quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I'm wondering what you think would constitute "trying to win hearts and minds"? AFAIK the west has been financially supportive of most of the middle east, and Europe in particular has been politically supportive of the idea of a Palestinian state for a long time. Moreover, the West has invited bright students to do part of their studies in the west, and has ever been willing to trade with Muslims. If this is not "trying to win the hearts and minds", what is?

Well Palestine is probably the best example. Its something that alot of Islamists use to justify their belief that the West is against Islam (which is what I'm talking about "winning hearts and minds" - proving to Muslims just the opposite) Europe, including the UK, support a seperate Palestinian state but unfortunately, without strong US backing Israel is under no pressure to let that happen. The Islamists then take that and use it as an example that America supports Israel and not the Muslims, and Europe is happy to play along with it. The war in Iraq also plays right into their hands as well. You also mention the financial supprt the West gives to the Middle East. Well that's fair enough when they give money to help the Palestinians, but when they give money to support the regimes in the Middle East that are so oppressive and backwards (eg Saudi Arabia), then that agains plays into the Islamists hands.

quote:

I'd go check the stated goals of Hizbu-tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood if I was you. It's a mistake to assume that radicals just want to live in peace by themselves.

That is certainly true but their first objective is to establish the Caliphate, which is the reason they currently attack the Middle Eastern regimes (and the West). They have widespread support now through the population, not because the people there share their world view, but because the people need a new ideology to improve their lives where they are now - not for some fantasy about spreading the message of Islam around the world!

Ideologies usually start off very grand in design but usually settle for what they have got when they realise they can take it no further. I think the same will be said for Political Islam (in fact they wont even be able to establish the Caliphate which is the first stage)

I think Hamas and Hizballah will/have taken Political Islam as far as it can go - resigned to one country (and content with it)

But I still don't buy the idea, that many do, that the West has become a target of extremist Islamist groups because those actions are some kind of a wider plot to take over the world. Those attacks have a specific individual purpose and it is an attempt (a bad one!) to rid the Middle East of Western influence and culture (which again is a very localised aim, not a global one) which is also a stated aim of the groups you listed above

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well Palestine is probably the best example. Its something that alot of Islamists use to justify their belief that the West is against Islam (which is what I'm talking about "winning hearts and minds" - proving to Muslims just the opposite) Europe, including the UK, support a seperate Palestinian state but unfortunately, without strong US backing Israel is under no pressure to let that happen. The Islamists then take that and use it as an example that America supports Israel and not the Muslims, and Europe is happy to play along with it. The war in Iraq also plays right into their hands as well. You also mention the financial supprt the West gives to the Middle East. Well that's fair enough when they give money to help the Palestinians, but when they give money to support the regimes in the Middle East that are so oppressive and backwards (eg Saudi Arabia), then that agains plays into the Islamists hands.

I understand and agree that there are points that Islamists can use to drum up hate towards the US (are you sure that the US sponsors Saudi-arabia, though?), however, if we follow your logic here, it seems that the West should appease every goddamn whim of Muslims in order to be seen as non-satans. I don't subscribe to that kind of definition of "trying".

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley That is certainly true but their first objective is to establish the Caliphate, which is the reason they currently attack the Middle Eastern regimes (and the West). They have widespread support now through the population, not because the people there share their world view, but because the people need a new ideology to improve their lives where they are now - not for some fantasy about spreading the message of Islam around the world!

