UK press caving in under Muslim threat [Archive]

Duke Malcolm

02-11-2006, 12:38

You say we should kowtow to the barbaric uncivilised will of a few muslims? I can't help but agree with Winston Churchill now...

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

BDC

02-11-2006, 13:48

The British press doesn't need to insult Muslims to make them look bad.

They did it themselves last weekend.

rory_20_uk

02-11-2006, 14:04

What is really unsettling is although Churchill wrote that many years ago, nothing has appeaciably altered since then... :no:

~:smoking:

Adrian II

02-11-2006, 14:13

What are they gonna do, fight the Muslims?No, just re-affirm the right to free expression. Muslims all over the world are fighting each other, trampling their onw kids and torching their own future. No need to give them a helping hand, is there?

Watchman

02-11-2006, 14:23

Churchill was also a very biased observer, and instrumental in the birth of just about the single most bitter grudge the Islamic world bears. Stuff him.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

02-11-2006, 15:33

I believe one student newspaper published them.
The editor lost their position and all but a miniscule number of copies were taken out of circulation.

Louis VI the Fat

02-11-2006, 15:43

Nations should be governed by grand, lofty ideas, not by shopkeepers.

Strike For The South

02-11-2006, 15:50

All this for cartoons? Seems a bit over the top espacilly considering the goverment is now limiting what you can say. Why do we try to bend over baclwards for these people? We have to obey there laws and coustoms when we go over there or live yet its only a one way street. This is how the fanatics are going to win. By being able to inhibit the wests laws and us making them around that. Sad really

Marcellus

02-11-2006, 15:55

No, just re-affirm the right to free expression.

I wouldn't say that the newpaper's right to freedom of expression is being threatened. If they want to publish the cartoons, they can. But I think they're just being sensible, and realising that these cartoons would upset a large amount of people in Britain without bringing any real benefit to anyone else. They can see that if they publish the cartoons, it would be detrimental to the country overall, and so they don't.

Just because I have the right to insult anyone I like under freedom of speech, doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do, and I most certainly have to do it to show that I have freedom of speech.

InsaneApache

02-11-2006, 19:00

Churchill was also a very biased observer, and instrumental in the birth of just about the single most bitter grudge the Islamic world bears. Stuff him.

Yes the bastard refused to kowtow to Herr Schickelgruber and the hoards of darkness known as the National Socialists. For over a year the UK stood alone against the Nazis. Despite repeated attempts by Hitler and his henchmen to bomb and strafe the UK into submission they failed. All down to bloody Winston, what a prat. Yes indeed stuff him. Still, one has to wonder what sort of world we would live in now because of this idiot. :no:

As for the UK papers getting silenced, why am I not surprised when we have the most illiberal, controlling governments that I can remember. :shame: :wall:

Navaros

02-11-2006, 19:04

No, just re-affirm the right to free expression.

Every time someone gets the "bright idea" to "re-affirm the right to free expression" by desecrating Islam, then Mulims are going to re-affirm their right to make sure that was a regretable decision. :2thumbsup:

Duke Malcolm

02-11-2006, 19:15

But muslims don't have the right to make sure that it was a regretable decision without illegal activities (unless the person reaffirming free expression is a product exporter to the Middle East, which is unlikely...)

Watchman

02-11-2006, 19:23

InsaneApache

02-11-2006, 19:31

Duke Malcolm

02-11-2006, 19:43

Oh yeah, by what I've read ole Winston was not only a racist and imperialist of the fine old Age of Empire tradition, but also a pro-zionist. That's some objective commentator on Islam...

Ahem, Churchill was not a racist. He believed that the races could not achieve immediate equality due to the system and people, but he believed the races to be equal. As for zionism, I don't see what that has to do with the price of cheese -- as a matter of fact, upon researching this particular little ditty I found that the Quran says God gave the Promised Land to the Jews... So perhaps if those fundamentalist muslims noticed this they might also be zionists...

InsaneApache

02-11-2006, 19:50

You mean like this bit from the Q'ran?

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[2.78] And there arc among them illiterates who know not the Book but only lies, and they do conjecture

[2.136] Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim(Abraham) and Ismail(Ismael) and Ishaq(Izaac) and Yaqoub(Jacob) and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa(Moses) and Isa(Jesu), and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit

Is that what you alluded to?

Watchman

02-11-2006, 19:59

Not that different. Nazis=new dark age. Islamists=continued dark age.

I never said ol' Winnie was perfect, but he did see the threat from the III Reich long before anyone else did.

We could do with a few more politicians like him. Instead we get pathetic lilly-livered spineless mouthpieces, too frightened to speak out against tyranny. I make no bones about it, it is tyranny.Still doesn't make him a terribly good source for fair commentary on Islam, now does it ?

Indeed, the quote Duke posted alone is downright dripping with outright Imperialist cultural particularism and prejudices. And then we have people agreeing with that pungent Victorian drivel ?

:rtwno:
Lions.

Duke Malcolm

02-11-2006, 20:12

You mean like this bit from the Q'ran?

Is that what you alluded to?

Nno, although that first verse is interesting...

It was this:

5.20. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.

5.21. "O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin."

and later...

17.101. To Moses We did give Nine Clear Sings: As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: "O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery!

17.102. Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!"

17.103. So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him.

17.104. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

17.105. We sent down the (Qur'an) in Truth, and in Truth has it descended: and We sent thee but to give Glad Tidings and to warn (sinners).

Watchman

02-11-2006, 20:30

InsaneApache

02-11-2006, 20:42

I seem to recall the Qu'ran also designates the non-Muslim world as the "Land Of War," and encourages aggressive spread of the faith if possible. So if you want to be consistent about it...

But then again I always found quoting scriptures for point to be rather silly.

Trying to have a debate about freedom of speech as opposed to religious dogma without investigating said religion would be sillier.

Navaros

02-11-2006, 20:44

But muslims don't have the right to make sure that it was a regretable decision without illegal activities

Says who? The laws of evil secularist men?

The Muslims do not care about such laws, nor should they. That's what's so great, their faith & conviction is so strong that no matter who or how many tell them "no, that's bad, you're wrong, you can't do that!", they are just gonna keep on keepin' on. :2thumbsup:

Duke Malcolm

02-11-2006, 20:47

Strike For The South

02-11-2006, 20:49

Says who? The laws of evil secularist men?

The Muslims do not care about such laws, nor should they. That's what's so great, their faith & conviction is so strong that no matter who or how many tell them "no, that's bad, you're wrong, you can't do that!", they are just gonna keep on keepin' on. :2thumbsup:

Huh? I think youre way off base. Killing and kidnaping over a cartoon is pretty stupid no matter how bad it is. These people dont listen to reason they dont think they are falsey led like blind sheep to "the great satan" to fight him. These people arent noble defenders of there religon there bigots who are to jealous to stupid and to blind to use any kind of reason

rory_20_uk

02-11-2006, 20:52

I always think that the problem with religious debate is the problem with the texts themselves.

Who chose the final books to go in the Bible for example. There were many more available, so who got the final cut? And seeing as how this was done by a man, how do we differentiate between the ones in the bible, and those that hapen to be written at the same time?

I imagine that the same can be said of Islamic scriptures. Someone has decided which ones are more worthy of holiness than others.

Very interesting...

~:smoking:

Watchman

02-11-2006, 21:02

The early rulers of the Caliphate not too long after the Prophet passed away to be exact, far as I know.

Trying to have a debate about freedom of speech as opposed to religious dogma without investigating said religion would be sillier.Not really - the dogma loses out by default, right ?

Navaros

02-11-2006, 21:12

Huh? I think youre way off base. Killing and kidnaping over a cartoon is pretty stupid no matter how bad it is. These people dont listen to reason they dont think they are falsey led like blind sheep to "the great satan" to fight him. These people arent noble defenders of there religon there bigots who are to jealous to stupid and to blind to use any kind of reason

There is nothing at all unreasonable about standing up for one's faith & convictions at any cost. That is what Muslims do. That is indeed noble. Making and publishing disgusting cartoons for no legitimate reason, that is what is stupid.

Meneldil

02-11-2006, 21:24

Says who? The laws of evil secularist men?

