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.

[Dinner]

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.

[Dinner]

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