But that is irrelevant to the point that we were arguing about : Do radicals want world domination? They do, and until we hear from their supporters that they do not want the same, we have every reason to fear that they do.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ideologies usually start off very grand in design but usually settle for what they have got when they realise they can take it no further. I think the same will be said for Political Islam (in fact they wont even be able to establish the Caliphate which is the first stage) I think Hamas and Hizballah will/have taken Political Islam as far as it can go - resigned to one country (and content with it)

Iran? Isn't that the Caliphate right there? And why don't you think that Islamism can go further? I do see obstacles, such as the failure of Muslims to foster decent leaders so far, and the fighting among the different factions, but these are by no means evidently insurmountable.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But I still don't buy the idea, that many do, that the West has become a target of extremist Islamist groups because those actions are some kind of a wider plot to take over the world. Those attacks have a specific individual purpose and it is an attempt (a bad one!) to rid the Middle East of Western influence and culture (which again is a very localised aim, not a global one) which is also a stated aim of the groups you listed above

I don't care much about Islamic terrorism, and the reasons behind it, as it is so limited in scope. I might even buy your explanation of sending a "US out of the Middle East"-message (even if you do not back it up with any quotes from actual terrorists).
However, I *do* care that "Danish citizens" attack police men because they arrest a couple of Imams. And I *do* care that young "danes" beat up a Jewish professor in Copenhagen because of him being Jewish. And if I lived in the UK I *would* worry about 40% of the Muslim population wanting to live under Sharia - yet not wanting to move back to the Middle East where it is available for all who seek it.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I understand and agree that there are points that Islamists can use to drum up hate towards the US (are you sure that the US sponsors Saudi-arabia, though?), however, if we follow your logic here, it seems that the West should appease every goddamn whim of Muslims in order to be seen as non-satans. I don't subscribe to that kind of definition of "trying".

I'm not saying that at all and have no idea where you got that from?

quote:

But that is irrelevant to the point that we were arguing about : Do radicals want world domination? They do, and until we hear from their supporters that they do not want the same, we have every reason to fear that they do.

It is relevant cos you have to ask whether that aim is just a dream or is it somthing they think they can actually acheive?

quote:

Iran? Isn't that the Caliphate right there? And why don't you think that Islamism can go further? I do see obstacles, such as the failure of Muslims to foster decent leaders so far, and the fighting among the different factions, but these are by no means evidently insurmountable.

Er no, Iran is not the Caliphate. And I dont think it will work for many reasons, the main one I shall mention is that I dont really think that is what the people there want

quote:

I don't care much about Islamic terrorism, and the reasons behind it, as it is so limited in scope. I might even buy your explanation of sending a "US out of the Middle East"-message (even if you do not back it up with any quotes from actual terrorists). However, I *do* care that "Danish citizens" attack police men because they arrest a couple of Imams. And I *do* care that young "danes" beat up a Jewish professor in Copenhagen because of him being Jewish. And if I lived in the UK I *would* worry about 40% of the Muslim population wanting to live under Sharia - yet not wanting to move back to the Middle East where it is available for all who seek it.

Well of course I care (we actually got bombed as a result of this ideology) but to say you care about the actions without caring about why they do it is a little daft if you ask me - how exactly do you propose to stop it if you dont understand the reasons behind it? And even if you do understand the reasons behind it, how do you propose to stop it if you do nothing to address those issues? You'd just end up like Israel

The Muslim world has been plagued with extremist elements for the a while now, so this is nothing new. They've been dealing with terrorism for the longest time and now it's finally spilled over to the West (the cause of it in the first place).

@ trancaholic: I didn't read all of your post or comments on this thread yet, but I caught part of one. (And don't take this the wrong way or anything, but) what the fuck are you on? How has the West (refrence to dominant West governments and corperate/business interests) ever given Muslims a reason to trust them? Infact, their actions (the West) have only demonstrated the exact opposite.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z They've been dealing with terrorism for the longest time and now it's finally spilled over to the West (the cause of it in the first place).

I'm not sure that's entirely true. You can say it's true in so far as the early Islamists were repulsed by Western culture but that's there problem, nothing we should have done to change (altho interestingly enough something the religious right in America would agree wholeheartedly with!!!)

