View Full Version : Policies 'aid Muslim extremism'
IRONxMortlock
12-04-2006, 07:09
Policies 'aid Muslim extremism'
mosque
Engaging the Muslim community should be "at the heart of security policy"
British Muslims are being driven into the arms of violent extremists by official attempts to engage with them after the July 7 bombs, a study claims.
Policies since the attacks in London have "driven a wedge" between Muslims and the wider community rather than isolate extremists, the report says.
The study, by think tank Demos, accused ministers of failing to engage Muslims over British foreign policy in Iraq.
It called for "community relations to be at the heart of security policy".
'Resentment and alienation'
The report - partly funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government - described attempts to involve Muslims in the policy-making process as "rushed, conducted on the government's terms, failing to break away from 'the usual suspects', and with little follow through".
Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP, said: "There is little to be gained in the long term by providing our security and police services with extra powers to tackle terrorism if, at the same time, the conditions for ever-deeper radicalisation are not being addressed with equal vigour."
The report stated: "In the meeting rooms of Whitehall, ministers were assuring Muslim leaders of the need for partnership, but in press briefings they were talking of the need for Muslims to 'get serious' about terrorism, spy on their children, and put up with inconveniences in the greater good of national security."
It also said that the government' s actions were breeding "resentment and alienation" among Muslims and "playing into the hands of the extremists".
"By viewing Muslims as a single interest group the government has failed to draw a clear enough distinction between angry Muslim opinion and those that would seek to inflict violence and terror," it added.
"The result is that rather than being isolated, extremists are able to attract support from communities cut adrift from mainstream British society."
The report, to be published on Monday, also said that the Foreign Office, Department for International Development and Ministry of Defence needed to increase the number of staff dedicated to "outreach" with minority communities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6205050.stm
I'm almost cynical enough to believe that this was the intention all along.
Policies drive a wedge huh, I'd say the attacks do a better job at that. Have yet to see an anti-terror demonstration, all I see are these crazy-eyed guys holding signs with poetic expressions such as death to all infidels and behead all disbelievers. Maybe I am just not very receptive for their way of doing public relations and don't see the cry for attention and genuine concern for their community.
I'd rather see this ---> :oops:
Watchman
12-04-2006, 12:26
Yes, we all know the Dutch have a thing for burning mosques thank you.
Yes, we all know the Dutch have a thing for burning mosques thank you.
You are quite welcome, churches went down as well by the way, let me guess, you didn't know that. That was of course a reaction on the reaction on the way we reacted when we reacted on the reaction.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 12:55
Knew that'd ruffle some feathers.
Anyway, I assume you didn't notice how your initial commentary fitted pretty much exactly the criteria of what the British authorities were accused of in the OP article...?
Knew that'd ruffle some feathers.
It's called baiting technically, I don't mind, but what is it with these senior members lately.
About article, just the usual cultivation of victimhood. They aren't victims. Problems in the Netherlands, problems in England, problems in France, problems in Belgium, problems in Germany, all desperatily trying to figure out what they are doing wrong, it would make a lot more sense to see what all these countries with all vastly different aproaches towards the immigration-issues have in common. Guess what.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 13:26
If the answer to your rhetorical question is indeed "immigrants" (or "Muslim immigrants") as I suspect, I'm going to have to push the button that makes a loud *BREEEEP* noise and ask if the wheel hasn't been invented already.
If it isn't, do feel free to extrapolate.
Congrats, you have won. Here goes,
http://www.kitchencontraptions.com/images/black.jpg
Vladimir
12-04-2006, 17:08
Congrats, you have won. Here goes,
http://www.kitchencontraptions.com/images/black.jpg
Fragony you always have the best in home appliances don't you? You're they guy with the waterfall shower right?
(in other words, I don't understand:stupido2: )
Ah teh watchman got the correct answer, and he won a fridge because never before did a star shine brighter.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 17:25
Did you have anything else to offer than the novel observation that immigrant problems require the presence of immigrants to develop, Sherlock ?
:inquisitive:
Such as possible solutions ? I'm reading some hints between the lines here, and I don't think I much like them. All the more given what I know of your stance in these matters from before.
Such as possible solutions ?
There is no other solution then time, and the only working solution I could never support, heck if I prefered a completily muslim-free crowd I'd visit more multicultural initiatives. But we could at least stop trying to find the blame within our policies, and completily disregarding the religious aspect of the problems, it's not social exclusion, it's not poverty, it's not Palestina, it's the nature of the Islam we have in Europe. Deal with that instead of pushing money into all sorts of useless organisations, and stop useless discussions about burka's and other nonsense.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 17:46
And here all the history I've read for the last one and half decades has strongly suggested religious trouble has a funny tendency to only really start turning up if there's major issues on the socioeconomical side first...
Tolerance seems to be something of a luxury good, y' see. When things are bad people don't seem to be able to afford it anymore.
Might want to explain why they radicalise in Sweden and Denmark as well, just like the netherlands filthy rich countries. It's all just an excuse. They say that Islam is peace, I think what they mean is that peace is islam, we simply cannot meet their demands.
Gilles Kepel has written an excellent book on the rise of the policical islam, 'Jihad, trial of the political Islam'. It doesn't cover europe, but at least it provides some insight in their way of thinking.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 18:09
'Cause Sweden and Denmark aren't doing quite as well as you seem to think. I'm currently reading studies of their internal politics for an uni test, trust me on this. Back in the day the Swedes didn't quite know how to handle Finnish immigrants properly and without friction, and there's a fair few rank xenophobe assholes in the Danish gov't at the moment (the Mohammed cartoon furor a while ago largely stemmed from this little detail). Not that we Finns are doing much better at the moment.
And everyone everywhere is having serious trouble getting their society and economy fitted to the brave new global economy obsessed with short-term profit without massive socioeconomical collateral damage. Three guesses how much goodwill that leaves for integrating immigrants from half the continent away amongst the "deep ranks" of the populace - the working and middle classes, never the paragons of open-mindedness to begin with - whose situations are the worst threatened by both the structural shifts and competition from these selfsame immigrants ? Immigrants feeling left out, alienated and ostracized (nigh without exception quite justifiably too) then duly return the resentement and are that much more likely to turn inwards, which is never a good thing, and the spiral goes on.
Hardly a new thing though. You read studies of developements centuries back, and it's always when it's famine and poverty and depression and war when people start burning witches and getting all xenophobic. When things are good, Hell, they often welcome the foreigners with open arms and usually leave even the Jews in peace...