The Muslims do not care about such laws, nor should they. That's what's so great, their faith & conviction is so strong that no matter who or how many tell them "no, that's bad, you're wrong, you can't do that!", they are just gonna keep on keepin' on. :2thumbsup:

Yeah, until secularized people (who are hopefully still a large majority in Europe) think that the small percentage of muslim extremists are annoying as hell, and elect some kind of right-wing Hitler wannabe that will decide to kill/deport all of them. Seeing how the extreme right is growing through the western world, how many people seem to care little about their rights and democracy, and how people are afraid of the futur, it doesn't sound that unbelievable. Give it a few more year, and I bet the next time muslims manifest in Europe, some Mosques will be burnt to the ground.

:2thumbsup: inded

Watchman

02-11-2006, 21:40

A comparision I heard at the time: "Hundreds die in the bomb attacks in Spain, and the local Muslims are left in peace. One troublemaking jerk gets knifed in the Netherlands, and mosques burn. Makes you wonder if the Dutch had some issues."

Kralizec

02-11-2006, 21:48

Yes, we had some issues, but not the ones the speaker is implying. We have a sizable immigrant population that is not integrating as well as we hoped or as well as we thought it did. Spain does not have the same problems as the Netherlands or France.

Strike For The South

02-11-2006, 21:53

There is nothing at all unreasonable about standing up for one's faith & convictions at any cost. That is what Muslims do. That is indeed noble. Making and publishing disgusting cartoons for no legitimate reason, that is what is stupid.

Actually there is I know Im not going to change your mind but you have to realize the west isnt ruled by religon and if the muslims want to live here they must realize that.

A comparision I heard at the time: "Hundreds die in the bomb attacks in Spain, and the local Muslims are left in peace. One troublemaking jerk gets knifed in the Netherlands, and mosques burn. Makes you wonder if the Dutch had some issues."

The Dutch are a theving people:laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

02-11-2006, 22:12

What are they gonna do, fight the Muslims? The Muslims won't mind if that happens. They are not going to backdown from any sort of fight. Stop insulting Islam, stop getting thrashed by Muslims. That's how it works.

This system of thought disgusts me. You would have us silence ourselves out of fear of barbarians. Let them come if they want a fight. I have faith yet in the people of Europe to stave off virtual sharia law.

Every time someone gets the "bright idea" to "re-affirm the right to free expression" by desecrating Islam, then Mulims are going to re-affirm their right to make sure that was a regretable decision.

They have no such right. They can protest (peacefully, with no intimidating signs) and boycott, but that is it.

Says who? The laws of evil secularist men?

The Muslims do not care about such laws, nor should they. That's what's so great, their faith & conviction is so strong that no matter who or how many tell them "no, that's bad, you're wrong, you can't do that!", they are just gonna keep on keepin' on.

No. So sayeth the laws of Christianity. Perhaps you've heard of that; it advises turning the other cheek to insults. Nor is it great that they are so pig-headed they want to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about standing up for one's faith & convictions at any cost. That is what Muslims do. That is indeed noble. Making and publishing disgusting cartoons for no legitimate reason, that is what is stupid.

Yes there is. What if I did as they did and killed anyone who disagreed with my faith? First off would be you, Nav, after your grevious insults to my religion. Of course, if the radicals you cheer on had their way, you'd be dead too. It is a law, base trait to take insult from every one who does not bow down to your faith.

It appears you support these radicals solely because they are blindly whipped up into a frenzy over a stupid cartoon for religious reasons. Would you support them if they were riled up for nationalistic or ethnicity reasons? Do you think that they judge you any better than the secularist Europeans they now protest? I think any difference is lost on them.

Cheers to those brave people who stand up for freedom. Although we differ on many issues, I stand with you on this one. :knight:

Crazed Rabbit

Watchman

02-11-2006, 23:14

When it comes down to it, the most the radicals could ever do is blow stuff up or something along those lines - and, when it comes down to it, Europeans have a fairly substantial experience in dealing with that.

Even in worst-case scenarios simple realities of geographics and military geometry make anything else a wistful pipe dream.

Some of the worst-case scenarios involve some pretty unpleasant prospects for the Muslim populations on the subcontinent though, which is among the reasons they're going to be unwilling to cooperate with the radical agenda past certain limits regardless of reasons.

So sayeth the laws of Christianity. Perhaps you've heard of that; it advises turning the other cheek to insults.While the principle is admirable its practical applicability is a little so-so. As a columnist put it in yesterday's newspaper in a different context, "keep turning the other cheek long enough and it'll start to hurt." Not that even Christians, for all the strange glorification of suffering their faith entails, have ever been terribly devout practicioners unless forced by circumstances; immediate retaliation and/or taking it out on someone suitably defenceless (Jewish ghettoes having been the millenial favourite, closely followed by the Gypsies whenever they could be caught) has tended to be the agenda otherwise.

Papewaio

02-12-2006, 22:49

Yes the bastard refused to kowtow to Herr Schickelgruber and the hoards of darkness known as the National Socialists. For over a year the UK stood alone against the Nazis. Despite repeated attempts by Hitler and his henchmen to bomb and strafe the UK into submission they failed. All down to bloody Winston, what a prat. Yes indeed stuff him. Still, one has to wonder what sort of world we would live in now because of this idiot. :no:

As for the UK papers getting silenced, why am I not surprised when we have the most illiberal, controlling governments that I can remember. :shame: :wall:

Churchill said the same things about Ghandi as he did Hitler. A broken clock can be right twice a day.

Churchill was the bulldog that was brought out to attack anything that moves. Be that Ghandi, striking workers or Hitler he all treated them the same.

Also as a military genius he fell far short. Gallopolli? North Sea debacle.

Churchill had many flaws and one of them definitly was as Watchman-san noted that he was a biased observor and I would add imperialist to boot.

He did go to the front after Gallopolli but it was more the case of being depressed then an act of contrition given his actions that followed later in his life.

However his flaws were outweighed by his ability to motivate a Britain that could quite easily have lost against an aggresive Germany. It was a very close call for Britain and they almost did lose early on. So for that the British should be happy. But it should not mean they lose perspective on who he wasn't just because of who he was.

rory_20_uk

02-12-2006, 23:02

As it was, gallipolli was a complete farce. Why was this? The ships set off, tried to land, and found they were not packed correctly... so went away for a few months to sort that out. When they had first got there opposition was low to non existent. When they got back, the Ottomans had grabbed every available troop to the percieved new front. The rest is history.

How far Churchill is to blame for the incorrect packing of the ships, the failure to call off the attack once this error was known I do not know. The strategy was OK, the implementation was appalling.

Being an imperialist per se is not a flaw IMO, but of course that is open to opinion.

Britain loose early on? When was that? Even if the Battle of Britain was lost (a very great if) an invasion would have had to contend with the royal navy - yes heavy losses, but the transports would be slaughtered.

Hitler realised that gains were sufficiently small to render invasion not worth it. In the long term if he'd not finally gone after the USSR I imagine he would have at least got a favourable peace - which is what he wanted to go after the USSR.

~:smoking:

Watchman

02-12-2006, 23:21

Being an imperialist per se is not a flaw IMO, but of course that is open to opinion.It is, as it invariably includes the imperialist attitude and worldview - ie. "I'm better than you because of [flaky justification XYZ] and hence perfectly justified in conquering your country and treating you as I feel like; indeed, you should be grateful I do it."

That sort of attitude is a lot more tolerable in the Romans than the supposed heirs of Enlightement.

rory_20_uk

02-12-2006, 23:30

Which indeed is your opinion on the matter. Whether the country would be better run if conquered by another country could surely depend on the country? There are so many countries (mainly in Africa) that are a complete mess, I'd imagine that all would be better run by a "first world" country. As for treating them as we wish, it can't be any worse than how they treat each other.

~:smoking:

lancelot

02-13-2006, 00:02

Still doesn't make him a terribly good source for fair commentary on Islam, now does it ?

Indeed, the quote Duke posted alone is downright dripping with outright Imperialist cultural particularism and prejudices. And then we have people agreeing with that pungent Victorian drivel ?
.

Alright then...suggest someone who is a good source for fair commentary on islam.

Watchman

02-13-2006, 00:44

:inquisitive:
Excuse me, but have you somehow misunderstood what "critique" and particularly "source critique" are all about ? Even on general principles there is no need to be able to immediately provide a better example when criticizing a patently invalid, biased and/or otherwise useless source as such.

Churchill was a long-term politician in the Imperial-era British governement, and duly had most of the prejudices that came with the teritory (some of the more stubborn resistance to the Empire came specifically from Muslims too, which no doubt had its effects...). Moreover, he had zionist sympathies and was as a high-ranking governement official involved in the messy British-Jew-Arab triangle down in Palestine, which alone provides more than enough motivation for him to issue manifestly unsympathetic and tendentious statements about Islam.