The Middle Eastern regimes originally caused this ideology to form, due to their oppressive nature and the fact that their own ideology failed to improve the lives of their citizens. The West was dragged into it when it was perceived as taking the Jewish side over the Arab side during that conflict (and American aid to Israel proved that) That was followed by the capitalist exploitation of the Middle East for oil. Then we get the wars etc etc and that is when the West started to "cause" Islamic terrorism (but they weren't the original cause, only if you stretch the truth as per the paragraph above)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm not sure that's entirely true. You can say it's true in so far as the early Islamists were repulsed by Western culture but that's there problem, nothing we should have done to change (altho interestingly enough something the religious right in America would agree wholeheartedly with!!!)

What time period is this in reference too? Westerners meddling in the affairs of Middle Easterners and South East Asians is a pretty old phenomenon, dating back to the colonial era (well, that's where it starts anyways). That's when certain groups became radical or had splinter groups that were just insane. And after the colonial/post WW2 era, and I don't know if you realize this, but the US has financed and supported many of these wackos to serve their own purposes (*cough* taliban *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* wahabis *cough* Israeli support -> Palestinian militantism *cough* Iran coupe & Shah *cough* hadith fabrication *cough*)). I could "cough" some more, but I really don't feel the need to after that .

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The Middle Eastern regimes originally caused this ideology to form, due to their oppressive nature and the fact that their own ideology failed to improve the lives of their citizens.

Yes, repressive brutal regimes supported by the US, but you already know that.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The West was dragged into it when it was perceived as taking the Jewish side over the Arab side during that conflict (and American aid to Israel proved that) That was followed by the capitalist exploitation of the Middle East for oil. Then we get the wars etc etc and that is when the West started to "cause" Islamic terrorism (but they weren't the original cause, only if you stretch the truth as per the paragraph above)

I don't see how I'm stretching the truth here. Read above.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What time period is this in reference too? Westerners meddling in the affairs of Middle Easterners and South East Asians is a pretty old phenomenon, dating back to the colonial era (well, that's where it starts anyways). That's when certain groups became radical or had splinter groups that were just insane.

But the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928, six years after Egypt gained independence...

quote:

And after the colonial/post WW2 era, and I don't know if you realize this, but the US has financed and supported many of these wackos to serve their own purposes (*cough* taliban *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* wahabis *cough* Israeli support -> Palestinian militantism *cough* Iran coupe & Shah *cough* hadith fabrication *cough*)). I could "cough" some more, but I really don't feel the need to after that .

You forget the tired and worn excuse pro-Israelis come out with when asking why America supports Israel "it's a strategic asset" for that vital region. Well that was true after WW2 (which you refer to) during the Cold War when the Arab (socialist) regimes sided with the Russians. The regimes America supported tended to be the monarchies and then later, Egypt. We're basically talking about the late 70s onwards (by which time Political Islam was firmly establish as a movement, altho it's extremist element did not really become established until the 80s)

quote:

Yes, repressive brutal regimes supported by the US, but you already know that.

But we're debating the origins of Political Islam, and America did not start supporting these regimes until much much later. Today your sentiment is true as to what partly motivates Political Islam (the extremist militant strand) but that is not true of the movement's inception.

quote:

I don't see how I'm stretching the truth here. Read above.

Your stretching the truth by saying the West caused Political Islam to be born as an ideology. That is only true if you say Western culture was part of the reason the movement was created. Not the actions of the West.

Sayyid Qutb spent time in America (I think it was the 40s?) and was so disgusted by what he experienced (young people doing what young people do to have fun if you catch my drift!) that he was determined not to allow that same culture to gain any foothold in the Middle East. Like his contemporaries today in the American Christian Right, he saw the answer in religion. The Middle East should be governed by the Sharia Law. The Caliphate should be reestablished to enforce that law on the traditional Muslim lands. The obstacle, and the other factor in Political Islam's foundation was the Middle Eastern regimes (remember the time we're talking about here, before WW2 and just after)

These regimes clung to power and brutally put those down who did not tow the party line. The Muslim Brotherhood was brutally pursued by the Egyptians and later (80s) by the Syrians. As time went by, it became apparant that the Arab Nationalist policies these regimes were pursuing were failing to improve the lives of the citizens of these states and Political Islam became more and more popular as a new ideology promising to correct these failing policies.