It's not Islam that's the problem, any more than Christianity. It's the societies themselves being in trouble that spawns the causal chains resulting in the problem.
It's not us holding them back, their isolation is their own choice. I am not very willing to take the blame for a group of people that just don't want to fit in. The usual reaction of western country's to problems is investigating what we should do, when we aren't even the problem. The islam is the problem, it's not just a religion but also a political movement that is incompatible with our way of living, there is no reflection and their is no room for critisism of any kind, it's basicly our existance (and succes) that offends them.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 18:29
Xenophobic BS, that.
Or have you forgotten the Turkish Gastarbeiter in Germany since what, the Seventies ? Sure wasn't them who had severe attitude issues unconductive to integration, far as I know... I'm pretty sure the Pakistanis and others in the UK and various colonials in France since even earlier curiously failed to be a problem before, oh, around the Nineties depression and the kicking-and-screaming neolib economic policies since then, too.
Plus there's been a Muslim minority in Finland for round two centuries without a hitch. Heck, they even joined in on despising the Somalis in the Nineties - now that's naturalized...
Watchman, reading over your posts, I have seen some material that (imho) deserves a warning, but, then again, I'm not a mod.
As for Muslims, I do not dislike them at all, but the fact is that they do not integrate into a society of non-muslims well at all.
I mean no offence to Muslims, but have you ever read the Koran? It is full of things about torturing, mutilating, and slaughtering any non-muslims. Their religion and way of life is not compatible with the rest of society. They are best left too themselves and respected by all.
Vladimir
12-04-2006, 18:51
And here all the history I've read for the last one and half decades has strongly suggested religious trouble has a funny tendency to only really start turning up if there's major issues on the socioeconomical side first...
Tolerance seems to be something of a luxury good, y' see. When things are bad people don't seem to be able to afford it anymore.
You haven't been paying attention to recent religious troubles have you? If you want to try to link terrorism to socioeconomic status you're wrong. In less, of course, you're saying that young, intelligent, college educated men are getting the short end of the stick in society.
Look at the 9/11 and London bombing types. You'll also find that the Saudi Wahabists spreading so much religious turmoil are quite wealthy. You should be more focused on the socioeconomics of the Middle East. Look at their governmental and economic systems before you start blaming capitalism or: "brave new global economy obsessed with short-term profit."
Edit: "Plus there's been a Muslim minority in Finland for round two centuries without a hitch. Heck, they even joined in on despising the Somalis in the Nineties - now that's naturalized..."
You're ignoring the rise of militant Islam in the later half of the 20th century. How that minority coexisted doesn't matter, the new paradigm does.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 18:56
Scriptures, schmiptures. The thing is, people only ever read the parts out of those they want to, and hoo boy there's no end to how creative they can get at that. Take a progressive-reformer duly empowered/recognized scholar/holy man of a faith and his beady-eyed ultra-conservative colleague, and odds are they can quote and interpret the exact damn same part of a Scripture to legitimize their polarly opposite POVs on some subject. The Bible was happily quoted both for and against slavery, for one example. The Koran can be and is read both for and against womens' rights (which for that matter was also the case with the Bible back in the day).
It's not what a religion theoretically contains, but what its adherents at a given time prefer to pay attention to. The way Christians have a funny tendency to categorically ignore the pretty indisputable Thou Shalt Not Kill thing whenever convenient is a sort of good example, and few have spoken so eloquently in praise of wine as Muslim poets. The Persians also habitually ignored the (supposed) ban on descriptive art, while assorted African Muslim populaces have no compunctions about claiming female circumscision is supported by the Koran (which is bollocks)...
All faiths do that. It's extraconfessional factors that decide how exactly the believers interpret the invariably rather obscure sacred writings and apply them.
Scriptures, schmiptures. The thing is, people only ever read the parts out of those they want to, and hoo boy there's no end to how creative they can get at that. Take a progressive-reformer duly empowered/recognized scholar/holy man of a faith and his beady-eyed ultra-conservative colleague, and odds are they can quote and interpret the exact damn same part of a Scripture to legitimize their polarly opposite POVs on some subject. The Bible was happily quoted both for and against slavery, for one example. The Koran can be and is read both for and against womens' rights (which for that matter was also the case with the Bible back in the day).
It's not what a religion theoretically contains, but what its adherents at a given time prefer to pay attention to. The way Christians have a funny tendency to categorically ignore the pretty indisputable Thou Shalt Not Kill thing whenever convenient is a sort of good example, and few have spoken so eloquently in praise of wine as Muslim poets. The Persians also habitually ignored the (supposed) ban on descriptive art, while assorted African Muslim populaces have no compunctions about claiming female circumscision is supported by the Koran (which is bollocks)...
All faiths do that. It's extraconfessional factors that decide how exactly the believers interpret the invariably rather obscure sacred writings and apply them.
I don't know, some things seem a little hard to misinterpret,
Integration you say?
Koran 5:51
Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.
Koran 5:57
Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pasttime...
Koran 5:64
The Jews say: 'God's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say!...
Koran 9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.
Maybe you are right...that could be taken many ways. As for other reasons they don't integrate well with the rest of society, is their HUGE religious differences...like treatment of women....
“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them.” Sura IV,35-40
(Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."
(Koran 5: 33-34) "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is forgiving, merciful."
(Koran 76: 4) "Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers chains, yokes and a blazing fire."
(Koran 22: 19-22) "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."
From the Quran:
II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So go to your tilth as ye will...
IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
IV/15: If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.
IV/16: If two men among you commit indecency (sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.
XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves , let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies...
Quotes From Sahih Muslim Hadith:
Chapter 1140: The prophet said : "The majority of those who entered the fire of Hell were women."
**************************************************
Koran 9:29
Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility.
Koran 5:33-34
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, merciful.
*******************************************************
Muslims do not do well with other people. That is a FACT. They still hate Christians so much to this day because they repelled the Muslim attacks (the Franks under Charles Martel) that they still refer to Americans (and most Christians in general) as Franks!
As for the Bible, it has only one meaning. To take you example in particular, if you spoke Hebrew you would know that that is not "Though shalt not kill", but, "Though Shalt not murder". It was a mistranslation that people still stick by today. The difference is enormous, as God commands you to protect society by killing evil people who could hurt it. The Bible never contradicts itsself.
I mean no offence to Muslims, but have you ever read the Koran? It is full of things about torturing, mutilating, and slaughtering any non-muslims. Their religion and way of life is not compatible with the rest of society. They are best left too themselves and respected by all.
