BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The rise of militant Islam

  
 
Hieronymus
19:39 / 18.06.04
I kind of wanted to start up a thread discussing militant Islam and its effects upon the world, one because of the recent beheading of Paul Johnson and two because of a Washington Post article concerning the state of militant Islam in Saudi Arabia.

For all of Bush's 'war on terrah' rhetoric (nothing like zealots fighting zealots to obfuscate the real issues),it still seems as if certain factions of revolution, tied in with a Sharia-heavy stripe of fundamentalism, have become more and more pernicious... almost desperate in their tactics to make themselves heard and obeyed. To not only exercise their own lives by their religious means. But to drag the world itself into their worldview, whether it wants it or not. Dyab Abou Jahjah's call for sharia law in the Netherlands is one example. Between Bush and the militant Muslims, I don't understand where there is any ground for discourse or integration.

This is probably going to be poorly phrased as I'm not quite sure I have my complete head in this. But I want to understand more of the 'why' behind militant Islam, as well as where this fits within moderate Islam as well. Freedom-fighting aside, why are tactics such as mass killing, assassinations and kidnappings/beheadings allowable or never condoned within the religious framework of militants? Where does it end?
 
 
w1rebaby
00:09 / 19.06.04
What I tend to ask at these points is: what makes "militant Islam" either coherent in its real-world goals (since various groups consistently claimed to be "Islamic militants" seem to have different objectives) or different from any other "militant" group? What *is* "militant Islam"? Who is part of it?

My general position is that, when you look at people who are actually involved in killing other people and, more importantly, those who support them (since without those people the former would not be able to operate) they tend to fall into fairly understandable categories - the politically, socially and/or militarily oppressed, usually. Debate as to whether they're justified in that is a further issue, but "Islam" here to me is really just a particular ideology that's culturally appropriate and provides a strong basis for grouping. If Islam didn't exist, some other ideology would be there instead - Christianity, Communism, Libertarianism, whatever.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
08:53 / 20.06.04
There are always zealots and sexually repressed people, who divert their energy into religion to such a fervourous extent that common sense goes out of the window.

My view is this

Yes there is a small percentage of absolute nut jobs who read the Q'uran and like the Catholic Church of the middle ages, will not tolerate anything but their own warped literalist view of the wording.
Allegedly there are something like 1.3 BILLION muslims in the world. These range from peaceful and tolerant of secularisation, ordinary Joe's .....much like most of us on here......to the extremist nutters who are willing to blow themselves up as they believe a paradise awaits them in the afterlife if they become a martyr

Whilst Bush would have us believe that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Terrah'ists (thanks for that spelling it made me laugh.....sounds just like him), the evidence does not bear this out

If the Muslim people's of the world are so numerous and if as Bush would have us believe, these nations are hot beds and training grounds for extremism......how come there have been so few attacks?
9/11 for example. Within hours of the atrocities, the FBI,CIA and all the other defence agencies were blaming the ethereal AL QUAEDA, despite those same agencies having totally ignored numerous warnings from their own operatives and other countries intelligence services

I have no idea who perpetrated these attacks but the BBC and other news organisations have reported that several of the 19 men originally named are still alive and well (see Rense.com for the link to the BBC, I think the date was 23rd of September 2001 on the BBCC website)

If mohammed Atta and some of his deranged cronies did pull off these attacks, and discounting the numerous problems with the official story, how come there has been little in the way of follow up, if the terrorists are as numerous as the Bush administration claims?

Surely, if these AL QUEADA cells are just waiting to launch an attack, then they are playing the long game.
Now admittedly there is a belief in Muslim stories that revenge should be served up cold but even so, I tend to believe that the number of terrorists is a tiny tiny fraction of what is alleged in the media and by politicians. SADLY that number is bound to increase owing to the recent actions of Bush and Blair and the never ending patience Bush shows the Israelis in support and loans they never have to pay back

The middle East will always remain a hotbed. The existence of Israel itself will always irk some less tolerant Muslims and Arabs but discounting the views of these extremists, the US has shown terrible hypocrisy with regard the differing treatment of Israel and other countries in that area. This has increasingly led to extremists and the more extreme Muslim clerics, looking more attractive with their messages of hate

We were repeatedly told that Saddam was in violation of UN mandates, yet Israel repeatedly flouts international law and is protected time and time again by the American Veto and strong arm tactics. The Muslims and Arab states have suffered under regimes bolstered by US AND Europe for decades and the average Arab has little in the way of western freedoms or opportunities. Their wealth they can see is being drained via corrupt Governments and dictators and the international community is turning a blind eye

