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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (45053)	11/23/2003 8:28:40 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

<<America's strategy in Iraq will save the Islamic world and indeed is a pincer to the heart of Israel. As the Middle East strengthens through reform, American intervention, and forces of economics it will be able to address the injustices endemic to the region. I see a pattern of inevitability to the problems faced by Islam and it is America who has become Deus Ex Machina. It's interference will serve as a catalyst for the modernisation of the Islamic world so that it may serve as an oasis of stability in an increasingly complex world. >> Zachary Latif Blips Having heard of the recent attacks in Turkey and Iraq I can only surmise that it's a mere blip in a trend. The Turkish army is just as soon going to take over the security apparatus of the nation (won't even touch with a margin pole the political institutions since that would jeopardise any hope of EU entry) and we're going to see some terrific crackdowns. I guess they'll be bending the human rights acts they recently enacted in order to hunt down those behind the attack. I'm very bullish on Turkey right now since we'll see a wave of bolstering this shaky ally by the United States and the EU. The Turkish markets are trading at extraordinarily high levels, despite the recent attacks, but from a macroeconomic perspective it can only get better. The IMF will have to ratify the agreement with Turkey whereas America will ensure that it's triple column in the Middle East begin to strengthen one another (Turkey, Iraq and Israel). Turkey's ex-Islamists sitting in government have shown amazing foresight and these attacks are merely the inevitable culmination of Islamic terrorism. Once you deign 5/6th of humanity as kaffirs, whose lives are worthless, it is only time before even those within the fold of the faith are targetted, either for belonging to the wrong side or for impurity. As for Iraq I would just ignore these daily attacks. America has to indigenise it's force in Iraq in order to prevent the emergence of such overt targets. The critical nature of American "imperialism" is that it has yet to imbibe concepts from the British. The British were able to maintain their control over India for such a long period (an island reigning over a continent for two centuries, quite a spectacular feat) because there was a gradual, yet perceptible, transfer of power to the natives. The lower-order positions were "browned" out knitting in the bureacratic middle class into the Empire. Indeed to co-opt the nation in the colonial status quo is to make sure that they have a sizable stake since in the end only the disaffected will revolt. America's strategy in Iraq will save the Islamic world and indeed is a pincer to the heart of Israel. As the Middle East strengthens through reform, American intervention, and forces of economics it will be able to address the injustices endemic to the region. I see a pattern of inevitability to the problems faced by Islam and it is America who has become Deus Ex Machina. It's interference will serve as a catalyst for the modernisation of the Islamic world so that it may serve as an oasis of stability in an increasingly complex world. Islamic civilisation shares fundamental principles with the West that are alien to Sinic and Hindu world cultures. For me the similarity between Judaism and Islam at times are so striking that the fraticide in Israel is merely the last leg of a more fitting union. Jews as responsible for the cultural awareness of Christendom and Islam have fertilised the germ of a shared history for these two global civilisations. Of course there are critical differences between the two civilisations for instance Islamic ethos is inherently dualised by a tribal-urban dichotomy, further characterised by a rather authoritarian spirit inherited by the decimated cultures of the eastern Meditteranean cultures, whereas Greek and Roman culture lingered on to the extent to impart their legacy to the Christian world. Intriguing that Orthodox Christianity took hold in Greece, the most ancient bastion of the Western world, whereas Catholicism (the Roman variety) firmly established itself in Rome, the historic nucleus of ancient Europe. Shi'ism persisted in Iran, the last great pre-Islamic empire of the east, and it's intriguing how inherent geo-historical differences characterise the splits in the modern day world. We talk of Islam as being tribal but what if the lands that Islam spread to were inherently tribal. Perhaps the reason for Islam's rapid spread (huge geographic expansion very limited population base) traced it's success to the conversion of the nomads that were continually pestering the fertile crescent. We talk of the gap between Islam and Christendom by highlighting Islam's golden age but that's a very weak argument. Islam hasn't so much declined it's just that the expectations of Muslims have increased. Every Islamic country, a millenia or a century ago, were immeasurably worse off and when we talk of the glittering Islamopolises sustaining a dyanmic civilisation, we forget that it was a the world of a very small minority. Islam didn't catch up to Christendom because it's fecundity and macro conditions were exceedingly bad. Whereas the heart of Europe was a dense fertile land, made up of diverse, competing and aggressive entities the land of Islam was constrained by either the trend to depotism or anarchy. You would either have the deadlock of a few empires (Safavids, Ottomans, Mughals) or the clan rivalries of a hundred tribes. Islam did not have the intermediate continuous agarian base, which would have allowed it to evolve a truly dynamic civilisation. Ever wonder why Islam stretches continuously from Morocco to Pakistan but that strech only numbers half a billion or so. India, a singular nation in a rather small penninsula, has twice that number and hence why Hindus and Muslims are roughly equal despite the disparities in geographic concentration. Without a stable peasant culture Islam could not never marshall the resources from a permanent tax base. You had fellahin who were taxed to death to provide for the silver adorned mastiffs of the Ottoman navy and the golden sails but that in itself is an expression of superficial wealth, much like the Taj Mahal. Europe had an advantage which the Islamic crescent never really had adn that was a very fertile climate, which allowed a homogenous character (white, Christian, Helleno-Latin, Germano-Slav) with sufficient barriers to unity to prevent the permanence of a lasting despotic entity ranging from the Pyrennes to the Ruthenian basin. In North Africa the population isn't concentrated between the Sahara and the Med rather it's sandwiched between the Atlas Mountains (which anyway closely hugs the coast) and that most famous lake. Tunisia was a oasis of civilisation with a scattering to be found in Cyrencia and Tripoli of Libya whereas Egypt was heavily concentrated on the Nile and had to remain a singular state. Anyone who crossed the Maghreb from the east would have the key to North Africa and the Middle East had similar conditions. For those wondering why India never evolved to become a mini-Europe in that it would host dynamic nationstates competing for greater progress and expansionism well the caste system would have been quite an inhibitor. The excessive stress on ritual purity would have inhibited the aggressive warfare and assimilation that goes hand in hand with conquest. Furthermore unlike Europe, which is generally a fertile continent divided by a multitude of natural barriers thereby allowing competition of several entities operating from fundamentally a common base, India is a land of distinct geographic zones. The Hindi belt, from Lahore to Chittagong, was the core of the sub-continent and would inevitably chart the course of the history of the sub-continent. When the Mughals conquered Delhi, that was it, they were masters of the region that really mattered for the northwest (corresponding to Pakistan) was a peripherial region inhabited by barbary tribes whereas the southern population were isolated in coastal enclaves that weren't really worth conquering when anyway had such a massive tax base in the Hindi belt. Thus if the Indian region had been uniformly fertile on all latitudes and longitudes, broken by significant geographic barriers, then we could have seen a more dynamic sub-continent which would not have centred on the Hindi belt to such an extent. Zachary Latif 12:33 No Comment. latif.blogspot.com