As Watchman has said, scriptures proove nothing for anything (and i would say the same if someone was arguing for islam being peaceful) - they can be interpretted easily, just look at the vastly different opinions on the bible etc, the koran is the same.
On the whole immigration thing, i (actauly) agree with frag when he says time is the answer, policies that look to deliberately integrate muslims into society could easily have the opposite effect.....
however i do think they the problem is both with the nature of islam and our own society, muslims immigrate to Britain (and holland :beam: ) because they see the nicer life we have here (and we do) - we have no right to deny them access to our country, especially if they are moving from very poor or violent areas of the world, they have to accept that they will have to be flexible, and that is possible, what has to happen is that al;l the internal radicals (mainly clerics i think) need to eliminated, or at least pacified, without radical leaders the extremism which tends to evolve from the turbulant reas immagrants come from is reduced over time... what mustnt happen is that muslims are refused opportunities because of their religion or culture, they have to accomodate for our society, but the only way to integrate them is to give them jobs etc, modern society is proof that when lifestyle improves religion becomes less important. [sorry its a bit messy, first post for a while]
The nature of islam in no way prevents integration, society has absorbed many immagrant influx's over time. Certainly in Britain at the moment its only a very small minority of muslims who have problems intgrating (usually those with the most extreme beliefs) - it just takes time for the muslim community to adapt. - I also dislike the claim that muslims tend to isolate themselves, certainly in my community many muslims are active members of the area, helping with charity events etc as much as anyone else (although i realize im in a very multicultural area - i don't know about otherwise)
:2thumbsup:
Muslims do not do well with other people. That is a FACT. They still hate Christians so much to this day because they repelled the Muslim attacks (the Franks under Charles Martel) that they still refer to Americans (and most Christians in general) as Franks!
Absurd [i like that word] statement - I dont think you are muslim, so how do you know they refer to us as franks, even if they do why is this necisarily a bad thing - we still call the french french, even though we fought with them for 100 years and more.
they also dont hate christianity, i can accept that many muslims would hate the jewish faith, but certainly not christianity (christianity and islam are fairly similar religions in the grand scheme of things....)
As for the Bible, it has only one meaning. To take you example in particular, if you spoke Hebrew you would know that that is not "Though shalt not kill", but, "Though Shalt not murder". It was a mistranslation that people still stick by today. The difference is enormous, as God commands you to protect society by killing evil people who could hurt it. The Bible never contradicts itsself.
We can play a game here, open the bible at a random page, read the page, open it up at another page, read the page, and then spot the difference :laugh4:
the bible is full of contradictions, just like any other holy book - not only that but peoples interpretations contradict --> and you cant seriously be advocating killing for christianity, because you just produced a list of quotations from the koran telling muslims to kill people to protect their religion. - im also willing to bet that you can find as many quotes detailing how islam is peaceful and should be nice to others, people only choose to read the parts they want to read, its like tv, you only have to watch the programs you like
:2thumbsup:
Pannonian
12-04-2006, 20:25
Xenophobic BS, that.
Or have you forgotten the Turkish Gastarbeiter in Germany since what, the Seventies ? Sure wasn't them who had severe attitude issues unconductive to integration, far as I know... I'm pretty sure the Pakistanis and others in the UK and various colonials in France since even earlier curiously failed to be a problem before, oh, around the Nineties depression and the kicking-and-screaming neolib economic policies since then, too.
There were ethnic problems involving Muslims in Britain in the early 2000s, but they were in reaction to attempts by the far-right to pick therm as the new scapegoats (much more PC than Jew-baiting). There was a disgust that the government wasn't protecting them from the neo-Nazis, but they were nonetheless British Muslims. The rising popularity of Islam as an identity, separate from Britishness, can be traced to the Iraq war, whose mendacity disgusted all Muslims in Britain. Of course, these radical preachers who prey on their flock ignore the fact that it also disgusted most of the population in general. Which is why we need to leave the issue behind as soon as possible, hopefully withdrawing in Spring, and work on the social issues without that albatross around our necks.
For the sceptics: thanks to the legacy of empire, and the continued existence of the Commonwealth, we do have a ready solution to hand. There is already a British Muslim identity, or to be more specific Anglo-Pakistani identity, that existed before the current troubles. We just need to re-engage that and make that the mainstream. The regular contests between the England and Pakistan cricket teams should be one of the most important instruments in this process.
perhaps a diplomatic change of umpire next time :2thumbsup:
There were ethnic problems involving Muslims in Britain in the early 2000s, but they were in reaction to attempts by the far-right to pick therm as the new scapegoats (much more PC than Jew-baiting). There was a disgust that the government wasn't protecting them from the neo-Nazis, but they were nonetheless British Muslims. The rising popularity of Islam as an identity, separate from Britishness, can be traced to the Iraq war, whose mendacity disgusted all Muslims in Britain. Of course, these radical preachers who prey on their flock ignore the fact that it also disgusted most of the population in general. Which is why we need to leave the issue behind as soon as possible, hopefully withdrawing in Spring, and work on the social issues without that albatross around our necks.
For the sceptics: thanks to the legacy of empire, and the continued existence of the Commonwealth, we do have a ready solution to hand. There is already a British Muslim identity, or to be more specific Anglo-Pakistani identity, that existed before the current troubles. We just need to re-engage that and make that the mainstream. The regular contests between the England and Pakistan cricket teams should be one of the most important instruments in this process.
Tell the Serbs how well muslims CHOOSE to integrate into society...
As Watchman has said, scriptures proove nothing for anything (and i would say the same if someone was arguing for islam being peaceful) - they can be interpretted easily, just look at the vastly different opinions on the bible etc, the koran is the same.