IT IS MY CONJECTURE THAT IT IS A MIRACLE AND TESTIMONY TO THE PEACEFUL NATURE OF MOST OF THE MUSLIM WORLD THAT WE ARE NOT VIEWING A TERRORIST ATTACK EVERY WEEK. I AM NOT DEFENDING TERRORISM BUT I THINK IT SAYS A LOT THAT FOR A PEOPLE WHO A LARGE PECENTAGE SUFFER UNDER CORRUPT REGIMES NOT TO REVOLT MORE OFTEN, IS TESTIMONY TO THEIR PEACEFUL NATURE

Yes the situation is deteriorating but it is almost understandable. There will always be a small percentage of religious extremists in any religion, who will simply not tolerate other ideologies or beliefs. Regrettably the War on Terror has done nothing to remove the causes of this disenchantment and has in fact been a recruiting ground for extremism

Palestinians hate the west for what they see as the hypocrisy over Israel. Increasing numbers of Saudis hate the west due to the corrupt house of Saud and the stealing by same and of the West of their resources whilst the average Saudi is comparatively well educated but cannot get a decent job
Afhgans will hate us for bombing some of the poorest people on the planet with cluster bombs and not rebuilding the country as we promised....in fact the situation is now probably worse than ever but the oil and gas interests are protected in Kabul

Militant Islam has alwasy existed but owing to the foreign policy decisions of the West (oil, greed and hypocrisy over Israel), it is on the increase....and we only have ourselves to blame. Bush must love Terrah'ists.......without them he hasn't a hope in hell of being re-elected. Then again, even if Kerry gets in, on the major issues, he is too similar for anything major to change geo politically...........America needs cheap oil.....Israel already has his support and he will still spend more on weapons than foreign aid or applying pressure for improved human rights in the most oppressive Muslim/Arab states.
 
 
Linus Dunce
14:52 / 20.06.04
America needs cheap oil

is true, but only in the same way as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, China, in fact the whole of the developed world needs cheap oil. Not just to fuel its private cars, but its public transport machinery too. And to drive the trucks that distribute its food, to power its factories, to heat its homes in winter and to light up its homes at night.

To blame it all on 'greedy Americans' seems to me just as disingenuous as blaming it all on 'militant Islam'.
 
 
alas
16:52 / 20.06.04
When each North American burns, uses up, and pollutes the atmosphere 9 times as much oil per year as any other citizen of any other country, I actually think there's a pretty good reason to blame a good deal of the trouble, if not most of it, on our egregious consumption habits.
 
 
Linus Dunce
18:04 / 20.06.04
Does that include Canada? And Alaska?

Where is the focus of the extra consumption? Is it in transport? Or manufacturing?
 
 
misterpc
20:27 / 20.06.04
If we're trying to understand "militant Islam", I don't think tying it into oil supplies is going to be useful. While we might interpret this tendency in terms of the wider geopolitical scene, it seems fairly obviously that "Islamic militants" themselves don't. While control of resources is the root of many conflicts, that's rarely an explicit motivation for those involved in the conflict.

Which leads on to the key point in Fridgemagnet's post, I think. Who are these "Islamic militants", anyways? It seems to me to be a phrase that we (i.e. the west, broadly) uses to describe a collection of groups that are not necessarily linked by a coherent agenda of any kind, but possess radically differing agendas and are linked only by their profession of Islam.

However I'm not sure it's accurate to say that militants are necessarily drawn from "oppressed backgrounds". It's been 10 long years since I was studying this, but there's evidence that a large proportion of "militants" are in fact from quite un-oppressed backgrounds. A good example would be those that implemented the 9/11 attacks - clearly a plan of military precision executed by individuals with fairly high skill levels in key areas.

