I hereby recant!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Jul 25, 2005.

Loading...
  1. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    At least, I think I do. My view of the War being between the West and the Muslim world received a severe, possibly fatal blow with the horrific bombing in Egyptian Sharm al sheik (apologies in advance for mis spelling).

    Once again the world proves more complicated than my black-and-white, good-and-evil brain wants to accept.
     
  2. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    Nosborne,

    Methinks that you recant too soon and that your original treatise (or pre-supposition) contains a ring of demonstrable fact (if not a ring of unarguable truth).

    I am predisposed to think that the senseless terrorist bombings in Egypt and other Muslim nations (in recent and not-too-recent history) were probably aimed at the perceived nations' governments or western-educated elite's (adoption of) western elements and orientations (e.g. some, albeit limited, individual and political freedoms, western lifestyles, anti anti-semitism, etc) which said extremists despise?

    Maybe your (and others') statement about terroristic bombings being a (historically recent or modern) "West versus Muslim" thing, (which seeks to describe what exists in the religious extremists' hate-filled minds), may still, at least, be arguably true.

    One does not have to dig too deeply to uncover perverse, hateful, anti-semitic, and anti-western underpinnings in these terrorists' leanings and activities.

    (I try to avoid using the term "Islamist or Muslim extremists." To me, these religious terrorists are not Islamic at all. They disrespect and in fact, do not represent nor are they upholding, the precepts of Islam).

    A problem of phraseology and semantics? Perhaps.

    A "War between the West and the Muslim world" may be overstating it a bit.

    Maybe, a "War being between the secularist orientation/freedoms/philosophies/leanings/cultures of the West and the non-secularist/jihadist-extremists/religious hate-mongerings/anti-'true Islam' terrorists and provocateurs mostly in, or from, the Muslim world" rings closer to reality?

    Of course, note that I try to avoid stepping on many possible logic landmines by not providing a catch-all definition of or for the term "West." I presume that the term is uncontestably understood.

    Maybe not "War against the West," but "War against 'western' interests"?

    Maybe there exist "western" interests in (Egypt and) the Muslim world (study, commerce, religious freedoms, peace and security, etc) as do Muslim interests in the West (study, commerce, mosques, literature, and yes, peace and security, etc)?

    I may be naively assuming that, for the most part, neither "West" nor "Muslim" have fixed geopolitical or geographical connotations.

    Until proven to be inexcusably false, how about your recanting your recent recant?

    (If I misunderstand or mis-state or muddy the intent of your original post, please accept my apologies).

    Thanks.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2005
  3. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    No, you state it very well, better, in fact, than I did myself. So the Westernized elite is seen as betraying Islam?

    That does make sense.
     
  4. jon porter

    jon porter New Member

    Read this
    from the Naval War College Review for more on the regional and historical perspective for bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and salafists generally.
     
  5. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    I've always thought using grand terms like Western World vs. Muslim World doesn't help understand the problem at all. A much more useful parallel is to domestic terrorism. I keep up with the latest hate-group news at the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project (www.splcenter.org) and rickross.com, and the success of law enforcement against domestic groups has been pretty amazing. The key to their success has been infiltration. At any major World Church of the Creator, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, etcetera meeting (some extremist but barely-legal groups linked to violent terrorist acts) there's guaranteed to be a few undercover FBI agents. The groups know this by now, and it causes them as many problems with infighting and accusations of treachery as it does in arrests.

    In terms of attacking terrorism, education about tolerance and freedom of information helps to make the social environment hostile for terrorist groups, so I think it's very useful to promote it, both in America and in other countries... but it can't prevent individuals from being infected with terrorism. The UK suicide bombers all came from shockingly normal backgrounds (except for the Jamaican guy, I don't think there's much information out about him yet). The government has barely started trying to infiltrate Islamic-derived terrorist groups but I think that is where the true victories against terrorism are going to come from. It's going to be 20 times harder than infiltrating domestic groups, for obvious reasons, but the payoffs are going to be massive.
     
  6. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    I agree with that, qvatlanta. It’s not realistic. There not many differences between some religious fundamentalist Christians (KKK included, of course) and the Taliban. On the other hand, there are parts of the West that openly support and understand bin Laden´s ideology or his franchise or whatever he leads. Maybe this is not obvious in the US. The radical Left has a tacit alliance with bin Laden, with the Islamic Fundamentalism. They are in fact the real fifth column, not the moderate Muslims as many have warned! They both share identical goals, and feelings against the "West" (consumerism vs. tribal and religious fundamentalism). Jack was wondering, "Maybe not "War against the West," but "War against 'western' interests"?” I think it is. By destroying its interests (the vertebral column on which it is sustained), they try to terminate the entire system: modern, homogenizing capitalism. I was living in NY in 1993 when they tried to blow the WTC, the neural finance center of the world. That´s their objective, the economy. Radical left wingers just don’t realize they will be next (as it already happened in Afghanistan).
     