On the whole immigration thing, i (actauly) agree with frag when he says time is the answer, policies that look to deliberately integrate muslims into society could easily have the opposite effect.....
however i do think they the problem is both with the nature of islam and our own society, muslims immigrate to Britain (and holland :beam: ) because they see the nicer life we have here (and we do) - we have no right to deny them access to our country, especially if they are moving from very poor or violent areas of the world, they have to accept that they will have to be flexible, and that is possible, what has to happen is that al;l the internal radicals (mainly clerics i think) need to eliminated, or at least pacified, without radical leaders the extremism which tends to evolve from the turbulant reas immagrants come from is reduced over time... what mustnt happen is that muslims are refused opportunities because of their religion or culture, they have to accomodate for our society, but the only way to integrate them is to give them jobs etc, modern society is proof that when lifestyle improves religion becomes less important. [sorry its a bit messy, first post for a while]
The nature of islam in no way prevents integration, society has absorbed many immagrant influx's over time. Certainly in Britain at the moment its only a very small minority of muslims who have problems intgrating (usually those with the most extreme beliefs) - it just takes time for the muslim community to adapt. - I also dislike the claim that muslims tend to isolate themselves, certainly in my community many muslims are active members of the area, helping with charity events etc as much as anyone else (although i realize im in a very multicultural area - i don't know about otherwise)
:2thumbsup:
Scriptures prove a great deal! Even if all Muslims don't know their scriptures to the letter (which most don't...if any), it is still the basic ideology. Just as the basic ideology for Christianity is living a good life-style, treating your nieghbor well, and believing in Christ. Christian do differ on things, but none on the basic ideology I just mentioned. As to the post by Scurvy (below), I know several Muslims myself, have only been friendly, but they are disgusted by me because I am a 'Frank' (oooooohhhhh....), and an infidel!! They have no intentions of living peacably, and, in fact, do everything they can not to. This has been true of all my dealings with Muslims, and while I think there is nothing wrong with Muslims, I do believe that they do not do well inside of non-muslim society - just as a neo-Natzi would do poorly inside of a Jewish and black community. As for your politics...I think I'll need a stiff one before I tackle those...:dizzy2:
Absurd [i like that word] statement - I dont think you are muslim, so how do you know they refer to us as franks, even if they do why is this necisarily a bad thing - we still call the french french, even though we fought with them for 100 years and more.
they also dont hate christianity, i can accept that many muslims would hate the jewish faith, but certainly not christianity (christianity and islam are fairly similar religions in the grand scheme of things....)
We can play a game here, open the bible at a random page, read the page, open it up at another page, read the page, and then spot the difference :laugh4:
the bible is full of contradictions, just like any other holy book - not only that but peoples interpretations contradict --> and you cant seriously be advocating killing for christianity, because you just produced a list of quotations from the koran telling muslims to kill people to protect their religion. - im also willing to bet that you can find as many quotes detailing how islam is peaceful and should be nice to others, people only choose to read the parts they want to read, its like tv, you only have to watch the programs you like
:2thumbsup:
They do refer to us as Franks, and the problem I was trying to point out is their hatred for us, and their tendency to not let grudges go (like why they are still fighting war that have been in progress for thousands of years!). A people like that, could not well integrate into a society of "Franks" (oh my!!) whom they hate so much.
As for you game, I have but one thing to say: Bring it one! Show me one 'contradiction' and I'll show you to be a fool. Come on now, I just made a pretty bold statement, let's see what you can do. (there is a thread for religion in the backroom where I am sure we could take this.)
As to the post by Scurvy (below), I know several Muslims myself, have only been friendly, but they are disgusted by me because I am a 'Frank' (oooooohhhhh....), and an infidel!! They have no intentions of living peacably, and, in fact, do everything they can not to. This has been true of all my dealings with Muslims
So you are saying there is no single one Muslim who respects us?
Allow me :
- Two years ago we went on a holiday in Tunesia. I had a very long chat with one of the locals there, a taxi driver. He told me he believed Islam and Christendom are basically the same. He believed we all needed to love each other and help each other out. The Muslims who screamed for war and terror, he called them "des extrémistes".
- four years ago, we were in Turkey, Antalya. I met a nice guy over there. We spoke to each other almost every night. He was a Muslim, I'm a christian. We got along very well and on our last day he called me "Arkadasim" (Turkish for "friend", I hope I spelled it right). He said if we would be neighbours, me living in Turkey, or he in Belgium, we would be best friends, no matter our differences wether in religion, nationality, language, ...
You shouldn't generalize and you should certainly not state that "ALL Muslims are like that", because it harms those who DO respect us and are capable of living next to us without hating us. I discovered at least two muslims capable of loving me, an "infidel".
Pannonian
12-04-2006, 23:37
Tell the Serbs how well muslims CHOOSE to integrate into society...
What's that got to do with us in Britain? I know a number of Muslims (mostly Pakistanis), and they epitomise the virtues of multiculturalism. They are Pakistani, Muslim, British, and European at the same time, in different ways. I would no more ask them to pick an identity and stick with it than I would ask a dish to choose one of the 5 flavours and eschew all others.
Muslims do not do well with other people. That is a FACT. They still hate Christians so much to this day because they repelled the Muslim attacks (the Franks under Charles Martel) that they still refer to Americans (and most Christians in general) as Franks! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: !!!
So you are saying there is no single one Muslim who respects us?
Allow me :
- Two years ago we went on a holiday in Tunesia. I had a very long chat with one of the locals there, a taxi driver. He told me he believed Islam and Christendom are basically the same. He believed we all needed to love each other and help each other out. The Muslims who screamed for war and terror, he called them "des extrémistes".
- four years ago, we were in Turkey, Antalya. I met a nice guy over there. We spoke to each other almost every night. He was a Muslim, I'm a christian. We got along very well and on our last day he called me "Arkadasim" (Turkish for "friend", I hope I spelled it right). He said if we would be neighbours, me living in Turkey, or he in Belgium, we would be best friends, no matter our differences wether in religion, nationality, language, ...
You shouldn't generalize and you should certainly not state that "ALL Muslims are like that", because it harms those who DO respect us and are capable of living next to us without hating us. I discovered at least two muslims capable of loving me, an "infidel".
I never said 'all' Muslims, but simply the ones I've personally met. While all Muslims are not like that, most, UNDENIABLY, are.
Watchman
12-04-2006, 23:51
Eghh, I'm too tired at the moment to do my usual lecture on these things. I should seriously write it down somewhere so I could just copy-paste it as needed or something. I'll just comment on a few things that kind of caught my eye.
Tell the Serbs how well muslims CHOOSE to integrate into society...The most notorious ethnic-religious cleansers of the Nineties can shove it, thankyouverymuch. Of the three main participants of the Yugoslav wars the Muslims were just about the ones subjected to the most singularly horrendous atrocities.
That's like claiming China's little self-made Uighur issue was the proof of how basically untrustworthy Muslims are. :dizzy2:
Although, yeah, the Arabic word for "European" is AFAIK derived from "Frank". Apparently Martel And The Boys made bit of an impression back those days and hence their group name entered the language as the umbrella term. Far as I know it has zero inherent connotations beyond its function as group identificator though, just like about all other basic national terms in existence.