Where the Hell is it necessary to bother providing better examples when declaring such a man an eminently partial and hence quite unreliable source ?

But if you really want, I can suggest a few guidelines. Pick up some decent handbooks on whatever name comparative theology, religious science or whatever goes by in your neck of woods. At least the ones our university here uses provide highly informative, lucid and unbiased views of religions. Then go and read some good works on culture, anthropology, history and so on, so you have a decent mental "toolbox" and information base to analyze the issue with.

...why do I even need to explain this, anyway ?

caravel

02-13-2006, 02:18

Every time someone gets the "bright idea" to "re-affirm the right to free expression" by desecrating Islam, then Mulims are going to re-affirm their right to make sure that was a regretable decision. :2thumbsup:

No. I think you'll find that the Danes, the French and anyone else for that matter, has the right to piss all over yours or any religion while on their own native soil and there's not alot that you or your extremist chums can do about that, except make yourselves even more despised with impotent public ranting and flag burning.

InsaneApache

02-13-2006, 03:02

Was Churchill wrong though? Given what we have witnessed?

Watchman

02-13-2006, 03:13

Oh Hell yeah. His commentary betrays White Man's Burden arrogance, tendentious cultural particularism, straight self-serving bias, and an unwillingness or inability to see the forest behind the trees (or, if you prefer it that way, the actual cause-and-effect chains in question).

Complex questions remain complex questions, and cannot just be brushed aside with stupid, arrogant and simplistic - nevermind tendentious - garbage like "Islam is bad" or "Arabs are wacky".

Papewaio

02-13-2006, 03:31

"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor."

- Winston Churchill, 1930

As home secretary (1910-11) he used troops against strikers in South Wales.

In 1925:

The Samuel Commission published its report in March 1926. It recognised that the industry needed to be reorganised but rejected the suggestion of nationalization. The report also recommended that the Government subsidy should be withdrawn and the miners' wages should be reduced.

The month in which the report was issued also saw the mine-owners publishing new terms of employment. These new procedures included an extension of the seven-hour working day, district wage-agreements, and a reduction in the wages of all miners. Depending on a variety of factors, the wages would be cut by between 10% and 25%. The mine-owners announced that if the miners did not accept their new terms of employment then from the first day of May they would be locked out of the pits.

Churchill because of his tremendously chauvinist, flag-waving British Gazette, talking about the miners and the T.U.C. as the enemy of the people. Churchill wanted to hand the army with the police, and bring tanks and machine guns into the cities! Baldwin restrained him.

Churchill was right about Hitler... unfortunately it can be seen that he painted everyone else who was not with him in the same light.

Louis VI the Fat

02-13-2006, 05:30

Yes, but in the grand schemes of things, whatever Churchill thought about Gandhi or Welsh strikers doesn't matter.

What is important in the light of history, is what he thougth of Hitler in 1940.
And boy, am I glad that the British had this rabies pitbull for a PM back then. :2thumbsup:

Incongruous

02-13-2006, 08:38

Oh yeah Churchill was a bastard to be sure, name one great leader who wasn't?

And don't even get me going on Jesus, concieved outside the marriage. Virgin mary, like arse!

I wonder if any christians will now declare a crusade on my ass?

The fact is the revisionist left will discredit nearly any "western" leader before the "social revolution", so whats the point of arguing?

Whereas the far right will sanction a god fearing god talking lunatic any day of the week.

Samurai Waki

02-13-2006, 09:06

yeah, Chamberlaine did such a wonderful job of helping the struggle for democracy. Unfortunately, we have too many Chamberlaines in the west... and too many quasi Hitlers in the middle east. I don't think GWB fits the bill as a Churchill did...he doesn't know the nature of war.

America needs a bulldog right about now.

Watchman

02-13-2006, 09:49

America needs a clue right about now.

Adrian II

02-13-2006, 11:03

Yes, but in the grand schemes of things, whatever Churchill thought about Gandhi or Welsh strikers doesn't matter.Exactly, mon vieux. Mr Churchill's detractors even forgot the 'Mussolini letters' in which Churchill expressed his sympathy for Italian fascism in no uncertain terms. Never mind. In the grand scheme of things those letters do not matter either. (Alternatively, we could challenge Mr Churchill's detractors to name their own favourite war leader and see if that man's record is without blemish. A brief and unequal fight would ensue.)

What mattters is that Churchill was one of the few and at times the only British politician of stature who understood Hitler and nazi Germany. His detractors are willing to concede this, but they seem to think this insight just happened spontaneously to Mr Churchill and was in no way connected to his overall mindset and personal experience. In reality of course, these were intimately connected. Like many conservative authors, Mr Churchill shows us what is, not what should be. What made him an excellent judge of Hitler and nazi Germany also made him an excellent observer of Islam.

His book The River War (1898) is very well-written and to the point. It is about the campaign (in which Winston took part) to defeat the Mahdi, who had risen to protest, among other things, General Gordon's ban on slavery. As we see, even in those days Islam was not exactly at the forefront of civilisation and progress. That is why some of the things Churchill wrote about Islam still ring true today, from the 'fanatical frenzy' we witnessed in the cartoon riots to his observation that 'the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it'. Precisely because of this paralysis not a whole lot has changed and indeed some things are the same today as they were back then.

Mind you, in The River War Churchill shows a keen understanding of the opposition when he writes about the Mahdi (who grew up an orphan): 'Solitary trees, if they grow at all, grow strong: and a boy deprived of a father's care often develops, if he escape the perils of youth, an independence and a vigour of thought which may restore in after life the heavy loss of early days.'

He also had a keen eye for the less palatable aspects of the imperialist undertaking, for instance the desecration of the Mahdi's grave: 'By Sir H. Kitchener's orders, the Tomb has been profaned and razed to the ground. The corpse of the Mahdi was dug up. The head was separated from the body, and, to quote the official explanation, "preserved for future disposal" ... If the people of the Sudan cared no more for the Mahdi, then it was an act of vandalism and folly to destroy the only fine building which might attract the traveller and interest the historian. It is a gloomy augury for the future of the Sudan that the first action of its civilised conquerors and present ruler should have been to level the one pinnacle which rose above the mud houses. If, on the other hand, the people of the Sudan still venerated the memory of the Mahdi (and more than 50,000 had fought hard only a week before to assert their respect and belief) then I shall not hesitate to declare that to destroy what was sacred and holy to them was a wicked act, of which the true Christian, no less than the philosopher, must express his abhorrence.'

Hence, the fact that such observations were written down by an imperialist -- Booh! Pavlov drool! -- does not disqualify them in any way. We should judge them on their merits and in case of doubt we should remember that Mr Churchill knew what he was talking about, unlike generations of Orientalist 'experts' (many of whom were beholden to sheikhs and other Muslim rulers), American policy-makers who regarded islamism as a viable alternative to Communism, and lefty do-gooders like Michel Foucault -- to name but one example among many -- who in 1979 welcomed Khomeini as a 'social revolutionary'.

Watchman

02-13-2006, 12:43

Even an understanding Victorian Imperialist commentator remains a Victorian Imperialist commentator, with all the vulgar-Darwinist attitudes. Whether he expended too many joules of mental effort on analyzing the ever-important "why" of the issues discussed I won't comment on as I don't know, but certainly what has been quoted of the man thus far gives little grounds for optimism in that regard.

Out of curiosity, did he ever write anything about the Zulus or other reasonably severe non-Islamic native opposition to the expansion of the Empire ? That'd make an interesting comparision.

Mr Churchill's detractors even forgot the 'Mussolini letters' in which Churchill expressed his sympathy for Italian fascism in no uncertain terms.It has been said that had the comparatively palatable Italian version of Fascism been the only one for sale, quite a few of the "old guard" conservatives of the period would most likely have been only too happy to adopt it if only to counter the seeming avalanche of Communism. Liberal democracy wasn't the hottest topic around those times.

The German take on the same, which essentially took the leading place of the overall movement, was however a bit much not in the least due to its naked ambitions that made it a clear and present threat to various Fatherlands.