  7. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    I'm not sure exactly what you mean about radical leftists. The heyday of terrorism from the radical left was in the 1970s, and it's not much of a threat today, although these things tend to go in cycles. Also, I'd have to disagree that today "western" = "capitalism". A lot of people share that conception but I don't think everybody in the world does (take Japan for example). Europeans happened to master capitalism earlier than other regions, but other places like China had their own pre-capitalist traditions even back then, and today it's much more diffuse.

    I will agree that reaction against globalization drives a lot of extremist hate groups on every side, but it also drives plenty of peaceful movements as well.

    I just don't think that terrorism should be reduced to ideology. It is important to understand their specific ideology... you have to understand a certain amount in order to obstruct, infiltrate and defeat them. But ultimately terrorism is the same across all ideologies.
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I am not sure anyone fully understands the global infrastructure of terrorism.

    What we often fail to recognize is that there is a terrorist movement within the [organized] terrorist structure--a movement of renegades dedicated to an ego manical exaggerated sense of self importance.
     
  9. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Very interesting reflections, qvatlanta. Nonetheless I didn’t say that those Leftist are necessarily terrorists. Some of them are, though. By radical leftist I didn´t mean modern left, social democrats that participate in the democratic game, abide by its rules, and accept market economy. By radicals I mean that sectarian, antiSemitic, resentful Left, those antisystem, anticapitalist movements, and those Marxist-Leninist parties that still embrace the Communist Manifesto and literally couldn’t overcome the fall of the wall in 1989. Like Al Qaeda, they fish in failing or unstructured societies waters where they can resort to populism and alledged past aggravations, but they also finds their ideological space in prosperous Western societies. And thus the radical left cedes some of its room to Islamic Fundamentalism due to their ideological affinity, their coincidence in objectives: the destruction of both the US and capitalism. Perhaps they condemn to a certain extent the means Al Qaeda uses, but they absolutely agree with the ends. This radical Left also confers legitimacy to these Islamic actions, and it lends its intellectuals to the cause. I have read plenty of defenses for the events in NYC, Madrid or London; analyses that not surprisingly coincide with those made by radical Muslims. Despicable. And this is the tacit alliance I was talking about yesterday; this is the type of collaboration we see, at least here where I live.

    Yes, capitalism comprehends more than the West as you point out, but if something characterizes the West above any other disquisitions is its firm embracement of capitalist ideas as a way of life. Those countries (Japan and China) haven´t received the ire of bin Laden and his cronies in spite of being capitalist but it may not be necessary since by hitting the US (or Europe), which are far more acccesible, the effects of the attacks propagates to the rest of the capitalist world, including Europe, of course, but also Japan, and to a lesser extent China, South East Asia, etc.

    It helps BOTH become more organized, and their actions to be easier to carry out.

    Yes, terrorism is terrorism. But by understanding the ideology behind a terrorist action, one doesn´t condone it or approve it or strenghten its cause. In any case, I agree with you, we cannot differentiate between terrorisms, good ones and bad ones. Tell that to NYT, Washington Post or BBC. I did already. I know of many others who also did it. But those editors couldn´t care less. They still make distinctions. Still. :rolleyes: And yes, infiltration in possiblethe only way one can stop these massacres. Forthat we need Muslims, moderate Muslims. That´s why (among other reasons) the West MUST make clear this is not a war against Islam.
     
  10. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    So will somebody please tell me: Am I recanting, recanting my recantation, or is it all just cant?
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Oh come and take the politician's way out and say your views have "evolved." :D
     
  12. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    I would recant, Nosborne. There is no war between the West and the Muslims. I don´t believe in those Maniqueist views of the world divided in evil and good. That´s too simple. So I would stick to your original post. :p
     
  13. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    JLV,

    Sounds like good advice.

    So we're under more-or-less continuous attack, and threat of attack, by terrorists who just happen to be 100% Muslim and are attacking us because in their view, their religion requires them to attack us?

    Perhaps weirdly, this makes a kind of sense...
     
  14. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    We're (and other countries) are under continuous threat of attack from many angles. For instance, the Tamil Tigers have carried out more successful suicide bombings than any other terrorist group... and they're neither Muslim nor particularly religious. They've just kept a pretty low profile since 2001.

    In the U.S., here's a link to 60 domestic terrorist plots from 1995-2005. Some of them are just kind of pathetic; some of them are truly horrifying and if successul would have resulted in massive fatalities.

    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=549

    Right now Muslim-extremist groups are certainly the most dangerous threat.... they have the motivation, strong support networks and are difficult to infiltrate. However, 50 years from now it might be some other religious or non-religious group in Public Enemy Number One status. Muslim-extremist terrorism will be much easier to defeat than terrorism itself.
     

Share This Page