You haven't been paying attention to recent religious troubles have you? If you want to try to link terrorism to socioeconomic status you're wrong. In less, of course, you're saying that young, intelligent, college educated men are getting the short end of the stick in society.
Look at the 9/11 and London bombing types. You'll also find that the Saudi Wahabists spreading so much religious turmoil are quite wealthy. You should be more focused on the socioeconomics of the Middle East. Look at their governmental and economic systems before you start blaming capitalism or: "brave new global economy obsessed with short-term profit."Young, intelligent, college educated men are about exactly the most fertile ground for all kinds of radicalism. Or have you really forgotten -68 and the ultra-Leftist cells that sprang up afterwards in many countries ? Or how university campuses have long been the hotbed of unrest in dictatorships ?
Well, granted, disenfranchised lower/working-class types tend to be even more receptive. But they tend to need someone more educated to act as a rallying point and ideologist.
Look, it's a common argument that "those terrorists come from wealthy homes, it can't be socioeconomocal issues behind all this". And you know what ? I think that's bollocks and shows a severe lack of perspective and knowledge of radical/revolutionary movements throughout history.
I also think it's a rhetorical crutch used to waive issues one does not know, or want to know, about, but that's just me.
You see, the fact is radical/revolutionary cadres and leadership tend to nigh invariably come from at least middle-class backgrounds. Guerilla leaders and the like occasionally come from humbler roots, but even then their inner circles tend to include a fair few examples of the upper classes and intelligentsia. Heck, the peasant rebellions of them olden days always made a point of trying to recruit members of the local literati (in Medieval Europe this tended to mean clergy) to act as theoreticians and propagandists, and warrior class (warrior aristocracy like knights and similar, unhappy junior officers...) to as military leaders. They were usually succesful in that too.
Know why ? Because such upper-class types possessed competence and skills such as organizational and leadership training or rhetorical skills and good knowledge of suitable writings and laws the rebels direly needed but, as poor commoners busy trying to scrape together their daily meals, had never had the time and opportunity to develop.
This is also why it was just educated fairly upper-class types like Marx and Engels who actually formulated the Socialist program; the workers themselves just plain lacked the academical know-how and other necessities - in short the required rather highly developed analytical and theoretical "tool box" - to do it themselves. Mikhail Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin), the perhaps best known leading figure of the Anarchist movement, was born an aristocrat and trained as an officer. Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_castro) was born upper middle class (far as I can judge) and studied law; Guevara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara) upper class and medical student...
You get the idea. I figure this comes from the simple fact that people from relatively affluent backgrounds can spare the time and energy to ponder on issues and questions such as society, what is wrong with it, and what should be done of the matter; good education gives them the worldview and the intellectual tools to critically analyze the issues and formulate theories and coherent ideas. The downtrodden proletariat themselves tend to be plain too busy just making ends meet to dwell on such questions, and it could be argued that if they were able to achieve the level of education that seems to be encessary they'd have progressed to at least "middle class" by default anyway.
The middle and upper classes tend to also be the ones to produce people who dedicate their lives to one Cause or another in many case for no other reason than finding a meaning for their existence and/or sheer willingness to give up their privileges for others.
Against this background Osama bin Laden, a Saudi rich kid born with a whole handful of golden spoons in his mouth become a radical leader hiding in caves and probably the most wanted man on the planet, fits right in. Ditto for most of his peers in the AQ network and similar organizations far as I know.
As for why the Muslim world spawns so many violent extremist groups, easy - where did the assorted Red Something Armies of the Sixties and Seventies spring forth ? The answer is "wherever the angry youths were barred from normal politics", as the equivalents of Bader-Meinhof quite failed to appear wherever the "New Left" was integrated into everyday political discourse. Now, most of the states of the Muslim world are flat out autocracies, and even those that aren't tend to put limits on "civil society" activity. Prime breeding ground for radicals and revolutionaries in other words. The characteristically religious bent doubtless comes from the fact even the most heavy-handed and repressive regimes have to pull their punches around the religious institutions - can't afford to look like they're attacking the Faith, now can they ? That leaves religiously associated groups around the only viable opposition in many places, which duly earns them a lot of popularity among the populace pretty much the same way being the locus of anti-Axis resistance gave assorted Communist parties a lot of lift during WW2. And for every group that actually bothers to strike against "the West" there's a handful aiming to overthrow the local repressive regime - I understand there's been a few attempts at Col. Gaddafi's life from local religious militants over the years, for example. It's a curious detail too how the militants fighting against "the West" - such as about all the WTC guys - tend to come from states whose (nigh invariably authoritarian and repressive) regimes are friendly towards "the West"; one does wonder if they don't think trying to sever the ties between the two were a way to help bring along changes that cannot be even tried otherwise in the absence of assorted freedoms and rights...
Why the social, economical and political situation in the Muslim world sucks so bad and what's wrong with the Muslims in the West are topics I don't have the energy to write brief essays over right now.
I never said 'all' Muslims
I was under the impression you meant "all" Muslims.
:oops:
Guess I misunderstood you then. :sorry:
:creep:
Watchman
12-04-2006, 23:56
While all Muslims are not like that, most, UNDENIABLY, are.
Prove it. :dozey:
My experiences claim quite different.
I never said 'all' Muslims, but simply the ones I've personally met. While all Muslims are not like that, most, UNDENIABLY, are.
Can I be Frank? (:laugh4:!) I don’t understand why you try to defend your generalization by making another.
Any last words before undeniably going on the ignore list?
AntiochusIII
12-05-2006, 01:06
Dariush, if it isn't too personal, I'd like to add a short note that the general attacks you have to suffer here in the name of your religion kind of just precisely affirms all of Watchman's points.
I mean, really, people. The thread could've been about the dysfunctional European policies and not this [yadda da da da evil frickin' S-Aladdin da da] again.
IRONxMortlock
12-05-2006, 02:09
Dariush, if it isn't too personal, I'd like to add a short note that the general attacks you have to suffer here in the name of your religion kind of just precisely affirms all of Watchman's points.
I mean, really, people. The thread could've been about the dysfunctional European policies and not this [yadda da da da evil frickin' S-Aladdin da da] again.
Exactly.
I have been critical of the policies used in TWOT (The War on Terror) from the beginning. Post 9/11 I believe there were two possible responses.
1. The lunacy of launching a knee-jerk, war on a technique so that Americans could have their pound of flesh.
2. Launching a thorough investigation into the attacks and intensively studying the causes and best methods to police terrorists, THEN taking action based on these studies.