The West got dragged into the region with Israel. This conflict has impacted on most Arab states and is an issue that the people there feel strongly about. As the West became more and more dependent on the flow of oil from the Middle East, more and more investment in the region and more and more support for Israel (to protect that investment against the Soviet threat and their Middle Eastern allies) began to occur. The West (America) then began propping up those Middle Eastern states that would side with America, but the same regimes that were so brutal to their citizens.

The intervention by the West in the Muslim lands (for Israel, for oil, all the wars, all the coups etc etc) was proof enough to the followers of Qutb's (and Banna's, Maududi's, etc) legacy that not only was the West trying to control their Muslim land, that also Western culture would follow (and it has to a great extent)

So, I am not saying Western intervention is not currently playing a huge part in the spread of extremist Political Islam, but I am saying that the West had very little to do with the ideology's creation. You can stretch the truth and say the West played a part in it's creation only if you're talking about Western culture, in which case, that is nobody's fault (especially not the West's fault) but the prejudices of the founders of the movement. However, when you say "the West caused Political Islam", refering of course to the militant version we see today, then you attach to that sentence blame (against the West) when there was no blame at all (and that's why I said it was stretching the truth, to have a pop at the West for no reason)

I think (as you refer to colonialisation) that you are confusing the roots of Pan-Arab Nationalism with the roots of Political Islam. Pan Arab nationalism emerged from Colonialisation but was a modern (ie 'enlightened') ideology, not a religious movement. During the 60s, 70s and 80s most international terrorism can be attributed to Marxist groups (typically Palestinian or European or a lot of the time working together) who had their roots in Pan Arab Nationalism. At this point in time there simply was not any Islamist international terrorism, that is a reletively modern phenomena. I think what you might be doing is looking at that period, to those groups, and confusing them with today's Islamist groups (that are acting similarly)






(Of course, this is all my own opinion and is very general, there will be, I'm sure, lots of examples of various Political Islamist groups refering to Colonialisation as a reason for their creation but, if there are any examples, will be few and massively overshadowed by those Pan Arab Nationalists who did actually use Colonialisation as one of their main motivations)

Sorry for late replies, guys. I've been really hammered by work these last months, and it sort of grew worse a couple of weeks ago.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm not saying that at all and have no idea where you got that from?

I sort of extrapolated it from your reply. I listed a number of things that I thought were examples of the West trying to win hearts and minds (seeing that you said that the West did not do this). Your post pointing out things Muslims *could* bitch about seemed to indicate that the West isn't trying until there's no more spots to find. If that wasn't your contention then ignore my comment.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It is relevant cos you have to ask whether that aim is just a dream or is it somthing they think they can actually acheive?

I don't want to go for Godwin here, but don't you see the obvious parallel to that German guy who had a dream and pursued it? Nobody thought he would be able to do it, and in the end he failed, but a lot of people got hurt on that occasion.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Er no, Iran is not the Caliphate. And I dont think it will work for many reasons, the main one I shall mention is that I dont really think that is what the people there want

I might be misunderstanding the meaning of "Caliphate" then. Care to explain why Iran is not a candidate?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well of course I care (we actually got bombed as a result of this ideology) but to say you care about the actions without caring about why they do it is a little daft if you ask me - how exactly do you propose to stop it if you dont understand the reasons behind it? And even if you do understand the reasons behind it, how do you propose to stop it if you do nothing to address those issues? You'd just end up like Israel

Isn't it kind of arrogant to claim that you know what spurs Islamic extremism, when the extremists themselves are so very clear on that point?
I saw the following comment on The Times Online and came to think of you and this thread:

quote:

