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: Sun Tzu who wrote (89503)	4/3/2003 9:50:08 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>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 but but -- when the fundamentalists take over, do the people get good cars and dishwashers? Are fundamentalist regimes not repressive?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (89503)	4/4/2003 6:48:03 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

ST, There are misunderstandings here. The difference is that in Shia, unlike Sunni, the belief in Logic and in Justice is fundamental. In both cases I'm considering the islamist, that is fundamentalist versions of the faith. Neither differ in their essentials. 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. Generally speaking, so do non Islamist Sunnis and Shia. 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. Sure. Both in Shia and Sunni case; its sort of like some Protestant outfits. 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. In Iran the theocratic setup is such that there is no viable democracy or justice. Too many people arbitrarily taken off the street and tortured. Too much theft and corruption. Too much of an attempt to monitor the state of folks' souls. > 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? This is the crux of the misunderstanding. There are lots of medieval obscurantists driving around in Mercedes and Toyotas pining for for nukes. Islamism, like the Counter-Reformation, Naziism and Fascism are reactions to modernity. They are an effort to deny the present and replace it with an imagined past usually of heroic dimension. It stinks of nostalgia. It's very attractive to both aimless bourgeois children (bin Laden) and the dispossesed (those without access to modernity). In contrast to Islamism, Islam - Shia or Sunni - is not at all in itself incompatible with modernity. Do you think they enjoy being under brutal repressive regimes? No. Re-read my previous post. Why [what] 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? The corrupt regimes, and the West, and "apostate" Muslims, (remember, so far, Islamists have killed far more Muslims, most of whom are not members of corrupt regimes, than Christians), are the required enemy which every movement like Islamism needs. see: iran-bulletin.org