I think the utter failure of response number one is now more than apparent. It really is though the actions taken were designed to create more terrorists so that people can be scared into supporting certain political and economic objectives.
Either that or people (including those in power) actually believe that dropping bombs on people's houses and disappearing people won't create more animosity and extreme actions?
Papewaio
12-05-2006, 07:06
Broadly speaking that would divide them:
Blackshirts:
Young, intelligent, college educated men are about exactly the most fertile ground for all kinds of radicalism. Or have you really forgotten -68 and the ultra-Leftist cells that sprang up afterwards in many countries ? Or how university campuses have long been the hotbed of unrest in dictatorships ?
Brownshirts:
Well, granted, disenfranchised lower/working-class types tend to be even more receptive. But they tend to need someone more educated to act as a
Terrorism in the name of religion is just another form of powerbase using another form of memes to gather power. The leaders may not even believe it or at least over time step away from the beliefs and gather around the power. Very few saviours step away from the power once they have finished what the initially set out to do.
As for generalisations of entire religions it shows more about the poster then the content posted about...
Watchman
12-05-2006, 10:32
I find it slightly difficult to believe someone would give up a life of luxury to spend the rest of his days as a fugitive urban guerilla leader hiding cellars and caves if he did not have a rather firm belief in his Cause, though.
People do stranger things than dedicating the rest of their lives to some ideal on a regular basis anyway.
'Course, succesful revolutionary types are notorious for letting it go into their heads and often turning out at best marginally better than whatever it now was they managed to overthrow. Worse in some cases. But that's an issue a little different from their motivations before they succeed.
Adrian II
12-05-2006, 12:06
It's a curious detail too how the militants fighting against "the West" - such as about all the WTC guys - tend to come from states whose (nigh invariably authoritarian and repressive) regimes are friendly towards "the West"; one does wonder if they don't think trying to sever the ties between the two were a way to help bring along changes that cannot be even tried otherwise in the absence of assorted freedoms and rights...The truly 'curious' detail is that those Saudi 9/11 perpetrators came from clans that have been side-tracked by the reigning Saudi dynasty. As far as we know, they were bent on revenge and didn't take the slightest interest in 'assorted freedoms and rights'.
Furthermore, in countries such as Pakistan where radical islamist movements have been co-opted into the political system, they haven't lost any of their revolutionary zeal and violence.
I think your theory needs some major revisions.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 12:38
The truly 'curious' detail is that those Saudi 9/11 perpetrators came from clans that have been side-tracked by the reigning Saudi dynasty. As far as we know, they were bent on revenge and didn't take the slightest interest in 'assorted freedoms and rights'.Getting functionally shut off from political influence by an autocratic regime ought to count IMHO, regardless of the exact details (or if those cut off would be any better). Put this way - would they be even remotely as likely to engage in extreme direct action, ie. violence, if exerting influence through "normal" channels was actually a viable option ? I'm pretty sure there exists none in that particular country that would actually make possible a redistribution of power and/or alterations in the relationship with the US, various aspects of which by all accounts piss off the more excessively devout believers there but good.
'Sides, if the main axe the 9/11 guys had to grind was with the Saudi dynasty and their power monopoly what the Hell they were doing in the US then ? Doesn't click, that one. All the more so as IIRC there were other nationalities involved.
I'll give you that Wahhabism is around as troublesome as variations of Islam now can come though. Puritans and revivalists tend to be like that.
Furthermore, in countries such as Pakistan where radical islamist movements have been co-opted into the political system, they haven't lost any of their revolutionary zeal and violence. What, I thought the current Pakistani regime was having internal trouble with them too ? Not that it were exactly democratic either.
'Sides, if the main axe the 9/11 guys had to grind was with the Saudi dynasty and their power monopoly what the Hell they were doing in the US then ? Doesn't click, that one.
It does make sense, it's a commercial for Jihad. They hoped they could enforce a revolution in the Saudi world by showing the Saudi population that the USA are actually vulnerable. They don't care about the USA, and they sure as hell didn't care for USA civilians.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 12:54
Well, I'm with you in that last part assuming it's in the sense that they don't give a hoot about the US or its inhabitants as such, but rather more about its presence in various forms in the Middle East and Muslim world in general.
Aside from a symbolic demonstration of "we are able to strike at the Great Enemy on his home turf" I'm half willing to bet by now that at least a secondary objective was to provoke the US to do something dumb though. If it wasn't, then it can only be concluded their dramatic stunt was by far more succesful than they thought even possible.
But again, striking at the US mainland really does seem to be a bit roundabout way to get at the Saudi monarchy. And the AQ is a pretty universalist and international setup in both presence and goals, isn't it ?
Why would they try to achieve a politcal goal that is politically unachievable? Al Quada wants to reinstall the islamic dynasty or what's it called, the only way is to get the population behind them, and the only way to do that is by making a very big gesture. About the secondary goal, who knows, I think there has been some careful orchestrating in the entire region, including the info on WMD. They may be crazy but they aren't stupid.
Adrian II
12-05-2006, 13:23
'Sides, if the main axe the 9/11 guys had to grind was with the Saudi dynasty and their power monopoly what the Hell they were doing in the US then ? Doesn't click, that one.It does click once you abondon your own view and acknowledge that 9/11 was the eruption of traditional Saudi tribal politics onto the modern world stage. The U.S. was chosen as a target because it epitomized the outside influences that, in Osama's view, were 'corrupting' Saudi society. A corruption highlighted by the 1991 'Western occupation of Muslim Holy Places', which as we know was the starting point of Osama's campaign against the Saudi dynasty.
Religion is the common language in this conflagration. The staunchest and most revolutionary islamism is supported by the very Saudi elite. The Osama variety is merely an example of ideological one-upmanship, not a counter-ideology. Osama's 'struggle' has nothing whatsoever to do with a preceived lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Osama pretends to be a better Muslim than the ruling Saudi elite, not a better democrat. Democracy is the enemy in Osama's world view.
Because of this religious kinship between elite and counter-elite, your parallel with Narodnaya Volya, Baader-Meinhof etcetera breaks down.The Narodniki didn't pretend that they were better tsarists or Orthodox believers than the actual Tsars and Patriarchs. Ulrike Meinhof didn't pretend that she was a better capitalist than the German capitalist elite she abhorred.