Like many conservative authors, Mr Churchill shows us what is, not what should be. What made him an excellent judge of Hitler and nazi Germany also made him an excellent observer of Islam.The first claim is categorical bull, although "conservatives" tend to really like it. Wonder why...? :dizzy2: So far as I'm aware of "conservatives" do not have to any notable degree a "clearer" or "more realistic" take on reality; rather, they have a habit of trying to claim certain existing states of affairs of dubious moral and ethical standing as "the way the world works" or "inevitable developements" or whatever, in other words defining reality to suit their own ideology. "What is" my ass. Not that they were exactly the only ones with such tendencies mind you, they just tend to be among those whose patently false claims of objectivity are the most pronounced. I think it's because they usually can't play the emancipatory/enlightement card the way "liberals" can.

As for judgements, Age of Empire was not a time of equal and universal standards of measure. "Europeans" and "savages" were overwhelmingly considered two entirely different things to the point of sheer absurdity - as one commentator sarcastically put it when discussing the Great War, "machine guns and artillery were considered fine for mowing down hordes of ill-armed savages, but surely they would never have such effects on the superior, white-skinned race ?"

Alternatively, we could challenge Mr Churchill's detractors to name their own favourite war leader and see if that man's record is without blemish.Well, leave me out of that. I was never a believer in the spit-polish images of Great Man personality cults or the infallibility of people in general. Quite the contrary.

Adrian II

02-13-2006, 13:06

So far as I'm aware of "conservatives" do not have to any notable degree a "clearer" or "more realistic" take on reality; rather, they have a habit of trying to claim certain existing states of affairs of dubious moral and ethical standing as "the way the world works" or "inevitable developements" or whatever, in other words [/I]defining reality to suit their own ideology[I].Your words make me wonder how old you are, Watchman. You are smart, you have a way with words and I often agree with the gist of your posts, but on this issue you are completely off the mark. Why don't you read an eminent conservative commentator like Burke? Just pick up his Reflections and you will see that none of your pre-conceived notions apply.

Watchman

02-13-2006, 14:22

I fail to see where I said all "conservative" commentators/authors/whatever are/were like that. "Like many conservative authors, Mr Churchill shows us what is, not what should be" just irks the living daylights out of me, as does any such categorical and baseless claim to truthfulness and objectivity.

Adrian II

02-13-2006, 15:04

"Like many conservative authors, Mr Churchill shows us what is, not what should be" just irks the living daylights out of me, as does any such categorical and baseless claim to truthfulness and objectivity.Well, my comment wasn't meant as the ontological be-all-and-end-all you make it out to be either.

Let me put it this way then.

I think Mr Churchill was essentially right when he stated that Islam is not a force for progress, but a regressive force that holds back much-needed social change. Since then, generations of well-meaning progressives have put their hopes on Islam as a force for progress and they were proven wrong.

In particular since the latter part of the twentieth century, Leftists have had a tendency to consider any anti-American tendency in the world as a force for good. As the notion of a global proletarian revolution and all the illusions bound up with it gradually dissipated, all sorts of 'Third World' movements were hailed as its replacement in Leftist ideology. Islamism is one of them. Islamic fundamentalism is still regarded in some Leftist circles as a bearer of emancipatory policies, as a 'voice of the oppressed' so to speak. A notion which I think is fundamentally (pun intended) wrong, and which represents a serious conceptual problem of the Left today.

Now we can argue endlessly over what is and what should be, but I hope we can agree that any sort of sharia does not belong in the latter category.

Duke Malcolm

02-13-2006, 15:10

Watchman

02-13-2006, 16:34

This little discussion has little chance of progressing if Watchman stands by his prejudices that Conservatives and Imperialists are inherently racist, islamophobic and misguided amonst other things...It's not going to be progressing in any particularly constructive direction if you remain entrenched in your particular prejudices about Islam being an inherently reactionary and ossifying faith, either.

Imperialists, at least the historical kind, were racists pretty much by default because few people growing up in the society they sprang from avoided ingesting the hegemonic values of the time. And those were patently racist, unless you're going to argue a firm belief in the inherent, God-given superiority of the "White Man" and Western civilization (and deriving from them their right, indeed duty, to conquer and "civilize" the "savages" of the world) doesn't count as such.

At which point I'm going to call horse cakes on you.

Conservatives I'm going to call racists if they demonstrate ideas and attitudes that mark them as such. Many do, some don't. Beating around the bush isn't really my thing, and I practice the same policy with everyone regardless of other political and ideological leanings.

I think Mr Churchill was essentially right when he stated that Islam is not a force for progress, but a regressive force that holds back much-needed social change.And I think you, like him, are either unwilling or unable to see the forest for the trees. You're confusing cause and effect. Moreover, you're being particularist about it. Islam is no more inherently regressive or reactionary religion than any other; but like any other, rigidly orthodox reading of it will make it a powerful blunt instrument for such causes. How long did the Western civilization wrestle with ossified, outdated, discriminatory, regressive et multiple cetera applications of the Christian faith ? Quite long; when it comes down to it it took the virtual sidelining of the religion to get the matter resolved, and the arm-wrestling continues even if secularization on the whole has the upper hand.

I'm sure even cursory delving into the history of virtually any major religion will turn up quite a few instances of reactionaries utilizing it as their hobby horse, or the entire thing being reduced to a monument of social and cultural petrification.

Islam has the dubious honor, as the main common, uncontested, unifying and potentially life-defining rallying point of the otherwise rather fractured Islamc world, of acting as the chief vehicle for protestations and backlashes against modernity, progress, globalization and so on and so on whose side effects the populace dislike (and let's be honest, particularly as far as economy goes there's a lot to protest against; we do it in the West too, don't we ?). Do you know who the Luddites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) were ? Although naturally ineffectual in their vandalism, they were actually quite correct in regarding the newfangled machineries were an enemy that would reduce them to what Marx called "proletarization." Tilting against windmills for lack of better ways to express their discontent and anxiety, as it were.

Few people have ever been as suspicious of change and progress as the "working poor" - the peasantry and their urban equivalents. Usually they've also been quite justified, in that the progress has tended to proletarize them and/or generally make their already difficult lives only more so.

This is more or less the case with radical Islam, which has been a recognized factor on world stage only since the Iranian Revolution (the earlier issues with Palestinians being correctly regarded as extensions of the territorial struggle with Israel). As the main shared banner of cultural unity and identity, nevermind now an institution nigh inviolable and unassailable to even the most heavy-handed tyrant (and there's been no shortage of those in the Muslim world; most also receive(d) at least tacit Western support so long as the oil flowed, which was not missed by the unhappy masses), and a faith that can be used to formulate Fundamental Truths on how life should be lived, what's good and what's not, and so on and so on - in short, to provide easy answers to complex issues as anxious, poorly educated and disgruntled masses have always been eager to hear - Islam has became the battle flag of the reactionaries of the Muslim world.

People have an unfortunate tendency to blame wrong things for their troubles you see, or at least things that are safe to blame. Given the sheer poverty and resulting low education levels widepread in the Muslim world, it is unrealistic to expect the "man on the street" to be able to grasp the macroeconomical and geopolitical dynamics that keep him poor and oppressed. He's in much the same position as the ill-educated and often barely literate skinheads in the West; he knows something is amiss, if nothing else as he feels the effects, but lacks the instruments to understand what. He must act by what he knows; the skinhead takes it out on ethnic minorities and the like, the irate Arab on suitably prominent symbols of Western encroachement into his world. In a sense both are partially correct, as they're attacking and opposing visible expressions of the larger incomprehensibe phenomena that partly bring about their situation; both, as such angry and disenfranchised groups always, are duly easy prey to populist agitation.

Skinheads are usually ultra-rightists and ultranationalists, so naturally it is inconceivable for them to assume there would be flaws per ce in their native systems; so they displace it onto "damn foreigners" or "******* commies in the capital" or some similar scapegoat. For the irate Muslim displacing the guilt onto something "alien" and "foreign" is often a dire necessity, as open opposition to the local elites (who tend to be the main direct source of his or her misery) is... unhealthy. The assorted autocracies bend over backwards to deflect the rage of the mobs towards the West for entirely sensible reasons, and the populist leaders - in the Muslim world, the niche tends to be filled with firebrand reactionary clerics - are quite aware of it. Saudi Arabia for one example has for a good long time been trading concessions to the radicals for comparative internal stability - the rulers let the preachers have a say in social matters, the preachers don't try to pull a Khomeini to summarize the basic idea.

