Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by dylandog

The most naive idea of all is that this is somehow a clash of cultures, a fundamental clash between the values of Islam and those of the West. It's a seductive idea, because it eliminates the need for rational thought, ethical self-scrutiny, and other nuisances. It is easier to talk in simple and essential terms than it is to read history. But it's also a self-evidently ridiculous idea. Islam has been around for 13 centuries. The conflict with the West began about 50 years ago, in the wake of the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the carving up of the Middle east into colonial mandates, the creation of the state of Israel and so on. I'm not saying "it's our fault," and anyone who says I'm "blaming America" is just flailing around with a strawman. What I'm saying is that the animating causes of our conflict with the Arab world are historical, not religious. Religious fervor, jihad etc., has become a vehicle for a conflict that has to do with other things. A couple of generations ago the vehicle was communism. Ever notice that Arab opposition to the West was ideologically secular and socialist up until the breakup of the Soviet Union? And how the baton of "resistance" (often meaning terrorism) has seamlessly passed into the hands of the fundamentalists in the last couple decades? (Hostile secular regimes like today's Syria and Saddam's Iraq represent holdovers from the first period into the second.) So much for a clash of religions and civilizations.

Dylandog, I have read history and when I use the word culture, it includes history. History is part of culture. It informs culture. I'm not talking about a "less filling/tastes great" type of conflict (not that you said I was, just trying to illustrate). Religion is certainly a vehicle. Its a vehicle for something wherever it is. A lot of these problem also stem from internal conflicts within middle eastern societies on how to modernize.

The point is that it seems all we do is ethical self scrutiny. I'd like to see the other side do some self scrutiny. Oh yeah, someone did do somthing along those lines once...I think his name was Rushdie. Didn't he have to go into hiding for a while? Sorry for being sarcastic. I haven't had that beer yet.

Anyway, volumes could and have been written on this stuff. I just think we need to recognize that our culture (history included) and interests are every bit as legitimate as anyone elses. I think we forget that in our self-loathing sometimes.

PS. I would suggest that the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the following events was not secular or socialist - and at least used a religious movement as a vehicle. This occured before the USSR fell apart. I think those were among the first times we were called the great Satan.

Jordan

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

The truth is that the moderate Muslim states encourage the crazies. That way, we take the heat, instead of the government. I think there's a tacit understanding by our government that that's happening. We do it to keep regimes in power that abuse their people but are friendly to us. Sadam Hussien is just one example. He was our man before the firsr Iraq war. And you can find plenty of old pictures of our politicians, including Mr. cheney, paling around with him. Many of the weapons he used against us the first time were given to him to use against Iran.

There's always been a double standard, with us being held to a higher standard. The world was never surprized when the Soviets or Chinese were abusive of their people or others, but the slightest wrongs by us always brought criticism. It's because we always claimed to hold the moral high ground. As the defenders of democracy, our constitution and creed demanded it. I don't think our allies, and certainly not our critics see us that way anymore. Now when we pressure the Chinese they just turn it back on us.

I was living in the UK at the time of 9/11 and it's immediate aftermath. There was, and maybe still is, a view at the time over there that the western world needs the US to act as a trail blazer. The rest of us take refuge behind the UN and watch what happens, and pop our heads out when the coast is clear. I think it's an over-simplified view, but I agree with it in principal, and recent history tends to back it up to some degree.

I can only speak for myself, and I'm a cynic, but I'm not sure democracy is as big a deal as "Economocracy" nowadays in many people's minds. I think that's why places like China can turn things back on you, or at least are allowed to. Probably not a good idea to mention Tibet as you sign-off on a lucrative trade agreement...

James.

Originally Posted by jnich67

The point is that it seems all we do is ethical self scrutiny. I'd like to see the other side do some self scrutiny. Oh yeah, someone did do somthing along those lines once...I think his name was Rushdie. Didn't he have to go into hiding for a while? Sorry for being sarcastic. I haven't had that beer yet.

Anyway, volumes could and have been written on this stuff. I just think we need to recognize that our culture (history included) and interests are every bit as legitimate as anyone elses. I think we forget that in our self-loathing sometimes.

Jordan

Jordan,

It's probably the self-scrutiny that sets us apart from the terrorists (among other things, of course).

I don't think you can really class Salman Rushdie as "one of them". Born Bombay to a middle class Moslem family. Sent to the Rugby School (a'la Tom Brown's School Days) when he was 14. University at Kings College, Cambridge. The only thing he's got in common with the terrorists, as far as I can tell, is a Moslim heritage.

