Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (89463)	4/3/2003 9:41:58 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

> The Shiite and Sunni versions of Islamism differ not at all in essentials with regard to their views on democracy and Modernity Not so. Both sides, like all other religions, consider the word of God to be above the word of man. The difference is that in Shia, unlike Sunni, the belief in Logic and in Justice is fundamental. That is to say Shia believe only through debate and inspection can good and evil be understood and fought. They further believe in Justice as a fundamental element of universe that we should all adhere to. Furthermore, a Shia cleric does not draw his power from some form climbing some form of power pyramid the way say Catholics do. He starts by publishing a thesis and giving lectures. As more and more people choose to fallow him, he gets to have a greater power base. In other words the power structure is inherently democratic (albeit not in the western sense) and is dynamic enough to accommodate a modern society...you need to learn more than Khomeini's speeches. > The government of Pakistan is ambiguously an ally of the West and much threatened by local islamist movements and its internal security services much invested by them. Wow, you can say this and still are blind to the point I made! This is the point. Islam has always been an integral part of Pakistani society. But fundamentalism did not have as strong a foothold there when their government was not as overtly pro-US. Take a look at what the country was like when Zulfigar Ali Bhutto was in charge before the country was taken over by US-strongman General Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq. At that time Pakistan was weak democracy and crony capitalist that was exerting some resistance against US. But a successive coup d'etas by generals with cozy relations to Washington have turned into what you described: a very unstable regime in fear for its life at the hands of Islamist fundamentalists. > Ditto for Saudi. Ditto indeed! The details are different in Saudi but the general trend is the same. The more the government became a US puppet, the more the fundamentalists grew. > Fundamentalist Islam is a response to modernity whether it be from the West or from Muslim sources. You fail to separate the actions from the motives. Do you really think that the people in the middle east don't like to have good cars and dishwashers? Do you think they enjoy being under brutal repressive regimes? Why is your thesis for the growing popularity of fundamentalist Islamism if you think it is not a backlash against the US supported corrupt regimes and by extension the West? But fortunately there are smarter people in charge. To see how right my thesis is, you need to go no further than Paul Wolfowitz. Start reading why he thinks a democratic and modern Iraq is the best defense against the fundamentalist threat. > Too bad, that. You might have learned something. Unlikely but I am listening.