"The Evil Comes From The Outside" is the eternal populist explanation for problems. In the skinheads and similar right-wing reactionaries, it expresses in violence towards "foreigners" and support of essentially fascist ideas (naturally enough; fascism was a populist reaction against modernity too). In the radicals of the Muslim world it is expressed as categorical rejection of everything Western - which is really overkill, but follows the usual phenomenom of "taint by association" (ie. opposing everything from a certain source just to be on the safe side and because the source is "bad") - and support of populist causes, in this case reactionary religious dogmatism.

In the case of the educated West, it is currently expressed in the categorical dismissal of Islam as "evil cult" and so on; you folks are an altogether too good an example.

Adrian II

02-13-2006, 16:58

Islam is no more inherently regressive or reactionary religion than any other; but like any other, rigidly orthodox reading of it will make it a powerful blunt instrument for such causes.And it has been such an instrument for centuries on end now. Like you state, other religions reformed under the influence of non-religious pressures and movements. The same will have to happen to Islam. Free speech will have to triumph in Islamic countries. I mean true free speech, not the freedom to draw antisemitic cartoons or call for the killing of all unbelievers at the drop of a leader's turban.
How long did the Western civilization wrestle with ossified, outdated, discriminatory, regressive et multiple cetera applications of the Christian faith?Unwittingly, you are painting a rather appropriate picture of present-day Islam. It is, indeed, stuck in ossified, outdated, discriminatory, regressive views and practices, a stage where predominantly Christian western societies used to be not so very long ago. Why do you have such trouble admitting it?

I think I understand perfectly well where Islam's 'rallying capacity' comes from. But that does not make it any more acceptable as a creed than the neo-nazism which you refer to so abundantly and so out of context. You see, we deal with our local fascists here. In many islamic countries, they are the governing party.

Watchman

02-13-2006, 18:57

Unwittingly, you are painting a rather appropriate picture of present-day militant Islam.Fixed. You're generalizing. And I dunno about you, but I hate applications of collective guilt.
It is, indeed, stuck in ossified, outdated, discriminatory, regressive views and practices, a stage where predominantly Christian western societies used to be not so very long ago. Why do you have such trouble admitting it?
:inquisitive:
Excuse me, but since when have *I* had any trouble admitting it ? I've been quite consistently making the comparision for God knows how long.

I think I understand perfectly well where Islam's 'rallying capacity' comes from. But that does not make it any more acceptable as a creed than the neo-nazism which you refer to so abundantly and so out of context.Repeat after me:
Understanding.
Doen't.
Equal.
Acceptance.
Helps comprehend the situation and modulate sensible opinions greatly, though.

I don't ever recall claiming it acceptable. Do you ? Neo-nazis are an useful comparision as they're a similar reflex against "future shock", albeit a marginalized one. The basic principle remains the same regardless of the scale; remember, it's barely six or seven decades since Fascism was the hottest new thing around, and widely popular in many places. The reasons it (and for that matter revolutionary Communism around the same period) could garner such audiences were much the same as those now at work in the Muslim world. Discontent. Anxiety. Uncertanty. Want of future prospects. The works.

You see, we deal with our local fascists here....and it only took the single most destructive war in the history of mankind for us to start doing that. :dizzy2: As a result certains types of ultra-rightist ideas are legally punishable and freedom of speech be damned on that account.
Well, it's a working solution. One does hope better ones are found though; the first part is... unpleasant.

In many islamic countries, they are the governing party.Incorrect. Iran is the exactly only one I can think of from the top of my head now that the Taliban are back in the mountains and out of the capital, and even it has a domestic parliamentary opposition (many forget that Iran actually is an as-such working democratic republic, if perhaps not exactly a model case; it's the "control elements" added above the parliamentary system where the mullahs sit). The rest are run by a variety of monarchs, dictators, military juntas, and other autocratic strongmen whose adherence to the Faith tends to be dubious at best and opportunism considerable; their relations with their domestic radical Islamists have a tendency to be testy, which has much to do with the way the Islamists are about the only reasonably safe way for the populace to vent their opinions.

Moreover, the Islamist movements tend to AFAIK lack the Charismatic Leader dependency of true fascism; they're "fascist" only in the sense they go under the same basic heading of ultra-conservative reactionaries. Plus their main gist tends to be whatever version of rigid religious orthodoxy the local tub-thumpers adhere to, not the militant ultranationalism characteristic of the ultra-right movements that go under the rubric of "fascist." Although in typical fashion - the Muslim world having contacted the idea of nationalism like everyone else in the first part of the 20th century - those sorts of ideas have a tendency of getting thrown into the mix for good measure...

Incidentally, do you recall how things went in Algeria when the military forcibly vetoed the electoral victory of the Islamists ? I understand the junta isn't exactly a bunch you'd want ruling your country...

Adrian II

02-13-2006, 19:33

Fixed.In your dreams.

I recall you writing above that 'Islam has the dubious honor, as the main common, uncontested, unifying and potentially life-defining rallying point of the otherwise rather fractured Islamic world, of acting as the chief vehicle for protestations and backlashes against modernity, progress, globalization and so on and so on whose side effects the populace dislike'.

I agree. And it is my contention that it is the wrong vehicle.

Since the demise of Arab nationalism, Islam has also become the chief ideological vehicle of all scoundrels, dictators, fascists and populists ruling the Islamic world. For that very reason, the Saudi, Syrian and Iranian rulers are presently vying to take the lead of the anti-cartoon movement. They are competing with the Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda and FIS for the hearts and minds of their co-religionists. There is hardly any Islamic movement or party today that is not stuck in those totally ossified views we lament. This is the tragedy of the Islamic world. As long as it remains 'uncontested', Islam will secure the Muslim world in this ossified state.
(..) they're "fascist" only in the sense they go under the same basic heading of ultra-conservative reactionariesThere, you have said it. Denying that the sorry state of nearly all Islamic countries has anything to do with Islam is just as silly as denying that the sorry state of the former Soviet Union had anything to do with Communism. It is just the same old Leftist ploy in a new disguise.

Watchman

02-13-2006, 20:42

There, you have said it. Denying that the sorry state of nearly all Islamic countries has anything to do with Islam is just as silly as denying that the sorry state of the former Soviet Union had anything to do with Communism. It is just the same old Leftist ploy in a new disguise.Somehow I'm still getting an impression from between the lines that you're not quite admitting it's not Islam itself that is the problem, but the social and political circumstances in the Muslim world that motivate the reactionaries therein.

Which are two quite different issues.

It is my firm belief religions, for all their adherents' protestations, are nothing more nor less than what people make out of them. And the current problem is that the ultra-conservatives are (if only for lack of better ones) making Islam into their high horse from which to campaign against modernity, something it by no means needs to be.

Another problem is that the West has recently started copping a similar idiot-prejudice attitude by misplacing guilt and failing to run proper cause-and-effect analyses.

rory_20_uk

02-13-2006, 20:47

Watchman

02-13-2006, 20:58

Did you know, one Swedish king once went all Old Testament with his legislation. It was called off after his death, as the number of executions over quite ludicrous issues had gone through the roof.

Adrian II

02-13-2006, 21:02

Another problem is that the West has recently started copping a similar idiot-prejudice attitude by misplacing guilt and failing to run proper cause-and-effect analyses.Well, on that point we agree. For instance as long as I visit this forum I have argued against western military intervention as the solution to problems in the Middle East. Our American friends in particular have behaved like idiots over there lately, but they are the only Americans we have in this world and I have grown rather fond of them.

And in the controversy over the Danish cartoons and all that ensued, well -- let me say that even in the life of a gentleman there are limits to cross-cultural 'understanding'. I simply had to come out on the side of free speech with guns blazing, unwilling to make any prisoners and ignoring all dubious alliance proposals. I took a few hits from Muslims, from Web pirates and from European and American appeasers, but I am still afloat and fully loaded.

Fire in the hole!... :charge:

Watchman

02-13-2006, 21:10

The Quran is pretty vitrolic stuff. No compromise "kill everyone else" attitude. To interpret it into a favourable light would take some doing - as would overlooking all the errors dotted in the text. Best be done with the whole thing, and wait for God's next Prophet. Hopefully he is more litterate. :book:

~:smoking:Cor blimey, I had no idea rory could read Classical Arabic and engage in learned debate of Muslim theology with the scholars of the faith. I tip my hat, sir.

:rtwno:
So not.

Another problem is that the West has recently started copping a similar idiot-prejudice attitude by misplacing guilt and failing to run proper cause-and-effect analyses.I've said it before: I'd be overall a much happier man if my cynical views of people in general weren't being constantly proven correct.