James.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I would suggest that the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the following events was not secular or socialist - and at least used a religious movement as a vehicle. This occured before the USSR fell apart.

You're right. By pointing to a strong shift, in the context of the cold war and its aftermath, from secular Arab nationalism to religious fundamentalism, I didn't mean to suggest there was no prominent example of fundamentalism before the fall of communism.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I think those were among the first times we were called the great Satan.

My point exactly.

I would only add that while the average American knows about the overthrow of the Shah, and the taking of American hostages, and the slur about "the great Satan," the average American does not know (or care to know) about the CIA-engineered coup of Iran's democratically elected government in the 1950s, or about the ways in which the Shah had come to be seen as an American puppet between the time of the coup and that of the revolution.

There is ethical self-scrutiny in the U.S., yes, it's a great strength of ours. But it can be mixed with a kind of self-congratulating historical amnesia.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I just think we need to recognize that our culture (history included) and interests are every bit as legitimate as anyone elses. I think we forget that in our self-loathing sometimes.

I think you exaggerate here. I don't think Americans are falling short in their estimation of their country's legitimacy, and the importance of its interests. I just don't see it, and I wonder what your examples of this would be.

First, though, let's have that beer.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Honestly what would probably solve the whole problem for us without nationalistic but probably with plenty of religous violence would be a period of muslim reformation.

Of the modern religions, it's the only one that has never had anything like that. It hasn't really changed in all this time, other than the split between Shiites and Sunnis.

Originally Posted by dylandog

You're right. By pointing to a strong shift, in the context of the cold war and its aftermath, from secular Arab nationalism to religious fundamentalism, I didn't mean to suggest there was no prominent example of fundamentalism before the fall of communism.

My point exactly.

I would only add that while the average American knows about the overthrow of the Shah, and the taking of American hostages, and the slur about "the great Satan," the average American does not know (or care to know) about the CIA-engineered coup of Iran's democratically elected government in the 1950s, or about the ways in which the Shah had come to be seen as an American puppet between the time of the coup and that of the revolution.

There is ethical self-scrutiny in the U.S., yes, it's a great strength of ours. But it can be mixed with a kind of self-congratulating historical amnesia.

I think you exaggerate here. I don't think Americans are falling short in their estimation of their country's legitimacy, and the importance of its interests. I just don't see it, and I wonder what your examples of this would be.

First, though, let's have that beer.

With respect to the U.S. involvment with in Iran, this is probably true. Our support of the Shah and others like him certainly occured within the context of the the cold war. Did we make mistakes? Perhaps. I don't know that there is always a perfect or clean solution to every problem. We can only go from where we are now and try to learn from past experience. This doesn't change the fact that we have to defend ourselves today though.

While I think many American have too short an attention span when it comes to protecting their interests (God forbid they should miss any news of the latest celebrity divorce), I think others in the West are even worse when it comes to even recognizing what they are in the first place.

As for examples, wow, this could be a long open-ended discussion. I can't spend the time on it now-need to get some work done today. Maybe during the holiday.

As for the beer, Cheers!

Hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving - even if you don't celebrate Thanksgiving

Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

We can only go from where we are now and try to learn from past experience. This doesn't change the fact that we have to defend ourselves today though.

Wholeheartedly agreed!

Originally Posted by jnich67

[COLOR="blue"]While I think many American have too short an attention span when it comes to protecting their interests (God forbid they should miss any news of the latest celebrity divorce), I think others in the West are even worse when it comes to even recognizing what they are in the first place.

Mild disagreement. I think as Britain and the European powers have gone into decline and their empires collapsed, they've become a little more jaded and disillusioned about nationalism than we are, as we are still in our heyday as a global power.

Originally Posted by jnich67

As for the beer, Cheers!

Hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving - even if you don't celebrate Thanksgiving

Jordan

Cheers, and happy thanksgiving to you! Not only will I be celebrating it, I'll be celebrating three times this year. A lot of relatives, a lot of turkey...
My great-uncle was a cowboy near Merced, California, ate red meat every day of his life and lived til he was 95 (didn't get down out of the saddle til he was 90). He liked Thanksgiving alright but considered having to "eat bird" an indignity to be suffered only once a year. I kind of know what he means. I wish it had been a sirloin roast the pilgrims and the Indians had set down to back in 1619...

