SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (155867)12/9/2002 6:49:20 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1585789
 
What a problem solving concept. Wonder how we could put that to work in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bengladesh, Pakistan, etc...What if we PUT that trillion dollars we are aiming to spend on war in Iraq to peaceful purposes here and there?

That's another great liberal idea. Pay them to like us.

Groan.

I think you've coined the name for the war though. "The Trillion Dollar War".

Man, liberals can mangle the facts worse than just about anyone on earth.



To: Alighieri who wrote (155867)12/9/2002 9:41:55 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1585789
 
However, if China starts to get prosperous, there hopefully will be no need to go to war, as the citizens of both will gain.

What a problem solving concept. Wonder how we could put that to work in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bengladesh, Pakistan, etc...What if we PUT that trillion dollars we are aiming to spend on war in Iraq to peaceful purposes here and there?


Al, can you imagine?

Unfortunately, to too many, bombs seem preferable.

ted



To: Alighieri who wrote (155867)12/10/2002 1:23:33 AM
From: hmaly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1585789
 
Aligjieri Re.. What a problem solving concept. Wonder how we could put that to work in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bengladesh, Pakistan, etc...

Do you really think OBL would take a bribe, or that we would even contemplate giving a mass murderer of our civilians one. Only you liberals could believe in the validity of such a concept. Secondly, we already give most of the countries in the middle east most of our foreign aid, and I am not talking about just Israel. Even as the Taliban was attacking us, we were the largest donar of food aid to Afghanistan. Egypt gets more aid than Israel. We defend both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Any more and it will be considered extortion.

As you said earlier, it is a clash of cultures. Here is an article written in that most liberal of Newspapers, the NYT; and it illustrates what I have been talking about; that our aim is to start the transformation in Iraq, and hope it spreads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/opinion/04FRIE.html
An Islamic Reformation
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

What's going on in Iran today is, without question, the most promising trend in the Muslim world. It is a combination of Martin Luther and Tiananmen Square — a drive for an Islamic reformation combined with a spontaneous student-led democracy movement. This movement faces a formidable opponent in Iran's conservative clerical leadership. It can't provide a quick fix to what ails relations between Islam and the West today. There is none. But it is still hugely important, because it reflects a deepening understanding by many Iranian Muslims that to thrive in the modern era they, and other Muslims, need an Islam different from the lifeless, anti-modern, anti-Western fundamentalism being imposed in Iran and propagated by the Saudi Wahhabi clerics. This understanding is the necessary condition for preventing the brewing crisis between Islam and the West — which was triggered by 9/11 — from turning into a war of civilizations.

To put it another way, what's going on in Iran today is precisely the war of ideas within Islam that is the most important war of all. We can kill Osama bin Laden and all his acolytes, but others will spring up in their place. The only ones who can delegitimize and root out these forces in any sustained way are Muslim societies themselves. And that will happen only when more Muslim societies undergo, from within, their own struggle for democracy and religious reform. Only the disenchanted citizens of the Soviet bloc could kill Marx; only Muslims fed up that their faith is being dominated by anti-modernists can kill bin Ladenism and its offshoots.

This struggle in Iran is symbolized by one man, whose name you should know: Hashem Aghajari, a former Islamic revolutionary and now a college professor, who was arrested Nov. 6 and sentenced to death by the Iranian hard-liners — triggering a student uprising — after giving a speech on the need to rejuvenate Islam with an "Islamic Protestantism."

Mr. Aghajari's speech was delivered on the 25th anniversary of the death of Ali Shariati, one of the Iranian revolution's most progressive thinkers. In the speech — translated by the invaluable MEMRI service — he often cited Mr. Shariati as his inspiration. He began by noting that just as "the Protestant movement wanted to rescue Christianity from the clergy and the church hierarchy," so Muslims must do something similar today. The Muslim clergymen who have come to dominate their faith, he said, were never meant to have a monopoly on religious thinking or be allowed to ban any new interpretations in light of modernity.

"Just as people at the dawn of Islam conversed with the Prophet, we have the right to do this today," he said. "Just as they interpreted what was conveyed [to them] at historical junctures, we must do the same. We cannot say: `Because this is the past we must accept it without question.' . . . This is not logical. For years, young people were afraid to open a Koran. They said, `We must go ask the mullahs what the Koran says.' Then came Shariati, and he told the young people that those ideas were bankrupt. [He said] you could understand the Koran using your own methods. . . . The religious leaders taught that if you understand the Koran on your own, you have committed a crime. They feared that their racket would cease to exist if young people learned [the Koran] on their own."

He continued: "We need a religion that respects the rights of all — a progressive religion, rather than a traditional religion that tramples the people. . . . One must be a good person, a pure person. We must not say that if you are not with us we can do whatever we want to you. By behaving as we do, we are trampling our own religious principles."

Mr. Aghajari concluded: "Today, more than ever, we need the `Islamic humanism' and `Islamic Protestantism' that Shariati advocated. While [Iran's clerical leaders] apparently do not recognize human rights, this principle has been recognized by our Constitution. . . . The [Iranian regime] divides people into insiders and outsiders. They can do whatever they want to the outsiders. They can go to their homes, steal their property, slander them, terrorize them and kill them because they were outsiders. Is this Islamic logic? When there is no respect for human beings?"

Mr. Aghajari refused to appeal his death sentence, saying his whole conviction was a farce. But on Monday his lawyer appealed on his own. Mr. Aghajari's fate now hangs in the balance. Watch this story. It's the most important trial in the world today.




Very interesting no? Especially these parts.

We can kill Osama bin Laden and all his acolytes, but others will spring up in their place. The only ones who can delegitimize and root out these forces in any sustained way are Muslim societies themselves. And that will happen only when more Muslim societies undergo, from within, their own struggle for democracy and religious reform.

And this. Only the disenchanted citizens of the Soviet bloc could kill Marx; only Muslims fed up that their faith is being dominated by anti-modernists can kill bin Ladenism and its offshoots.

We need this kind of reform in all of the Islamic countries. We can't just sit here and keep absorbing punishment. Iraq is the logical place to start the democratic and religious reforms necessary. Who knows. It might even solve the Palestinian puzzle.