Come to Londonistan, our refuge for poor misunderstood Islamist victims ACCORDING TO REMARKS attributed in the past few days to security sources, no fewer than 1,200 Islamist terrorists are biding their time within British suburbs. Yet does Britain even now fully understand the nature of the threat it is facing, let alone have the will to deal with it? The recent report by the Commons Intelligence Committee on last July’s London bombings barely scratched the surface of the failure by the security establishment. It failed to note, for example, Britain’s dirty little secret: that from the 1990s, Islamist radicals had been given free rein in Britain in a “gentlemen’s agreement” that if they were left alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The result was “Londonistan”, as Britain became the hub of al-Qaeda in Europe. This intelligence debacle, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Among Britain’s governing class — its intelligentsia, its media, its politicians, its judiciary, its Church and even its police — a broader and deeper cultural pathology persists to this day. Londonistan is more than the physical presence of Islamist extremists. It is also a state of mind. To a dismaying extent, the British have signed up to the false narrative of those who are laying siege to their society. The problem lies in a refusal to acknowledge that Islamist extremism is rooted in religion. Instead, ministers and security officials prefer to think of it as a protest movement against grievances such as Iraq or Palestine, or “Islamophobia”. They simply ignore the statements and signs that show unequivocally that the aim is to Islamicise the West. In large measure, this is the outcome of a profound loss of cultural nerve. The doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights, themselves the outcome of a systematic onslaught by the British elite against the country’s own identity and values, have paralysed the establishment, which accordingly shies away from criticising any minority for fear of being labelled as bigoted. As a result, it ignored the radicalisation of many British Muslims by extremist Islamic institutions. Worse still, “grievance culture” has meant that instead of fighting the paranoia and lies driving the Islamists’ hatred of the West, British society is afflicted by the very same pathology. Minority rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a “victim” group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the “oppressive” majority. Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or “anti-racists” who used weapons such as public vilification, moral blackmail and threats to people’s livelihoods to force the majority to give in to their demands. So when radical Islamists refused to accept minority status and insisted instead that their values must trump those of the majority, Britain had no answer. This was disastrous because Islamist violence is fuelled by precisely this false sense of victimisation. The mendacious message preached by Islamist leaders, that Britain and America are engaged in a war on Islam rather than a defence of their societies, is a potent incitement to terror by whipping up a hysteria that Muslims are under attack. So any attempt by the West to defend itself against terror becomes a recruiting sergeant for that terror. The more atrocities committed against the West, the more the West tries to defend itself; and the more it does so, the more hysteria among Muslims rises that they are under attack, and the more they are thus incited to hatred and to terrorism. The circle is completed by British fellow-travellers who promulgate the same morally inverted thinking, and thus help further to incite both Muslim extremism and Western defeatism. After the London bombings, this gave rise to the widely expressed view that the major problem was not Islamic terrorism but Islamophobia. It is impossible to overstate the importance — not just to Britain but to the global struggle against Islamist extremism — of properly understanding and publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which translates aggressor into victim and vice versa. For it has destabilised debate by allowing Muslims to argue that British and American foreign policy is unfair and aggressive towards the Muslim world. So profound is the fear of being branded a bigot among British liberals that the obvious examples of illogicality, untruths and paranoia in such discourse have never been challenged. The British Establishment also ignores this because it is in a state of denial. With few exceptions politicians, Whitehall officials, senior police and intelligence officers and academic experts have failed to grasp that the problem to be confronted is not just the assembly of bombs and poison factories but what is going on inside people’s heads that drives them to such acts. Transfixed instead by the artificial division it has erected between those who actively espouse violence and those who do not, the British Establishment rejects the idea that the hatred of Jews, Israel, America and the West that suffuses the utterances of the Muslim Brotherhood forms an ideological conveyor belt to terrorism. The result of this institutionalised denial has been that the Government has settled upon a disastrously misguided strategy. Believing that Islamist terrorism is merely about grievances, it thinks it can appease Islamist rage by pandering to extremism and inviting Muslim Brotherhood radicals into the heart of the British Establishment as advisers. In Britain, hundreds of thousands of Muslims lead law-abiding lives and merely want to prosper and raise their families in peace. But truly moderate Muslims are finding that, through such appeasement, the host community is cutting the ground from under their feet and delivering them into the hands of the extremists. This is a deliberate policy of riding the Islamist tiger. But those who ride a tiger may get eaten.