What, I thought the current Pakistani regime was having internal trouble with them too ? Not that it were exactly democratic either.The islamists are very powerful in Pakistan. Waziristan has recently become the new Taleban republic, replacing the former one if Afghanistan. And they are able to make such inroads precisely because Pakistan is not a democracy.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 14:15
It does click once you abondon your own view and acknowledge that 9/11 was the eruption of traditional Saudi tribal politics onto the modern world stage. The U.S. was chosen as a target because it epitomized the outside influences that, in Osama's view, were 'corrupting' Saudi society. A corruption highlighted by the 1991 'Western occupation of Muslim Holy Places', which as we know was the starting point of Osama's campaign against the Saudi dynasty.
Religion is the common language in this conflagration. The staunchest and most revolutionary islamism is supported by the very Saudi elite. The Osama variety is merely an example of ideological one-upmanship, not a counter-ideology. Osama's 'struggle' has nothing whatsoever to do with a preceived lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Osama pretends to be a better Muslim than the ruling Saudi elite, not a better democrat. Democracy is the enemy in Osama's world view.
Because of this religious kinship between elite and counter-elite, your parallel with Narodnaya Volya, Baader-Meinhof etcetera breaks down.The Narodniki didn't pretend that they were better tsarists or Orthodox believers than the actual Tsars and Patriarchs. Ulrike Meinhof didn't pretend that she was a better capitalist than the German capitalist elite she abhorred.I think you're missing the point here. Nobody ever said Osama and the boys were interested in democracy; the point I was trying to make is that on the whole they don't think the current system does things right (in the case of the Saudis, this would mean roughly "aren't stuck-up zealots enough") and are resorting to violence because they find other avenues to influence the status quo blocked. The functional lack of such channels is what constitutes the mentioned "shortage of rights" I talked about - whatever their agenda, the point is they lack the means to push it by "conventional" means.
Note that there are Muslim countries where as-such legitimate Islamist parties have found election results declared null and void by a military coup when they have happened to corner enough of a voting base in what AFAIK could usually have been considered legit democratic elections. Which at least in Algeria was the trigger for a long and very ugly civil war.
While as such interestingly enough so far as I know such countries seem to produce very few if any international terrorists of the "strike at the West" variety and thus really fall a bit outside the topic, the precedence such instances set are unlikely to convince frustrated radicals in other countries such "soft" means for their ends were viable at all.
Basically, the gist of the theory is that the extremists are dissatisfied with the status quo and have come to the conclusion violent action is the only way to bring about a change, be that the replacement of "corrupt and impious" ancien regime with something they consider more legitimate at a local national level or the ejection of "Western infidel corruption" from the lands of the righteous believers (in practice, good old-fashioned reactionary rejection of things modern) or whatever. This and the social and political conditions that breed such movements would seem to mesh rather well with the pattern of violent revolutionary movements since at least the French Revolution if not earlier, mutatis mutandis.
What one thinks of the radicals' assessement of the situation or their diverse and often quite ill-defined goals ("reinstating the Caliphate" being roughly as realistic as "world Socialist revolution", in practice little more than a handy rhetorical tool and hot air for one example) is irrelevant here. We're talking analysis here, not opinion and judgement - for the record I have an avid personal dislike of all zealots.
Keep also in mind that the aforementioned rudimentary theory is not supposed to be the exhaustive end-all be-all of Muslim militant motivations - individuals are always individuals, and the weird ideas they can have are quite endless. It's merely an overview of the apparent underlying structural similarities.
The islamists are very powerful in Pakistan. Waziristan has recently become the new Taleban republic, replacing the former one if Afghanistan. And they are able to make such inroads precisely because Pakistan is not a democracy.Lack of democracy equals lack of representative influence on politics. Which in turn easily leads to a crisis of regime legitimacy and stark polarization of opinion among frustrated subjects, the ones more enthusiastic about something or other being duly that much more likely to radicalize.
Seems to fit in with the model I sketched fairly well IMHO.
The hill tribes of northern Pakistan have AFAIK always been more or less functionally independent from the nominal central governement, much like their Afghani relatives across the border. Quite literally seems to come with the territory, that. Mountainous regions have always been difficult to control and also tended to harbor some right peculiar ideas, in some cases centuries or even millenia after they have disappeared elsewhere although by that point those tend to be pretty far removed from the original.
I've incidentally read the Wahhabi creed spread into just those mountain ranges in the 1800s and took a pretty firm root - the Taleban apparently come from that lineage.
That sort of reactionary-puritan credo obviously doesn't mesh very well with the sort of pragmatic-modern policies the Powers That Be of the distant state capital tend to pursue, so an amount of friction is nigh inevitable. This seems to have rather polarized in the wake of the recent Afghanistan conflict still going at full blast, and the tribes on both sides of the border have apparently decided they're now in more or less an open war of religion against not only the NATO and Afghani central governement troops but also Pakistan, and the border region has become something of a secessionist proto-state committed to the "Jihadist" cause.
I don't quite see how this equals them having been "co-opted into the political system" in the same meaning as the angry students of the "New Left" were in several states back in the day though. More like how Soviet Union and the current state of Iran came to be - which were specifically wholesale failures of domestic politics that led to radical takeovers and the creation of political entities dedicated (at least in theory and rhetoric) to the foreign export of their brand of Truth(tm).
Adrian II
12-06-2006, 13:11
I think you're missing the point here.Maybe I was. I agree to what you wrote in the post above.
I am with you as long as you hold that islamism has nothing to do with democracy whatsoever. Part of its roots or causes is certainly a lack of democracy, but there are other motivating forces at work, notably tribal conflict and issues of national self-determination.
All in all, I believe we are witnessing a power struggle inside the 'Muslim world', a struggle for the soul of Islam and for wordly prestige and power positions, a struggle in which the West is only one of many battle-fields. Sorry if I have to disappoint my fellow-Westerners, but I think we are just a sideshow.
Banquo's Ghost
12-06-2006, 13:16
All in all, I believe we are witnessing a power struggle inside the 'Muslim world', a struggle for the soul of Islam and for wordly prestige and power positions, a struggle in which the West is only one of many battle-fields. Sorry if I have to disappoint my fellow-Westerners, but I think we are just a sideshow.
Agreed. Well said.
:2thumbsup:
Watchman
12-07-2006, 14:03
As already mentioned on another thread, IMO the Muslim world is currently undergoing one of those messy and uncontrollable "paradigm shift" periods of full-spectrum change. Much like what Europe experienced in the massive disturbances of the Early Modern period, the French Revolution and its aftermath, the Industrial Revolution and its fallout such as the Sociaist movement and the Russian Revolution...
Hardcore reactionarism tends to feature heavily in such developements. "All that is solid melts into air", but people wouldn't be people if at least some of them didn't fight tooth and nail to prevent that.