As to the main question in the original post, how do these groups justify their actions in the context of Islam, which is not a religion which professes violence as a matter of course? They believe they are at war. It's really that simple. We can argue that the theology justifying their position and actions is false (as many Muslim theologians can and do), but that really isn't of much interest to them.


p.s. I find it interesting that the west has to a certain extent "created" Al Qaeda, and enabled it to be appropriated by any number of groups for their own uses. Russia gets to tie in Chechnya to this network, and thus justify their punitive actions in that region. Indonesian terrorist groups can use the name as a calling card which will cause more terror merely by association. The US gets to use it to generate an atmosphere of fear (I nearly used atmosfear there, but managed to stop myself in time) in order to fulfil the necessary domestic fear quota to ensure its consumption levels remain high. Etc, etc.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
05:59 / 21.06.04
You are right Al Quaeda is an umbrella name , to describe numerous groups. We in the west like to simplify matters and particularly the media and power brokers (often one and the same) want to distract us from the numerous groups and agendas that are out there.
Palestinian extremists hate the Israelis for different reasons than Saudi Extremists hate America
Indonesian terror groups have their own agendas and whilst they might admire OBL as an iconic figure, he will have little if any contact and differing agendas.

It is just our dumbed down media and the average Joe Public would not understand and have no wish to discover the various human rights abuses, religious divides, exploitation, and whatever, that fuels the various groups hatred.

I know that it is not always the disenfranchised who make up the rank and file of these nutjob organisations. Like teenagers from affluent families running amok, there seems no justification for some of the odd and maladaptive beliefs that these comparative Saudi rich kids have.

I think that Militant Islam is still a tiny minority of the whole of Islam but it is still my belief that with the exploitation of the oil producing countries, unquestioning support of Israel and bolstering of corrupt regimes, we are producing perfect recruiting grounds for charismatic (and well educated) Mullars and OBL like figures to swell their ranks

The reasons are numerous.....the groups often have little if any contact with each other.......but we still call them all 'Al Quaeda'

we should have called them Spectre........then all James Bond fans could have been recruited for counter terrorism, without having to resort to a draft
 
 
Ray Fawkes
16:16 / 21.06.04
When each North American burns, uses up, and pollutes the atmosphere 9 times as much oil per year as any other citizen of any other country

The stats don't back up this statement.

2001 statistics

US oil consumption per capita:
2.4 x UK consumption
1.6 x Japanese
1.6 x Iceland
2 x Denmark
1.6 x Australia
3.6 x Mexico

etc.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
16:19 / 21.06.04
I THINK IT SAYS A LOT THAT FOR A PEOPLE WHO A LARGE PECENTAGE SUFFER UNDER CORRUPT REGIMES NOT TO REVOLT MORE OFTEN, IS TESTIMONY TO THEIR PEACEFUL NATURE

Or, perhaps, the totality of their oppression. It's a lucky thing so many tyrants impose their crushing rule on peaceful, gentle people, or there'd be all these horrible revolutions...
 
 
eye landed
22:23 / 21.06.04
threadrot:

America needs cheap oil

is true, but only in the same way as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, China, in fact the whole of the developed world needs cheap oil.

America wants to control Middle East oil supply, but not to supply its own needs. Currently only a small percentage of Americas oil comes from Arabs. Rather it comes mostly from the Western hemisphere. The USA is one of the top oil producing countries in the world, and Canada is high as well. And neither are members of OPEC. On the other hand, the rest of the first world (such as Europe and Japan) relies almost entirely on Arab oil. The American wars in the ME are intended to control export to other countries, especially the EU, who present a real competitor in the world economic scene.

On topic, I merely have a stupid question. Is it true that the Quran condones killing all heathens? Or does it merely glorify battle against outsiders and passively condemn them to hell--much like the Torah and many other old books?
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:56 / 21.06.04
OK, so under the substatique model of American oppression you have cheap American oil and expensive Arab oil.

How is the price disparity maintained?

Is it off topic? The abstract mentions a world community -- why not let's work out what that is before asking obtuse questions on the nature of Islam.
 
 
Whale... Whale... Fish!
01:50 / 22.06.04
From my understanding of the Qoran (which isn't great), no form of killing is acceptable.

Why is it that we aren't talking about militant Christianity? Bush and Blair both describe themselves as Christians and have been fighting a war in what is the holy land for three major religions. Regardless of what the reasons are for going to war, supporting Isreal etc etc, I can see where the comparisions to the crusades come from...
 
 
Joetheneophyte
06:39 / 22.06.04
October Ghost

Okay the figures you provide suggest 9 times was an overstatement but it doesn't detract from the fact that the US is a major polluter

Admittedly, the developing countries are catching up and using the same 'dirty' technologies that we in the west are being encouraged to discard.

