The Roots of Muslim Rage

[Storekeeper]

http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summer0...olsumm01-3.pdf

I'd like to discuss this paper here in the forum with anybody who takes the times to read it. The subject is: "The Roots of Muslim Rage"

[stroller]

That's an interesting and relevant article, and deserves discussion, though it doesn't account for recent developments, since written in 2001/2.
I haven't read all of it yet, just a quick scan.

What is your comment, and what do you want to discuss about it, SK?

[friscofrankie]

Certainly nowhere in the
Muslim world, in the Middle East or
elsewhere, has American policy
suffered disasters or encountered
problems comparable to those in
Southeast Asia or Central America.
There is no Cuba, no Vietnam, in the
Muslim world, and no place where
American forces are involved as
combatants or even as ‘advisers’. But there is a Libya,
an Iran, and a Lebanon, and a surge of hatred that
distresses, alarms, and above all baffles Americans.

This part lost me. Gonna read the thing though, that statement dated teh article and I am sure it has historical relevance. even if it was penned in 2001/2 as Stroller said, the statement indcates a bias. But I refrain from further comment, until I've had time to read it.

[Storekeeper]

What is your comment, and what do you want to discuss about it, SK?

Once you get past the history and background on pages 17-20 they start to get into the meat of the essay on page 21 paragraph 5. The author talks about how over most of recent history (last 75 years) the USA has done more to help Muslims countries than most other countries and tries to explain why the Muslims don't seem to have much problem with the Russians. The author alludes to this being more a factor of proximity ... possibly meaning the Russians are too close for the Muslims to fuck with.

In my opinion this article is saying that it's not the US support of Israel that fuels their hatred for Americans or those from Western cuiltures ... period. The point of the article is that it's purely a clash of the fundamentalist Muslim beliefs ... they don't want their women to have rights or their people to have freedom of expression. They don't want their government to be a democracy where seperation of church and state is a tenet. At the same the author also holds up Iran's govnerment as being a good example of a constitution based on western democratic principles. The author specifically claims that the two primary issues fundamentalists have are : secularism and modernism.

I think the radicals within Islam are just as much a threat to the majoirty of Muslims as they are to the rest of the Western world. I don't think they can pacified long term ... I don't think these radical fundamentalists will ever stop pushing. I think those who don't see the beauty in taking a stand right now and taking the fight to those who are terrorists right now are only delaying what would be inevitable ... I just don't see how anybody can support any action that would lead to being held hostage by these types of people.

I think this article does a pretty good job of showing that much of what surasak contends in the thread article by the Navy Captain is a bit of hysteria. I don't say this often but I think many of the posters I encounter and engage are alot more influenced my the media and hardback best sellers than I am by military leaders, scholarly articles, CNN or BBC.

I just don't get it. I just don't see how it's anything but jumping on the bandwagon with what some of you people write about the war on terrorism. This article makes it clear that the US isn't perfect but their are perfectly valid and legal reasons why the US has been in places overseas where the terrorists have attacked.

Those who have posted their comments in the various threads about the US & Israel relationship need to read this and explain to me the oddities the author discusses. The reasons you guys give me SHOULD apply equally to the British, Russinas and the French.

[Mhz]

ISLAM AND MUSLIMS ARE BOTH FUCKED UP.

Islam is fucked from the first day and America is the best country cos it always helped Muslims and their rotten countries but Islam tells them not take help from infidels.SO there for FUCK ISLAM and MUSLIMS.

END OF FUCKING STORY.

[stroller]

I think SK was looking for a somewhat more considered response here.

[Mhz]

Pissed Post.Therefore edited.

[Marmite the Dog]

and tries to explain why the Muslims don't seem to have much problem with the Russians. The author alludes to this being more a factor of proximity ... possibly meaning the Russians are too close for the Muslims to fuck with.

Maybe it's because they're not jealous of Russia because that place is fekked too?

[ADare]

That's an interesting and relevant article, and deserves discussion, though it doesn't account for recent developments, since written in 2001/2.
I haven't read all of it yet, just a quick scan.

What is your comment, and what do you want to discuss about it, SK?

I think you will find the article was written in 1990.

Just reading it now, comments to follow.

[Blake7]

and tries to explain why the Muslims don't seem to have much problem with the Russians. The author alludes to this being more a factor of proximity ... possibly meaning the Russians are too close for the Muslims to fuck with.

Maybe it's because they're not jealous of Russia because that place is fekked too?

Quite right. Actually it is more that they do not feel their culture is threatened by Russian culture.

[Skulldigger]

Mafia, red beet soup, vodka for lunch, madness and a tendency for favouring autocracy, plus a hell of a nack for putting up with worse conditions than anyone.

The Russians have my full respect.

[Sir Burr]

The roots of Muslim rage, in my opinion, goes way back to the 1400's.