Could very well be, but sadly not the paradigm swift that we should be happy about. It's not a process of enlightment, quite the contrary.
The most notorious ethnic-religious cleansers of the Nineties can shove it, thankyouverymuch. Of the three main participants of the Yugoslav wars the Muslims were just about the ones subjected to the most singularly horrendous atrocities.
:inquisitive: Have you ever read your history book? :inquisitive:
First of all, before I tackle that, let me just say how banned your behind would be if I was a Mod. I am suprised it isn't. I happen to be of Serbian decent, and I take GREAT offence at your comment. In fact, I am down-right P!$$^9! You have the audacity to say that about a group of people, and at the same time accuse me of generalizing Muslims! I think an apology is in order. (now, let me take a guess as to what would have happened to you if you said that about, say, Turks...your behind would have been banned so quick!)
P.S. I am a Serb, so you were telling me to shove it, which unless I read incorrectly, deserves a severe warning. I remember getting one for saying @$$h@7...)
As for the Serbs being "The most notorious ethnic-religious cleansers of the Nineties", you obviously don't know your history. The Serbs were being attacked by Muslim terrorist groups, that the politically correct US refused to recognize the existense of, left and right. They were being killed and tortured (and there is proof (corrospondence) that the US knew of this) bombed, etc. And when they finally fought back, they were attacked by the Bill Clinton (Think Monica) led US and a host of other countries under the UN. Not bashing anyone, but if I was to objectively name the greatest Ethnic cleansers of ALL TIME, it would not be Hitler or Stalin; It would be Muslims. Not meaning to step on anyones toes, but it is the truth, just as it is the truth that Stalin and Hitler killed millions.
I suggest that you re-read you history W@tchm@n.
The Serbian side sadly doesn't get any attention here in Europe I'm afraid Vuk, it has all been decided, serbs bad muslim victims. Not a word about the raids on serbian villages, not a word about the atrocities commited by islamic SS-devisions in WW2, we need it nice and clean here.
Being dutch, I won't be touching serbian soil in the near future.
Banquo's Ghost
12-07-2006, 16:28
I suggest that you re-read you history W@tchm@n.
I think you'll find Watchman has read the same history as the rest of humanity about the atrocities of the Balkan wars, not the revisionist Serbian apologia that appears to "inform" your views.
:no:
I think you'll find Watchman has read the same history as the rest of humanity about the atrocities of the Balkan wars, not the revisionist Serbian apologia that appears to "inform" your views.
:no:
Aw common, the very active SS muslim devisions shocked even the nazi's, thousands and thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of serbs had their throat cut and dumped in mass-graves. We get to hear one side of the story, just like now in Sudan for example. The rebels are terrible, if they had the arms they would exactly what the arab militia's are doing right now.
Look at Bosnia now, it's a terrorist paradise, as it was. Ever considered that Bosnia was an attempt to give the jihad an european front?
I think you'll find Watchman has read the same history as the rest of humanity about the atrocities of the Balkan wars, not the revisionist Serbian apologia that appears to "inform" your views.
:no:
"The Victor Writes the History Book"
Revisionist Serbian Apologia? Like what, US Government reports?
Or maybe Corrospondents between US government officials warning others not to disclose their claims. Ya, that is where I get my info.
Or maybe from mass media trials of Serbian "war criminals".
It is all a lot of PC bull. What we did was a lot of bull.
Just because something is commonly excepted (by the winning side) doesn't mean you should believe it (in fact, that is good incentive to research the matter yourself).
Reenk Roink
12-07-2006, 16:45
not a word about the atrocities commited by islamic SS-devisions in WW2
Not much word about this either Frag... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2469952,00.html)
What do you mean it's right there.
Watchman
12-07-2006, 17:36
The Balkans have been rather prone to atrocities since around the early 1800s, depending a bit on the exact locale. Overlapping social "faultlines", overall lack of stability and lots and lots of exclusivist and virulent nationalist sentiment have a funny tendency to do that.
I'll grant that the Serbs probably aren't actually the most notorious persecutors of the decade - Rwanda ought to win out - but they did try very hard. Recall one thing - the old Yugoslav army was Serb-dominated. That on the whole put the Serbs on top in the war, and while the others would doubtless have carried out atrocities to as close to the same scale and intensity if they'd been able to as makes no difference (there's no few Bosnian higher-ups queued in the Hague, remember) the point is they weren't. The Serbs were, and did.
Could very well be, but sadly not the paradigm swift that we should be happy about. It's not a process of enlightment, quite the contrary....you haven't read up too much on the Early Modern religious and quasi-religious conflicts, have you ? I can quarantee there's no way it could be inferred from them, but the point is their ultimate end result was the functional delegitimization of large-scale religious zealotry. Not to mention when they died down even the most ardent reactionarist among the people who actually mattered had to grudgingly admit trying to oppose the winds trying to disperse the coulds with force just plain didn't work.
Sort of how like the two World Wars taught the First World that Thou Shalt Not Make War On Thine Peers Unless Mutual Squalor Is Your Thing.
...you haven't read up too much on the Early Modern religious and quasi-religious conflicts, have you ?
The western ones yes, the conflicts in the muslim world I simply don't understand. It does ressemble what we would describe as a coup.
Watchman
12-07-2006, 23:02
What brought Saddam to power in Iraq was a coup.
What brought the current system to power in Iran was a wholesale revolution.
See the difference ? It's about the same as that between the average Medieval dynastic takeover and the French revolution. And what the AQ boys are after is specifically the latter; they're not out to just take over the fat cat post at the top or something so banal (and reasonable), but to cast down the whole corrupt system that has strayed from the path of righteousness and built what amounts to their idea of Heaven on Earth in its stead.
:shrug:
Basic milleniarian revolutionary stuff really. All major revolutions had similarly off-the-wall goals - the cilialistic peasant revolts of the 1500s following Luther's hammer-work, all those wacky semi-sectarian popular uprisings in Japan and China ("Reach the Pure Land" and so on), the Puritans in England, the French Revolution, the Russian and other Communist Revolutions, doubtless also the Iranian Revolution...
They never work of course even if they succeed in overthrowing the Ancien Regime, they just try too much with too little. They also tend to create a horrible bloody mess on the side. But once they fall apart out of their own absurdity, what gets built afterwards tends to have taken major steps towards rectifying the issues that originally spawned the revolutions in the first place.
Took damn long in most cases though. One can only hope the Muslims have a bit easier time at it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.