The US is viewed so hardhly due to it's stance on Kyoto which may or not be unfair but that is the price you pay being the most powerful country in the world. As Spiderman found out.......with great power comes great responsability :-)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:45 / 22.06.04
The Sura of the Sword gives clear instructions to "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them". Hooever, there are contradictions and questions - Sura 2 contains the famous "let there be no compulsion in religion" bit, and whether that has been abrogated or not is a pretty important question. IIRC, there is another passage which is not abrogated, which says that unvelievers can live among muslims as long as they pay tribute and are humbled, the definition of which is open to debate...

So, does the Quran say it is OK to kill unbelievers? Does it matter? I don't see a monolithic interpretation of the Quran anywhere nearby, after all... One could perhaps say that some readings of the Quran allow for violence to be practiced against unbelievers in certain situations, just like the Bible...
 
 
eye landed
08:11 / 23.06.04
OK, so under the substatique model of American oppression you have cheap American oil and expensive Arab oil.

How is the price disparity maintained?
I dont understand your objection. I never mentioned a price disparity. The more the world supply is controlled by one interest, the more that interest can set the price for all sales. The USA is an oil importer, while OPEC countries are oil exporters (its in the name). The USA currently controlls its own supply of oil quite well, but it has been losing control of the world supply (which Americans held through the Rochafeller subsidiaries) since at least the founding of OPEC.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:22 / 23.06.04
Something I've never understood about the argument that America's aggresive military policy is connected to their pursuit of a bigger stake in the world's oil industries:

If their prime motivation is a desire to control the oil trade, why don't they invade or Saudi Arabia? The nation has only 25% more available manpower for its military than Iraq did (before their military was disbanded) and possesses a full 25% of the world's known oil reserves - and is the linchpin of OPEC. While they're there, they could also annex neighboring Qatar, with 5% of the world's reserves and a relatively insignificant military force. It wouldn't be much more difficult than taking Iraq, in pure military terms - and it couldn't really bring about much more in the way of diplomatic opposition.

Or, for that matter, why did they pull out of Kuwait after liberating it from the Iraqi invasion? Kuwait has roughly 10% of the world's oil reserves in its possession.

Personally, I think the "oil" argument is a simplistic assumption, and ignores (or denies) a deeper, historical division between the Arab Middle East and the Western world. Any interactions between Islamic states and Western (founded Christian) states is complex, and fraught with difficulty - especially when fundamentalists on both sides seem to have so much influence over their nations' governments.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:38 / 23.06.04
Tann: I don't see a monolithic interpretation of the Quran anywhere nearby, after all... One could perhaps say that some readings of the Quran allow for violence to be practiced against unbelievers in certain situations, just like the Bible...

The difference is twofold, if I understand correctly. The first part is that the Qur'an was, in theory, transmitted directly by God as a whole text, not transcribed piecemeal by witnesses and disciples. The language in which the book is written is supposed to be so perfect as to be impossible to emulate. The second, in this context more important, difference is that the Gates of Itjihad are closed; individual interpretation is not permitted. I'm not clear on the circumstances under which they can be re-opened. Obviously, the fact is that there are many interpretations floating around, but in theory that's not the case.

October Ghost: If their prime motivation is a desire to control the oil trade, why don't they invade or Saudi Arabia?

It wasn't necessary (that may change) and it was hazardous, because Saudi Arabia contains the holiest cities of Islam. The one thing which would be pretty much guaranteed to turn all Islamic nations against the US would be invading the Saudi. One of Bin Laden's principle aims - in which he was successful - was to get US troops out of Saudi. Saudi is also essentially friendly to the US in its current incarnation, and has been relatively well-armed.

Personally, I think the "oil" argument is a simplistic assumption, and ignores (or denies) a deeper, historical division between the Arab Middle East and the Western world.

It's not the whole truth, but you'd be foolish to ignore it. It's not about oil profit, of course, but about the control of a strategically vital resource. The US needs oil desperately if it is to continue in the top slot, and specifically, it needs the high-grade crude which is found in Iraq. The rate at which we're (mostly the US, but all of us really) consuming oil means that the crunch will appear comparatively soon - say in the next twenty or thirty years. When that starts to happen, things will get messy fast, particularly in the land of the SUV.
 
 
w1rebaby
14:01 / 23.06.04
CM: Obviously, the fact is that there are many interpretations floating around, but in theory that's not the case.

Well, if there are many interpretations around, which there are, it doesn't make much difference whether there shouldn't be or not. People will always attempt to take an interpretation of ideological rules that suit their situation and goals as much as possible.

I suppose an argument could be made that Islam is intrinsically more insistent on maintaining its structural integrity, and thus generates more fundamentalists, but I don't think this holds out empirically; fundamentalism to me is primarily a reactionary social movement. Relatively comfortable societies don't need rigid codes to keep them together.