Originally Posted by dylandog

Cheers, and happy thanksgiving to you! Not only will I be celebrating it, I'll be celebrating three times this year. A lot of relatives, a lot of turkey...
My great-uncle was a cowboy near Merced, California, ate red meat every day of his life and lived til he was 95 (didn't get down out of the saddle til he was 90). He liked Thanksgiving alright but considered having to "eat bird" an indignity to be suffered only once a year. I kind of know what he means. I wish it had been a sirloin roast the pilgrims and the Indians had set down to back in 1619...

LOL, steak for thanksiving...maybe that should be a new trend...Im sure the turkeys would disagree! I bet your great uncle would laugh if he was alive today and a doctor told him how unhealthy our society thinks red meat is (which I think is BS).

Originally Posted by dylandog

The most naive idea of all is that this is somehow a clash of cultures, a fundamental clash between the values of Islam and those of the West. It's a seductive idea, because it eliminates the need for rational thought, ethical self-scrutiny, and other nuisances. It is easier to talk in simple and essential terms than it is to read history. But it's also a self-evidently ridiculous idea. Islam has been around for 13 centuries. The conflict with the West began about 50 years ago, in the wake of the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the carving up of the Middle east into colonial mandates, the creation of the state of Israel and so on.

It's not such a naive idea. The conflict is a lot older than 50 years. You can trace it all the way back to the Crusades, and you hear Moslems mention it often.

The truth is that Islam is a demanding religion that is inconsistent with principles of democracy. It functioned best when the church and state were one, under the caliphs. And that's Bin Laden's stated goal. He wants to restore the the Caliphate.

I was in grade school and high school before the days of political correctness. Then, we learned that Islam is a religion of conquest. The fundamental principal is to spread the faith by the sword. I have read parts of the Koran that leave little doubt that that's the case. In fact, a friend of mine who's very open-minded studied the entire Koran. He confirms what I said above. That's where the idea of cracking skulls and slitting throats comes from. We've heard it called a peaceful religion, but it's far from it. There is no acceptance if Infidels.

I'm not saying that there aren't peace loving Moslems. I'm talking about the focus of the religion. The moderates we've dealt with are in secular regimes. But the orthodox find that abhorent. I'm not talking about extremists I'm talking about orthodox practitioners of the religion. In reality, that's all there is, because there has never been a reform movement in Islam. So, in a country like Egypt or Jordan that is "moderate", it's achieved by being secular, and the government fears the people, because it knows that the free practice of the religion would result in their overthrow (or under a democratic system, being voted out) in favor of a more theocratic system. That's why there are no Moslem democracies. You have either some form of dictatorship or some form of theocracy.

I don't know how many of you saw the interview a few months back with Bin Laden's ex body guard (60 Minutes), who's living in Yemen. The man was relaxed, smiling and calm, just like the president of Iran, but there were no really outragous comments during most of the interview. He spoke moderately about Lord Osama and, although he had all the political attitudes of Al Qeada, he impressed me as someone who could be my neighbor (we don't have to be political allies). The man gave an excellent impression. At the end of the interview he spoke of his family and all the children were preschool or slightly older. He said off hand thathe hoped some day his son would be a martyr. When questioned by the interviewer, he said "I'm willing to sacrafice my son. Are you willing to sacrafice your daughter?"

It is certainly not naive to think that there is a clash of cutures with radical Islam, but I also suggest that there is an inherent cultural clash between Islamic philosophy and democracy and western philosophy. The more dictatorships you eliminate, the more theocracies you'll be creating. The naive idea is that if we eliminate dictatorships the islamic world will become democratic.

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

He said off hand thathe hoped some day his son would be a martyr. When questioned by the interviewer, he said "I'm willing to sacrafice my son. Are you willing to sacrafice your daughter?"

It is certainly not naive to think that there is a clash of cutures with radical Islam, but I also suggest that there is an inherent cultural clash between Islamic philosophy and democracy and western philosophy. The more dictatorships you eliminate, the more theocracies you'll be creating. The naive idea is that if we eliminate dictatorships the islamic world will become democratic.

And again why we can't wint through traditional means. I am not willing to sacrifice my children or any other American child to be a suicide bomber, however if we cannot come up with a more effective and less impactive solution, I am plenty willing to carpet bomb their entire city to avoid these children growing up to fulfill their parents dreams.