Brenus

02-13-2006, 21:14

I suppose that the video released by the Newspapers is better than few drawings… And it will improve the relationship between the Muslim world and the UK…:help:

Duke Malcolm

02-13-2006, 21:26

Cor blimey, I had no idea rory could read Classical Arabic and engage in learned debate of Muslim theology with the scholars of the faith. I tip my hat, sir.

:rtwno:
So not.

So one must only read the Quran in Arabic? Must one also read the new Testament in Greek? Must one have church services in Latin?

Did you know, one Swedish king once went all Old Testament with his legislation. It was called off after his death, as the number of executions over quite ludicrous issues had gone through the roof.

He was quite wrong to base laws on the Old Testament, since Christians should rank the New Testament higher being based on the wisdom of Christ Almighty...

Louis VI the Fat

02-13-2006, 21:49

And in the controversy over the Danish cartoons and all that ensued, well -- let me say that even in the life of a gentleman there are limits to cross-cultural 'understanding'. I simply had to come out on the side of free speech with guns blazing, unwilling to make any prisoners and ignoring all dubious alliance proposals. I took a few hits from Muslims, from Web pirates and from European and American appeasers, but I am still afloat and fully loaded.Yes, I noted. Am I correct in that you also made a little U-turn a few days into the row? From a 'respect and understanding goes a long way' to a 'line in the sand' approach?

rory_20_uk

02-13-2006, 22:15

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm see?? English!

No need salute - I'm just able to find an Emglish translation...

Discuss with experts? And hear a different point of view? I'd rather see the text, NOT what someone thinks they meant to have said.

~:smoking:

Watchman

02-13-2006, 22:34

That site went into my Favorites, just on general principles.

The thing with translations is translation errors. IMO just about the single most clever move the composers of the Qu'ran pulled was to declare the thing is only a valid Scripture in the original language - a far wise decision, when you consider how much bloods Christians have spilled over translation issues.

Translations of the Qu'ran rank as "explanations" or something along those lines, far as I know, not the "real thing".

'Course, there's now the minor issue one and half millenia have taken the classical language of the Scripture some ways away from the everyday Arabic in use, but then that's a trouble for the scholars.

However, most of the issues with this particular Scripture stem specifically from the interpretation side, and the fact the moderate-critical line of "practically applied interpretation" withered away some centuries ago. Not that the modernist progressive Imams weren't doing their best anyway.

Watchman

02-13-2006, 22:50

I looked around that site a bit. Whoever did the annotations to the Qu'ran was clearly not of the same caliber as the guy who did the Bible. Downright boring, even.

Papewaio

02-13-2006, 23:27

From what I can gather Watchman is stating that the powers that be are using (militant) Islam to garner favour with the disaffected poor and bewildered with modern life. In the West the equivalent vehicle of choice for power two generations ago was facism, followed quickly on its heels be communism. Those two choices have given a bad name to conservatives and socialists respectively.

That other vehicles of choice could be used. And that they could be better for all. That Islam has not gone through an equivalent Reformation so it does not currently have a (reformationist) Islam link to a modern world. That things like the Declaration of Independance, Magna Carta, Suffragetes, Freedom of Speech, Equality for all and other routes to the modern world have not found equivalents yet in the (militant) Islamic world.

Mind you it is strange to think that there have been female Muslim presidents of Pakistan and Indonesia but no secular or Christian female president of the USA or Prime Minister of Australia...

What are the root causes of these problems?

The changes in the West involved distribution of ideas. Printing Press, a more powerful upper class to dethrone the royalty, then a more powerful middle class that demanded more rights to match their economic might.

Is the root cause Oil? To be precise the concentration of the money from oil in the hands of a few. That the endowments from this oil is not shared, that it is not reinvested into the infrastructure of the country but on pleasure yachts and palaces for a few. That the same oil money is using educated people to get, people educated overseas. That an undereducated populace that does not question and does not have economic clout will follow their leaders like sheep.

Maybe the root cause is that there have been no translations of the Qu'ran. Ideas that cannot adapt become fossils if the conditions in which they were created change and they find themselves clinging to a bygone era. It is also possible to have the opposite that Ideas find a new time were they will be of more use... the extreme right and the price of gold both get a new gloss in the times of insecurity.

A.Saturnus

02-13-2006, 23:31

What are they gonna do, fight the Muslims? The Muslims won't mind if that happens. They are not going to backdown from any sort of fight. Stop insulting Islam, stop getting thrashed by Muslims. That's how it works. :2thumbsup:

Yeah, mother of all battles and such. No, the last time Moslims thrashed anyone was probably Gallipoli, but they got thrashed regularly since then. Those Muslim fanatics are more like the annoying child that freaks out because the others kids don't want to play his game. We, the evil secularist men, want to stop those wackos before they piss off the until now self-restraint West so much that it goes into a red haze, lowers itself to their level and stuffs them down a well. And a few other that stand in the way. And, boy, they will mind that!

Watchman

02-14-2006, 00:54

The changes in the West involved distribution of ideas. Printing Press, a more powerful upper class to dethrone the royalty, then a more powerful middle class that demanded more rights to match their economic might.Just for the record, the usual route was first absolutism that largely relegated the aristocracy to secondary importance save as a source of officers and cavalry soldiers, followed by eventual middle-class takeover by the merit of sheer wealth (the landed aristocracy was notoriously bad at actually making money). Where both monarchy and aristocracy were present, and the monarch was unable to assert himself over the aristocracy, the standard result was stagnation; as said, the landed aristocracy was notoriously poor at finances. For assorted reasons much of East and Central Europe followed that route, and according to some theories are still paying the bill.

At least as far as the Middle East and other oil-rich regions are concerned oil has to be among the bigger issues. Or to be more precise, its global importance which saw the local grabby elites left alone first by the colonial empires so long as the gunk flowed, and then the "global community" (such as it now is) so long as the gunk flowed. And the way the astronomical profits from the oil industry are near-exclusively splurged on the high living and tax-haven accounts of the upper crust; for comparision one of Saddam's preciously few good points was his willingness to invest some of his ill-gotten gains in stuff like public education and healthcare...

When you think about it, the model actually looks suspiciously like the pattern that led Eastern Europe into such trouble.

Naturally enough the Great Unwashed don't exactly like the situation, which is a boon for the militant clergy - all the more so as they're relatively safe from state violence, and instead need to be negotiated with.

Personally I think most of the MidEast dictatorships are on a road to general revolt. AFAIK the firebrand clerics consider their native overlords only a marginally lesser evil than the encroaching godless West, and would quite happily kick them down if they could (and put someone suitable, like some seriously hardcase reactionary old fart from amongst their number, into the empty space...). The practice of trading concessions to the radicals and letting them rage against the West when they feel like it is quite likely just stalling and will eventually become untenable; it is almost certain all such incidents only strenghten the radicals' position in the long run, and it is entirely possible the dictators will eventually find themselves with nothing more to sell.

Well, the mess might also collapse into ugly civil war too. Long-term dictators are often bad at giving up power and quietly slipping out of the back door when the fat lady starts singing.

Usually a good preventive medicine against popular uprisings is sufficient socioeconomical and political reforms to make the people reasonably happy and give them a "stake" in the existing state of affairs, so they no longer want to tear it down in hopes of building something better instead. Now, getting such moves through the sheer corruption and stubborn power-monopolizing of the autocratic elites is an entirely different matter...

Papewaio

02-14-2006, 01:09

It would be a lot easier if there was no oil... then they would have to either learn or work their collective butts off to create wealth.

So alternative energy sources could castrate the dictators of the middle east. It would also seriously hamper the clerics from having any wealth to wage war with. And it would then require the locals to learn if they wanted any wealth at all.

Watchman

02-14-2006, 01:36

Overly simplistic; although similar effects are most pronounced in Third World countries with suitably exploitable valuable raw materials (say, diamonds), they're no strangers to less 'fortunate' countries either. The world economy just plain is developed in such a way as to severely disadvantage the common folk and economies of the "developing world," in most cases at least partially as a legacy of the colonial period.

And remember, terrorism is the low-budget (http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/budget.shtml) warfare method. :bounce:

Papewaio

02-14-2006, 01:54

The world economy just plain is developed in such a way as to severely disadvantage the common folk and economies of the "developing world,"

Pfft. I am one of the common folk in the Western world yet I can expect access to more information and ideas then Library of Alexandria. A longer lifespan then the Emperors of Ancient Rome or China. Access to a greater variety of food, communications, transport, countries and clothes then the Aristocracy of a thousand years ago.