Furthermore, this thread is about "militant Islam" (though it seems to have wandered into more general oil-arabs-americabad territory) and I do not believe there is a direct causal link from fundamentalism to militancy, either. Possibly from militancy to fundamentalism of one sort or another, since a militant movement is almost by definition going to be under stress and benefit from rigid codes, as I mentioned previously. But in another place and/or time it could have been Communism, or Christianity, or a racial superiority ethic.
 
 
grant
15:35 / 23.06.04
Bit of Quran history might help -- this is culled from my (not terribly deep) readings in Islam from various sources on the net over the last three years or so.

The book was written at a time when Mohammed was, in essence, fighting a war based on his divine revelations. He wanted access to places of worship, and had to fight and/or negotiate with various tribes to get it.

So you'll see various rules of engagement in the Quran in many places, spelling out how various kinds of opponents should be treated. The problems tend to rise when translating or interpreting which kinds of people fall into which group. There are Pagans, who are those who simply don't believe in the One True God; there are People of the Book, who are those who believe in the One True God but rely on faulty revelations (these include Jews and Christians); and there are Infidels, who have professed a belief in the One True God but have gone back on that belief -- they are guilty of infidelity to the standards set up by Allah.

So, Muslims have a duty to try to bring the word of Allah to all of the above, but they're not necessarily obliged to show as much patience to an Infidel as they are to People of the Book. In battle, a Pagan is to be showed mercy, where an Infidel is to be attacked in the throat first.
As in here, Sura 47 (Mohammed), verse 4 ("those who disbelieve" = "Infidel" in this translation):
So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.


You can find out more about the origins of Islam here, at i-cias.com -- the pertinent parts are after "Conversions and Resistance" just about two-thirds of the way down the page.

You can also read over a discussion I was in on this subject over at Cross+Flame. It's pretty old now, and not all of the participants are still around, but many of the links are still good, and the discussion unearths quite a bit of pro/con stuff regarding the militancy of Islam in general. Which definitely overlaps with any discussion of militant branches/interpretations of Islam.
 
 
Linus Dunce
15:59 / 23.06.04
The USA is one of the top oil producing countries in the world ... The USA is an oil importer

I'm confused.

The USA currently controlls its own supply of oil quite well, but it has been losing control of the world supply [...] since at least the founding of OPEC.

Yes, I'd go along with that. The cartel itself says on its website:

OPEC has for many years maintained a limit on the oil produced by its Member Countries.

So what do you mean when you say the US is controlling the ME oil supply to the rest of the world?

Also, please explain how the price of gasoline is up in the US right now?

The Rockefellers are behind it all you say? And why is this theory more credible than the worldwide Militant Islam conspiracy? (Beyond the consensus of a few glorified nutbars on either side?)
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:08 / 24.06.04
fridge: I do not believe there is a direct causal link from fundamentalism to militancy, either.

Much of what is called 'fundamentalism' by the press is Wahhabism, a modern, western-influenced iteration of Islam. There absolutely is a link between militancy and Wahabbism. A more truthful 'back to basics' Islam might not have such a link, although it's a creed which places great importance on involvement in the Ummah, the society of Muslims everywhere; Karen Armstrong suggests that it is inherently political and social.
 
 
+#'s, - names
05:25 / 25.06.04
Guess what? People get pissed off at each other. Jews, Palestinians, Protestant, Catholic, Madonnaists, Spearists, etc.

The list goes on and on.

So fucking boring to be one of the hive mind. Hate america all you will, be all america number one against the beheading machine, just know that even bothering is fueling the fucking fire.

Just relax. Eat a fucking cookie. Chill. Seriously. Relax. Don't worry about it so much.


BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE CAMPAIGN TO RELECT DICK CHENEY KABBALAH OVERLORD HIVE MIND COMPUTER VIRUS LEADER.

ok, so notice. Ranting is stupid. Just relax.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE CAMPAIGN TO RELECT Walter Mondale KABBALAH OVERLORD HIVE MIND COMPUTER VIRUS LEADER.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:56 / 25.06.04
Oooh, thank you. That clears everything up for me. Gosh, how useful. May I write all that down so I can teach it to my kids? Thanks, dude. If you have any more political revelations, do let me know so I can book a seat early and make sure to bring my friends so they can share the wisdom.

Wake up. You're only using half your brain.

