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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (89737)	4/3/2003 8:00:11 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What you are describing is more tactical than fundamental. The biggest supporter of you call "local tyrant" is the US without whom most of them would not last a year. It should not surprise you that the animosity robs off. As well, the failures of the intellectual class with all their western "ism" philosophies, be it communism, liberalism, secularism, etc has caused a disillusionment amongst the local population about all things western. It is true that many of the fundamentalist leaders are anti-western. But how many leaders do you think there are? Their hate of the west would not have found an audience if the western methods had managed to win with the natives. Militant Islam, which is what you are confusing any Islamist with, is simply the front that the locals believe will bring change the fastest. Most of them think that after victory they can change it from inside. As I said before, this is a defense mechanism that says "I will eat poison so you will find me distasteful. Once I know you will not eat me, I'll take vitamins to feel better". May be I should repeat this: many of the leaders of fundamentalist Islamic movements are anti-American. This is the nature of anger and revolution. But local support for them is only temporary and the nature of these movements will change once the native population is satisfied they are no longer in danger from the west. > Don't agree? I know you did not mean me, but since the original post was mine, no I don't. See above. > Find a counter-example. The first modern Islamic regime was The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. By and large the prior to the slew of generals who are deemed as US puppets by their population, the Islamists were not waging war against America. Another example is Iran. So long as Shah was in power, and for few years after that, America was the great Satan. Iran stopped being overtly anti-American long ago. Which incidentally was when the people decided they were safe from American control. Third example is Saudi Arabia. Though they have always been strongly Islamist, militant anti-western Islamists only found an audience when the government became overtly pro-US. Are these enough examples?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (89737)	4/3/2003 8:10:33 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You've confused the point of ST's post Nadine. He argued there was nothing "inherent" in Islamism that it must be at war with the West. That it disagreed, at genuinely fundamental levels, with whatever one is calling the West these days, that's definitely true. Particularly if we are talking about the centrality of the church state separation. But some in the west, remember, are not that certain about the centrality and some of those sit, uncomfortably for my tastes, in seats of power. So it does depend, somewhat, on one's notion as to what is central to a conception of the west. But disagreeing, at fundamental levels, which is inherent in Islamism, does not make the case that war with the west is inherent.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (89737)	4/3/2003 9:56:28 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> there is no inherent reason why an Islamist regime must be at war with the West<< Can anyone seriously argue that the West can live in harmony with a regime that destroys ancient works of art because they are offensive to God? This makes as much sense as arguing that there was no inherent reason that the Spanish Inquisition had to be at war with Protestants during the Reformation. For some people, what you do on Sunday is play golf. For others, you go to church, and then play golf. And for others, you go to church twice on Sunday, and would never dream of playing golf on Sunday. Or dancing, ever. Now, you can sneer at people who are different than you are. Or you can accept that for some of them, they are coming from a completely different place than you are, and that to them, what they believe is internally consistent, and completely antithetical to what you believe, and that there may not be any peaceful resolution that you may find acceptable. Dismissing the reality of their belief system TO THEM out of hand before you even get started isn't realistic or helpful. I've been reading Qutb. He reminds me of Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, Oliver Cromwell, but gentler. A true believer. Not at all violent, at least what I've read so far. But firm in his convictions. I sympathize. I am equally firm in my belief in the dignity of the individual, the right to private property, the separation of church and state, the right to dissent and even be eccentric in your beliefs. And the right of women to interact in the public arena, and work in the common workplace. And a host of other things that are anathema, or maybe apostasy is a better word.