The Third World is the Third World more because of what the people have done then with when they were last conquored. Post WWII Europe seems to have bounded back to a robust economy. Admittadely some colonial powers were better then others for putting in place infrastructure and insitutions. However a quick look at places like Zimbabwee and you can see that the locals have been pretty good at destroying any advantages they once had.

On the other hand countries like Singapore (a ex-colonial outpost) have managed to rise above these so called shackles of colonial poverty without oil or mineral wealth.

Sure people can blame colonialists that have long since left them for their independance... but surely given the amount of ex-colonial countries that have done well for themselves hints that it has far more to do with the locals lack of motivation and education rather then some historic change in leadership.

Adrian II

02-14-2006, 08:31

Yes, I noted. Am I correct in that you also made a little U-turn a few days into the row? From a 'respect and understanding goes a long way' to a 'line in the sand' approach?I think I defended the principle that 'diplomacy goes a long way'. It does, most people don't realise that. As usual most of the Muslim holy rage has dissipated. I bet they are all eating Danish yoghurt again in the coming days and weeks because their governments don't need a trade row with the EU. Many a Mid-Eastern shopkeeper has Peter Mandelson to thank for not provoking Arab leaders into behaving even more stupidly and formalising a boycot of Danish products.

But I am not a diplomat.. ~:)

Adrian II

02-14-2006, 08:44

The world economy just plain is developed in such a way as to severely disadvantage the common folk and economies of the "developing world," in most cases at least partially as a legacy of the colonial period.But some common folk are at a much bigger disadvantage than others because of their ossified intellectual climate. Latin America is doing ten times better than the Arab world, and mostly without oil. They have a middle class, they have intellectual freedom and a religious outlook that encourages curiosity and initiative, as opposed to modern Islam.
And remember, terrorism is the low-budget (http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/budget.shtml) warfare method. :bounce:Again, you unwittingly cut to the heart of the matter. Islamic terrorism is hugely expensive. Its recruitment alone depends on very expensive programmes, for instance on the Saudi Wahhabists wasting millions and millions of oil revenue on madrassas in Asia where children learn absolutely nothing useful.

Watchman

02-14-2006, 09:52

On the average it tends to look like it's very much a bad thing for a Third World country to possess valuable natural resources. That seems to very easily lead to the nasty cycle of wealth-hogging upper class that cheerfully sells the stuff, whatever it now is, on the cheap so long as they get a fat check on the side, and the rest of the world being much more willing to ignore such management practices. All the more so if the local "culture of governance" hasn't gotten past its grabby and nepotistic colonial stage.

AFAIK Congo is the most extreme example at the moment. By what I've read of it there is no longer any real link between the ruling elite and the common folk there; exploitation of the rich natural resources (duly in cooperation with unscrupulous global business interests) makes the elite functionally independent from whatever meager taxes the country might be able to provide, and that wealth also allows them to hire as many thugs and leg-breakers as they want as the army without resorting to the populace at large. Coversely the common folk have more or less entirely given up hope on their rulers and as contact with them most of the time brings them nothing good, avoid it and try to get by as much without the state as possible.

Naw, a better part of the problems of the Third World are a fairly direct legacy of the disortions of the colonial period, and the further skewing caused by the Cold War and the so-called "postcolonialism". Claiming anything else is really just dodging responsibility, even if it's only indirect. I've read the watershed was actually around the late 60s or early 70s; until then much of Africa was actually progressing relatively well. It is hardly coincidential that the same period saw great changes in the world economy in general - I seem to recall something called "Bretton-Woods system" being often mentioned in the context - and the end of the so-called "Postwar Golden Age Of Capitalism", ie. the before that essentially uninterrupted economical upswing that followed the reconstruction efforts after the WW2. I also seem to recall seeing mentions of the foreign debt of many Third World countries starting to spiral out of control specifically around that period...

...Hey, wasn't that also the time around when many industrialized Western countries spawned troublesome ultra-Leftist terrorist groups ? Bader-Meinhof, the various Red Flags and Armies, those kinds of groups ? That sort of radicalization usually happens as a reaction to something or other too, which would further suggests some sort of paradigm shift was afoot.

But some common folk are at a much bigger disadvantage than others because of their ossified intellectual climate. Latin America is doing ten times better than the Arab world, and mostly without oil. They have a middle class, they have intellectual freedom and a religious outlook that encourages curiosity and initiative, as opposed to modern Islam.I'd kinda hazard a guess it has much more to do with how A) Latin America had already shaken off the worst of its colonial shackles already before the Age of Empire (which did the most lasting damage in the Third World, including the Muslim parts) B) in the last few decades outright dictators and military juntas have largely disappeared from the political scene. Not having to fear the thought police all the time has, I suspect, much more of an invigorating effect on the intellectual life than the details of faith.

This also has to be about the first time ever I see Catholic Christianity, especially the fairly conservative branch that's in the majority in Latin America, referred to as "a religious outlook that encourages curiosity and initiative"... :inquisitive:
I think I'm smelling a bias here. How about you ?

Pfft. I am one of the common folk in the Western world yet I can expect access to more information and ideas then Library of Alexandria. A longer lifespan then the Emperors of Ancient Rome or China. Access to a greater variety of food, communications, transport, countries and clothes then the Aristocracy of a thousand years ago.It is quite correct that, as one source put it, "the average middle-class American [might as well read Westerner] in many ways lives in more comfort and luxury than a medieval king." I however fail to see the relevance when discussing the Third World, all the more so as our high living has an unhappy tendency to indirectly come at their expense. The aforementioned disortions of global economy, you know. How much do you imagine the farmer who cultivated the beans your morning coffee is made out of on the average gets paid for his troubles ? Much of the time he can consider himself lucky if he makes enough profit to keep himself and his immediate family passably fed and clotched...

Sure people can blame colonialists that have long since left them for their independance... but surely given the amount of ex-colonial countries that have done well for themselves hints that it has far more to do with the locals lack of motivation and education rather then some historic change in leadership.Sure it is the fault of the locals. After all, dictators and military juntas are famous for their love and support of popular motivation, general education and critical thinking... :dizzy2:
Right. Can we stop the Blame The Victims game about right now ? It is an exceedingly distasteful pasttime.

Again, you unwittingly cut to the heart of the matter. Islamic terrorism is hugely expensive. Its recruitment alone depends on very expensive programmes, for instance on the Saudi Wahhabists wasting millions and millions of oil revenue on madrassas in Asia where children learn absolutely nothing useful....Except the Al-Qaeda leadership I know of tends to come from well-schooled middle- and upper-class backgrounds, even if they've also attended such pinko-religious circles. Hardly surprising really; revolutionary movements have always had a tendency to have for one reason or another disgruntled members of the elite as their "officer class" and ideologists, as those folks tend to have the sort of educational base and skills needed. Even rebelling Medieval peasants normally tried to recruit unhappy members of the warrior aristocracy as their leaders, usually succesfully (or were led to revolt by such men to begin with).

The grunts for their part tend to come from amongst the lower and lower middle classes, don't they ? And the vast majority of the militant activists are pure volunteers who don't need to be paid anything as such; even the impious unscrupulous opportunists in the lot seem to take care of their own profit with classic "warlord economy" methods.

Moreover, AFAIK much of the budget comes from sympathetic individuals as donations, some of them prosperous members of the elites. As that sort of income isn't dependent on state taxation (often quite au contraire; state taxes are straight off the pool such 'philanthropes' can spare for such donations, aren't they ?) the whole system seems comparatively low-cost overall. At least compared to the insane sums that need to be expended to counter it - how many dollars the War on Terror eats up every day ? - and the disproportionate returns-of-investement that can often be achieved.

Put this way: whatever it cost Osama's organisation and its supporters on the long run to destroy the WTC, it was still chump change compared to what it would have cost to achieve the same effects through conventional military means - because the latter was and remains patently impossible and hence incalculably expensive. Remember, asymmetrical warfare and guerilla strategy (of which modern terrorism is really just a global and urbanized version) have always been and remain the choice method of those who cannot afford to fight by other means.