Before this time, the middle-east was the crossroads for trade between Europe and the East. All caravans used to pass through muslim countries and the inhabitants got rich by either trading directly, being middlemen, or, through taxation.
Back then, muslims were very cosmopolitan and tolerant of foreigners and their ways. More so than Christian Europe.

This all started to change when the Portuegese became Europes first sea-power and started trading with the Orient directly.
Within another couple of hundred years, the English, Dutch and Spanish were all trading directly with the East and vast fortunes were made.

The middle eastern countries had grown poorer as the caravan trains became fewer. It was much faster shipping goods by sea and middlemen were no longer needed.

As their riches shrunk, so too did their influence in political matters. The two muslim empires of the period, the Ottoman and the Mughal were not Arab and would eventually fall through actions by European countries.

From being the centre of western civilization and trade, they effectively became irrelevant back-waters due to the technological superiority of the western nations and their geography.

This, I think, is when the seeds of resentment against the western countries started.

[Wallace]

[/quote]
they don't want their women to have rights or their people to have freedom of expression. They don't want their government to be a democracy where seperation of church and state is a tenet. [/quote]

You raise an interesting point but isn't islam based on the foundation that your life should be lived according to your religious beliefs? How do you separate this from government effectively? Maybe if the Archbishop of Canterbury had some political power we wouldn't have such a mess in the middle east. What if the pope could tell every catholic country to stop supporting war and follow it through? Who's to know?

Although we have succeeded in the west in separating church and state, this doesn't stop politicians from invoking their God as their guiding hand. President Bush recently vetoed a senate vote over stem cell research because his beliefs tell him it was right to do this. Where's democracy at work here? Kenneth Lo said God was on his side just after he'd been found guilty over the Enron scandal. But then God got the last laugh in that one didn't he/she/it? (OK, not exactly pertinent to my argument but I couldn't resist putting it in.)

Freedom of expression may be something that people in the west champion, but tell that to those whom the US has imprisoned for expressing their opinion that Al Qaeda are not entirely misguided. The US are now doing more to stop people expressing their opinions that at any other time in history under the guise of the 'terrorist threat'.

The conflict between islam and the west has been at the root of many bloody battles for hundreds of years. It's always been about power and money and not much else. We can wrap it up in rhetoric and talk about religion being the problem but an honest muslim and an honest Christian (and an honest whatever else you want to be) who understand and practise their faith wouldn't fight and wouldn't start wars. Politicians who do this and hide behind their faith are simply hypocrites who should be removed from office.

[stroller]

What I got from the article, is that the author warns of the very mistakes that have been made shortly after it's been written: He emphasizes that the struggle of different traditios within Islam can only be resolved amongst those, and that outside interference will only amplify hostilities. Further he advocates study of the history and ideas of the religion in order to find similarities and emulate understanding, instead of concentrating on and amplifying the differences to Western religions and values.

[barbaro]

Certainly nowhere in the
Muslim world, in the Middle East or
elsewhere, has American policy
suffered disasters or encountered
problems comparable to those in
Southeast Asia or Central America.
There is no Cuba, no Vietnam, in the
Muslim world, and no place where
American forces are involved as
combatants or even as ‘advisers’. But there is a Libya,
an Iran, and a Lebanon, [b]and a surge of hatred that
distresses, alarms, and above all baffles Americans.[b]

I have to read the article (haven't yet), but this quote above misses many, many, things.

I am not surprised that many Americans are "baffled" about why they are hated in the Middle East.

Biased and complete support of Israel diplomatically, politically, economically, and militarily. Giving $3 billion dollars per year to israel with $2 billion mandatory for buying U.S. arms. The very bombs that not only kill Palestinians, but are now killing Lebanese civilians.

U.S. support of dictators that are not popular in their home nations, while at the same time the U.S. claims it wants democracy.

I have to read the article. As stated already, it's heavily outdated because of the recent changes since it was written.

My recommendation of a good book that is relevant even though it's 15 years old: From Beirut to Jerusalum by Thomas Friedman. It's sitting on my shelf now behind me because it's that worthy.

[Sir Burr]

My recommendation of a good book that is relevant even though it's 15 years old: From Beirut to Jerusalum by Thomas Friedman. It's sitting on my shelf now behind me because it's that worthy.

I have read it. I can also strongly recommend it. An excellent book.

[Begbie]

The conflict between islam and the west has been at the root of many bloody battles for hundreds of years. It's always been about power and money and not much else. We can wrap it up in rhetoric and talk about religion being the problem but an honest muslim and an honest Christian (and an honest whatever else you want to be) who understand and practise their faith wouldn't fight and wouldn't start wars. Politicians who do this and hide behind their faith are simply hypocrites who should be removed from office

Well said that man.

[Mr Earl]

The point re. how muslims are feeling a significant degree of humiliation has validity as well.
Also much of the anger has been directed directly against the jews since ww2.