Dude.
 
 
grant
13:26 / 25.06.04
Linus Dunce:
The USA is one of the top oil producing countries in the world ... The USA is an oil importer

I'm confused.



I'm not sure how exactly the US stacks up as far as oil production, but we do have substantial oil resources. The thing is, the US uses a WHOLE LOT of oil. More than we have. More than the US plus Scotland plus, I dunno, Nigeria have. I think. Anyway, we use more than we produce.
 
 
+#'s, - names
15:01 / 25.06.04
Celibate Mink
Oh man. Got pretty loaded last night. Apologize for my ridiculousness.
 
 
grant
13:18 / 02.07.04
Here, I found this useful report on the "US Institute of Peace" site.

It's called "Islamic Extremists: How Do They Mobilize Support?"

Interestingly (but not surprisingly), spiritual and financial incentives appear to take a back seat to feelings of powerlessness.

According to Stern, individuals may join extremist groups for a variety of reasons, including a desire to achieve specific political objectives such as sovereignty over disputed territory. Emotional incentives may also play an important part. Members of extremist groups often report on the "glamour" of being members of such groups, and of becoming "addicted" to the adrenaline-driven excitement of their activities, which they say becomes a way of life. Unknown, lower-class youth can become famous through their militant actions, with thousands turning out for their funerals when they are "martyred." Members also actively recruit their friends into these groups. But Stern emphasized that the single most common emotional feature among jihadi militants, regardless of their rank, is their feeling that they have been humiliated and treated as "second class" by government authorities and others—even those jihadis from relatively rich countries or advantaged backgrounds.

In other words, it's more about reactions to oppressive government and other social pressures than religion.

Clothed in the language of Islam, the
ideological frameworks of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah remain fundamentally nationalistic and focused on the struggle against Israel. Religion is more of a garb than a guide to action.


There's a special focus on Pakistan, which could be useful to discussion.
 
 
Linus Dunce
14:19 / 02.07.04
Interesting. The summary you write though is not a fair abstract of the text you quote. The text is discussing the perceptions of these young men as being oppressed, not the fact of oppression itself. There are of course, many other oppressed people in the world and corresponding reactions to oppression. Also, it does not say that oppression is the largest part of their individual motivation, just that it is the most common part.
 
 
grant
14:29 / 02.07.04
Perception of oppression = "feelings of powerlessness," yeah?

I suppose the next question is, what is shaping these perceptions/feelings in such a way that militant action becomes an outlet?

Anyway, I thought the creepiest part of the article was the "financial incentives" bit. The idea of channeling revolutionary rage for profit seems scary (in both the actual fear sense and the easy-to-turn-into-scary-propaganda sense).
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:50 / 02.07.04
Indeed, though a desire to achieve specific political objectives such as sovereignty over disputed territory speaks volumes of a movement that is prepared to poke the giant in the eye.

Feelings of powerlessness is not the same as powerlessness. I'm thinking post-WW2 Japan, I'm thinking post-WW2 Germany, I'm thinking Sony, I'm thinking BMW ...

I'm thinking the EU ...
 
 
grant
18:53 / 13.07.04
Here, I found an interesting Daily Star article about this sort of thing.

It's called "Huntington's logic isn't Europe's" and begins by saying:
Are we condemned to triggering the clash of civilizations predicted by political scientist Samuel Huntington in his essay for Foreign Affairs in 1993? His argument, that the differences between civilizations were more fundamental than those between political ideologies, and that globalization had weakened local and national identities, leaving a gap to be filled by religion, became popular in academic circles in the West (and on extremist Islamist websites). The events of Sept. 11, 2001, and since, cast a depressing shadow over our times. However, we do not have to buy into the logic of Huntington, whose arguments never convinced me.

The author then refers to a survey conducted by the "Arab Thought Foundation" in 8 Arabic countries, which found that... Arabs are most concerned about matters of personal security, fulfillment and satisfaction. They do not hate Western values, democracy, freedom, education - but they cannot stand policies pursued by the West that are perceived as hypocritical and contrary to these values.

What sorts of policies are objectionable to the Arab world? Let me quote what the survey's authors say: "(A)fter more than three generations of conflicts, and the betrayal and denial of Palestinian rights, this issue appears to have become a defining one of general Arab concern. It is not a foreign policy issue ... rather ... the situation of the Palestinians appears to have become a personal matter."

There are some recommendations, in a general way, for what to do about that.
 
  
Add Your Reply