I don't know as much about England as you do, but reading bits of your news here and there, I'd say that her points are both well-timed and seemingly remain unchallenged?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z @ trancaholic: I didn't read all of your post or comments on this thread yet, but I caught part of one. (And don't take this the wrong way or anything, but) what the fuck are you on? How has the West (refrence to dominant West governments and corperate/business interests) ever given Muslims a reason to trust them? Infact, their actions (the West) have only demonstrated the exact opposite.

I haven't said that Muslims should trust the West. In fact I rarely advocate that anyone should trust someone that isn't me. What I said was that the West has done *lots* to help out Muslims (I listed things above, and to that you can add the war against Serbia, the extreme diplomatic and financial resources used to get Israel and its neighbours talking to each other, the presence of troops in Somalia back in the days, and Gulf War I). From where I'm sitting it seems that the average Joe in the middle east doesn't want to see all this, but *chooses* to focus only on the bad things done by the West.
This insistence on the West being all bad, becomes absolutely ridiculous when one considers the good that Muslims have done for Muslims. Look at the latest lists of the most wealthy individuals in the world, and you will see that most of them are Arabs. But what have they done for their fellow Muslims? Nothing. What have the Muslim politicians done for their fellow Muslims? Nothing. I do know that the MB is active in helping street youths in the bigger cities (and so is western relief organizations), but I can point to loads of problems caused by, escalated by, and maintained by Muslims. Even the be-all end-all problem of Palestine was partly fueled by Muslim leaders' useless and hasty attack on Israel, and their urging of Palestinians to get out of Israel (while the fightings would go on).
And we can go even further: What good have Muslims done to non-Muslims? Darfur? Somalia? Afghanistan? Iran? Indonesia? Oh, someone is probably going to say that I cannot compare like that, because, you know, Muslims are oppressed and thus do not have the surplus of resources to be nice to others. But what then about back in the days? Back when Muslim civilization was the dominant one. Did Muslims do something nice for non-muslims then? I have only heard about raids in Europe and slave trade, but I really would like to be better educated on this one?

Damn trancaholic, I was just reading an article that was very close to what your saying...

Nice post btw

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic And we can go even further: What good have Muslims done to non-Muslims? Darfur? Somalia? Afghanistan? Iran? Indonesia? Oh, someone is probably going to say that I cannot compare like that, because, you know, Muslims are oppressed and thus do not have the surplus of resources to be nice to others. But what then about back in the days? Back when Muslim civilization was the dominant one. Did Muslims do something nice for non-muslims then? I have only heard about raids in Europe and slave trade, but I really would like to be better educated on this one?

Umayyad ruled Islamic Spain was one of the only bastions of religious tolerance in the known world for several hundred years, it was also the most advanced state in the world providing major advancements in alchemy, medicine, chemistry, astronomy, architecture, sanitation, art, et al, which proved to be the catalyst for the Renaissance (without which there would have been no Renaissance for at least another few hundred years) It was the first place in the world where Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scientists worked together in the name of Science.

It's bitterly ironic that when Islamic Spain was threatened by Christian revivalists in the North they enlisted the help of Islamic mercenaries from Morocco (the Moors?) which prooved to be their downfall. These North African Muslims were so disgusted at this display of tolerance towards Christians and Jews that they turned against the Umayyad Emir - and while Muslim fought against Muslim the Christians annexed more and more land ultimately ending 800 years of Islamic rule.

There's also a few more Islamic leaders but my memory is hazy so Shaolin will deal with that