Adrian II

02-14-2006, 11:07

Naw, a better part of the problems of the Third World are a fairly direct legacy of the disortions of the colonial period, and the further skewing caused by the Cold War and the so-called "postcolonialism". Claiming anything else is really just dodging responsibility, even if it's only indirect.I agree with all that and have maintained it in this very forum in the face of pretty stiff opposition. But it is not the whole story. You fail to address the issue I keep pointing out, which is that Islam is not a vehicle for any sort of progress in the present situation. In its present form it is an ossified body of pseudo-knowledge and absolutist claims that blocks any sort of social or intellectual progress. I think I understand quite well how this deplorable state of affairs came about, thank you very much, but I am not prepared to accept it as a desirable vision for the future.
Remember, asymmetrical warfare and guerilla strategy (of which modern terrorism is really just a global and urbanized version) have always been and remain the choice method of those who cannot afford to fight by other means.There we go again. You confirm what I wrote earlier about the Leftist fallacy that islamic terrorism is somehow a legitimate form of resistance of the Arab world's wretched masses. Osama bin Laden as the 'voice of the oppressed'... Give us a break and allow us to have a good laugh over our Danish yoghurt, Watchman.

Watchman

02-14-2006, 11:26

I'm getting the impression you're not quite reading what I'm saying here. Forest behind the trees again.

Navaros

02-14-2006, 11:52

No. I think you'll find that the Danes, the French and anyone else for that matter, has the right to piss all over yours or any religion while on their own native soil and there's not alot that you or your extremist chums can do about that, except make yourselves even more despised with impotent public ranting and flag burning.

On the contrary. They have already done much about it: sent a loud and clear message that the desecration of Islam will not go unanswered.

Everyone is going to think twice now before trying to desecrate Islam again.

Of course for those who "forget" that the desecration will be answered, I'm sure the reminders will be swiftly forthcoming in any future incidents.:2thumbsup:

Adrian II

02-14-2006, 11:59

I'm getting the impression you're not quite reading what I'm saying here. Forest behind the trees again.Well, why don't you skip the gratuitous anti-imperialism and cut to the bone then?

Do you think Islam is a force for much-needed social change in the Arab world or not?

rory_20_uk

02-14-2006, 12:01

Considering what they view as desecration, and what is done against other religions with no backlash, IMO it is an extreme reaction, and one that is not condusive to much of Europe. They can scream and shout, but I don't see why I should have kid gloves around their beliefs to the any more than our society has concerning ones that have been resident here for over 1,000 years. :furious3:

~:smoking:

Watchman

02-14-2006, 12:37

Well, why don't you skip the gratuitous anti-imperialism and cut to the bone then?

Do you think Islam is a force for much-needed social change in the Arab world or not?Do you think it's the root of all ills therein ?

And please stop putting words in my mouth.

Adrian II

02-14-2006, 13:50

Do you think it's the root of all ills therein ?

And please stop putting words in my mouth.Please stop dodging the issue and answer my question: Do you think Islam is a force for much-needed social change in the Arab world or not? And please elaborate on your answer, in the same way as I have done. Otherwise this discussion is going nowhere. I don't plan on debating abstract notions of 'racism' and 'imperialism' till kingdom come.

rory_20_uk

02-14-2006, 14:22

Well, I'm not one for shirking an opportunity to look like a prat, so there's my :2cents:

The Middle East stands on the silk and spice trade from the Far East, and although much is arid there are river valleys were conditions are far more pleasant. This has been the case probably since the Babylonians were around.

The region also inherited much of the learnings of Greece and Rome after The Byzantium Empire fell - teachings that did not reappear in the west for centuries.

So, wealth, fertile valleys and masses of educational material: what the hell went wrong?

Arguably every benefit was at their feet - far more leisure time than was had in the West for the rich, and far more opportunities to build on the findings of the past.

East and West both fought masses of wars, both had at least at some point religions that were utterly intolerant - in fact until recently far more true of the West than the East, which was relatively enlightened in many ways.

So is that the nugget that is needed?

When Islam was ascending, they were relatively benign: tolerance of others - as long as they paid taxes the locals were left alone. The Christians at the time were loosing, and so were extremists - the Spanish Inquisition for example. Then came the change: Islam went into territorial decline. The Ottoman Empire receded from all the lands it had conquered, and eventually ceased to exist all together. In this time, freedoms were slowly won in Western Europe until we emerge into the pretty secular world we now inhabit. Islam has gotten more and more extreme, ending up with religious genocide of 1.2 million Christians under the Ottomans.

Whereas West Europe had to reinvent much of what was lost, Islam already had it, and appears to have lost the desire to search for any more knowledge (rather like the complacency of the Chinese prior to the Gunboat diplomacy of the West).

Now, fracticious little states squabble like children in the sand. Most are not countries as such, as all were made and most have greater centifugal forces than any other. Their "dark matter" is religion: it focuses their burning hatred against all those that wronged them, and prevented the triumphant spread of their culture and religion (indeed is now eroding their own with foreign values - and as such regardless of what they are are hated / feared as they are often being forced on the locals).

Can Islam be salvaged? Of course - look at those moderates in the West. Although they are not pleased with the cartoons for example most are not advocating that all Westeners die. With a few more generations they will be more integrated with Western culture and will accept our values as opposed to clinging with tenacity to those their parents brought with them as reminders of their homeland.

Whether it can in the areas we endearingly call the Middle East is a different matter. So many factors reenforce the slant of islam that is present only a massive change will enable those that live there to look forwards and understand their fellow man instead of looking back to a perceived golden age and hating the leaders of the present.

~:smoking:

Adrian II

02-14-2006, 16:12

Can Islam be salvaged? Of course - look at those moderates in the West. Although they are not pleased with the cartoons for example most are not advocating that all Westeners die. With a few more generations they will be more integrated with Western culture and will accept our values as opposed to clinging with tenacity to those their parents brought with them as reminders of their homeland.This is my hope as well: the coming of a European Islam that is embedded in Western society and re-imported into the Arab world. Then maybe in the long run it will become a force for progress, though in the end I would prefer it to just disappear from politics and become a sort of folklore in the same way Christianity has become mostly folklore.

caravel

02-14-2006, 22:03

Unfortunately that is not going to happen for a long time. Most islamic states are still in a state of regression or stagnation, ruled by dictators and not democratically governed. They have virtually no womens rights, draconian judicial systems and the majority of the population living in abject poverty, which always leads a helping hand to any kind of extremism. Even Turkey which is moderately westernised has it's fair share of extremists. While the average person would love to live under a regime like the Taliban and any attempt at democracy has to include a restriction in civil liberties for women and the fundamentals of sharia law, how can democracy be achieved? The attempts at democracy in Iraq are totally forced. The whole situation is extremely fragile. If western forces were pulled out, even in the next two years, I have no doubt that the entire process would fall apart and the country erupt into civil war.

Samurai Waki

02-14-2006, 22:13

The whole situation in Iraq is doomed...I still don't know why we're there...oil? anyone?

Papewaio

02-14-2006, 22:49

It is quite correct that, as one source put it, "the average middle-class American [might as well read Westerner] in many ways lives in more comfort and luxury than a medieval king." I however fail to see the relevance when discussing the Third World, all the more so as our high living has an unhappy tendency to indirectly come at their expense. The aforementioned disortions of global economy, you know. How much do you imagine the farmer who cultivated the beans your morning coffee is made out of on the average gets paid for his troubles ? Much of the time he can consider himself lucky if he makes enough profit to keep himself and his immediate family passably fed and clotched...

The last time I was working in and around coffee plantations my crew was earning $3 Australian each per day in Sumatra. The local coffee farmers were on a similar overall amount. Very friendly bunch most of them they offered fresh coffee straight from the plantation, except for the one farmer that threatened my crew with a machete. And there was that one meeting which we had out on a track with a dozen local farmers all armed with machetes who were complaining about what we were doing (mind you a farmer with a machete is like an engineer with a pocket protector and a calculator, just business tools)... in the end of the day both us and them agreed it was the Javanese administration that was at fault for not keeping everyone informed.

Sure it is the fault of the locals. After all, dictators and military juntas are famous for their love and support of popular motivation, general education and critical thinking... :dizzy2:
Right. Can we stop the Blame The Victims game about right now ? It is an exceedingly distasteful pasttime.

Yes the success or failure of the country is ultimately at the feet of the locals. Sure some of them were dealt better hands then others depending on their colonial power. However where they went from their starting positions is their choice. Try comparing the outcomes of various colonial countries. If it is the locals who make the profits and decisions in successful countries the same responsibility for outcomes can be laid at the feet of the countries that do not succeed.

Blaming the colonialists from generations past rather then the current dictators and juntas is a bit rich. And the people still have the option of overthrowing the juntas... it seems to be an almost weekly passion in some countries.