam.

I miss him so... so.... much

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Ned, would you shut up with your partisan ramblings? Even though I support your argument lots of the times, saying Clinton/Dems are **** and Bush/Reps are great is not helping our position at all.

I honestly don't care who is sitting on power. I only care whether they make the right decision or not, and I hope they make the right one.

Yes, I agree. But my point is that I supported Clinton during Kosovo and I believe that Kissinger and many Republicans who opposed Kosovo were wrong. The arguments they used to oppose Kosovo were the same arguments they used in the main for not taking out Saddam in 1991. The nut of the argument is that it would involve us in a quagmire (thinking back to Vietnam).

I think they were wrong in '91. They were wrong in '99 with Kosovo. And to the extent that anyone is making the same argument today, they are wrong today.

Dictators who cross the line, who make aggressive war on their neighbors, who use WMD on the enemy and their own people, who grossly abuse the human rights of minorities, have wholly forfeited their right to rule.

Such was Hitler.

Such was Milosovic.

Such was Saddam.

The free nations of the world have a duty to end their regimes, IMO.

[MichaeltheGreat]

But if they're our boys, we can kind of relax the standards a bit...

[KrazyHorse]

Don't interrupt him while he's raving.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
But if they're our boys, we can kind of relax the standards a bit...

Do you really believe that we backed off Saddam in '91 because he was "our boy?"

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Boy you sure enjoy misquoting people don't you? Please provide a quote where I said "all Arabs were/are/will be Fundimentalists, because it's their culture". Does lying and mischaracterizing what other people say make you feel better?

Originally posted by Oerdin

My point is these people were already ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic before and they will continue to be so no matter what we do. It is a characterizing trait of their culture.

Originally posted by Oerdin

Please tell me how you would change the culture of 500 million people who don't want their culture changed.

And those are no quotes out of context, the first one was about Middle East in general, the second quote lumps the whole (and though all in all problematic very diverse) Arab world together in one sentence and suppose that all 500 million are repulsive and closed towards the rest of the world. It's really hard to believe you approach the Arab world "sine ira et studio".
I was just arguing from what you posted yourself, doing nothing else than putting it in my words.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Do you really believe that we backed off Saddam in '91 because he was "our boy?"

I believe (actually, it's so well documented it's like commenting on the sun rising in the east) that we have had all sorts of cozy relationships with all sorts of murderous bastards if ever and whenever it was convenient to our geopolitical and economic interests to do so.

Even when we get rid of the odd nasty bastard, it is after their usefulness to us has passed.

[Ned]

MtG, I'm sorry, but my post was not directed to the average "dirty bastard" dictator. I listed a host of criteria and name only three dictators who met the criteria. I am not aware of any others that meet the criteria to whom we may have given a pass other than Saddam himself.

[KrazyHorse]

Milosevic and Hitler used WMDs on their own people (or anyone, for that matter)?

[KrazyHorse]

You can make case for Hitler, though when he used gas on his victims they were already in captivity, indoors, so there is in my mind more similarity to a firing squad than to, say, Saddam's use of chem weapons against the Kurds.

[Ned]

No, they just rounded them up and slaughtered them, scores or thousands at time, using bullets or gas, depending.

The point is that anyone who uses mass slaughter of civilians, particularly their own, fits this criteria.