Every time muslim aggression against the jews has failed and actually made Israel stronger and more resolved to survive.(humiliating)

We are seeing this now with the Iran backed Hezbolah hostilities. Israel is becoming more determined to survive.(more humiliation brewing)
The danger lurks for the possibility of Israel using too much force.

So far it's a battle of news media as well. Who can make the other side look worse.

And the "clash of cultures" issue certainly is valid as well, but I think it will be an ultimate loser for the fundamentalist muslims. The west is simply too strong and too smart to fall into their trap. Their stupidity is only making the west stronger and weakening themselves.

We don't need to annihilate them they will topple themselves in their myopic fanaticism.

[stroller]

We don't need to annihilate them they will topple themselves in their myopic fanaticism.

Noone's mentioned anything about "annihilate", though it might look as if this is what the US and Israel are trying to do.
Of course it's impossible to "annihilate" a belief by killing everyone suspected of holding it.

I'm curious how "they will topple themselves".

[Storekeeper]

I'll have more to say tomorrow. Checked out several books from the library friday ... in particular one co-authored by an Israeli and a Muslim. One thing I am wondering for all of you who think Israel has no real right to the land ... those of you who support the UN ... bottom line to me I think is that the UN opinion would have to be your bottom line. The UN would then be the authoirty that Israel does in fact have a right to. So far it woudl seem from what I've read that most of the Middle East countries except for Saudi Arabia, Iran and other others all were created after WWII or WWII.

[Mr Earl]

We don't need to annihilate them they will topple themselves in their myopic fanaticism.

Noone's mentioned anything about "annihilate", though it might look as if this is what the US and Israel are trying to do.
Of course it's impossible to "annihilate" a belief by killing everyone suspected of holding it.

I'm curious how "they will topple themselves".

In the article the point was made how the west's greatest danger was to over react and use too much force in containing the terrorists.

The repressive fundamentalist regimes will topple much in the same way the Soviet Union crumbled. The people simply will get sick and tired of the militaristic fanatics who are degrading their lives for the sake of some fanatical fundamentalist idealism. The vast majority of muslims are progressive and moderate.
The fundamentalist fanaticism will eventually wane as long as the west doesn't get too crazy and start dropping nukes on Tehran and Damascus.

Though at the moment that might seem like a realistic option.

[Marmite the Dog]

So far it woudl seem from what I've read that most of the Middle East countries except for Saudi Arabia, Iran and other others all were created after WWII or WWII.

The difference being (as you well know) that the other middle eastern countries weren't formed by millions of people moving there from a different part of the world. It actual fact, more people have moved away from the other middle eastern countries, due to them being shit pits run by nutters.

[barbaro]

So far it woudl seem from what I've read that most of the Middle East countries except for Saudi Arabia, Iran and other others all were created after WWII or WWII.

This is what Osama Bin Laden refers to as the "80 years of humiliation."

There have been many conquers in the M.E. over millennias.

But Iraq for example was created by the British in a hotel room in Egypt after WWI. Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites in one, single nation-state? Divide and conquer? I don't know.

Kuwait was created when a Saudi Wahabbi family gave the land in present-day Kuwait to another Wahabbi family. Iraq has always called Kuwait its 19th province, and didn't recognize Kuwait until 1961.

Churchill made a joking comment about the day he drew the lines of Jordan.

[Storekeeper]

OK. This is what I think the author of the essay is trying to say:

Religion and politics seperated works in the Christian societies but it will never work in the same form in the Arab countries ... and also Iran.

The hatred of America is a misnomer. The hatred is in reality directed at all Western countries and it's all about ideology. The Muslims have as much if not more reason to despise Russia ... but they don't because the Russian way of life has no appeal to the Muslims. So it is isn't a priority on the threat list.

The hatred is primarily rooted in the fundamentalists. So a minority faction of Muslims. The Muslims initially had no problem with Western countries ... because they didn't realize how powerful it was or that the people would become more and more Western in their beliefs and their ways.

At one time the Muslims dominated much of the world. That's not the case anymore and they flat out don't like it. In the view of the fundamentalist it's totally unsatisfactory for the infidels to be in a position over them.

It is not about US support for Israel. That is nothing more than a convenient excuse. It is about the Muslim feeling of superiority over Christians, Jews and all others. The fundamentalist Muslims view themselves the true believers and that all others are infidels. So the current situation, which has lasted over three hundred years at this point, is totaly unacceptable to them that the infidels are in a superior position.

"Fundamentalist leaders are not mistaken in seeing in Western civilization the greatest challenge to the way of life they wish to retain or restore for their people.". They are not happy that they have been, "overtaken, overborne, and overwhelmed bu those they regarded as their inferiors".

[stroller]

Curious how differently one can interpret the same text.

One might think you amd I read a different article.

For example:

It is not about US support for Israel. That is nothing more than a convenient excuse.

What the author is saying, is that the support for Israel is an important reason, but is on its own an insufficient explanation for the hartred.