![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
If he's right, it's gonna get messy...
A commentary from The Observer: "We all know who was to blame for Thursday's murders... and it wasn't Bush and Blair."
Face up to the truth
Nick Cohen
Sunday July 10, 2005
A snippet:
"Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1525172,00.html
Face up to the truth
Nick Cohen
Sunday July 10, 2005
A snippet:
"Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1525172,00.html
no subject
I think the point a lot of liberal thinkers (including myself) try to make is that there were many ways to pursue bin Laden after 9/11, and that invading Iraq wasn't one of them. No matter how you slice it, the Iraq and Afghanistan strategies aren't working. If anything, the situation in Afghanistan is unchanged for most average people, but the titular head of the government is friendly to the U.S. The situation in Iraq (for U.S. interests) is far worse. There was no discernible terrorist activity there before - now Iraq is the new home of al-Quaeda. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but so is Mugabe in Zimbabwe. So is that nut in Uzebeckistan. So is Kim Jung Il. So is....
no subject
What about those other 40 dictators? I think Bush is nuts on this topic--he seems to think we can "grow" (Lordy, I hate that usage) the economy to create enough money to be able to support all these little wars. Lucky for us our neighbors are friendly--we couldn't defend ourselves right now, our armies are half a world away.
But one thing this columnist says I fear is correct--the people behind the terrorism movement won't be happy until the rest of us are on the moon. Either we have to die, or convert to their form of Islam. They don't have any other options they can live with. So the next few years will be tricky.
Giving their young men jobs and lives so they can marry and raise families will help with some of them--but not all of them.
no subject
I think it's dangerous to compare these terrorists to Nazis or most other guerilla movements. The Nazis (for example) had a very specific agenda born from a shattered economy and their own hatred. It was a nationalistic movement. They controlled a nation and all of its resources, including the military.
These terrorists are much more diverse, with differing interpretations of Islam and no single home base. This is why the Iraqi invasion was so stupid - we may hand one group control of a country, something they would have never achieved on their own. If that happens, then I expect them to unify religious extremism with nationalism. THEN we're in serious trouble.
no subject
As in the Taliban--and our government was stupid enough to think they could keep the problems at bay, as long as these people controlled the poppy trade. Fortunately, many if not most Afghans didn't want the Taliban.
Perhaps this columnist makes the suggestion that we remember the Nazi juggernaut because there is an ethnic/cultural bond there that seems to transcend the nationalistic angle. Remember, the British Empire divided up a great deal of the Middle East--those countries did not form their own borders, Britain did. (Part of the reason Iraq is such a mess, frankly--with the Kurds, the Sunnis and Shiites together.) Iran is a bit different--most of them are the same sect of Islam, but it's the minority one, I believe, when you factor in the worldwide Islamic population.
When have you EVER heard anyone with any authority (physical or moral) over any Islamic group condemn any suicide bomber?
They don't. They probably can't--they screwed up and let the conservatives take hold of their religious schools, and now they have a generation of conservatives who want to bring back the Golden Age of Islam, when they controlled from Spain to Constantinople.
Do they want that empire physically? Perhaps not. But they want everyone to think like they do--they're murdering barbers in Iraq, for heaven's sake, for violating the Koran by their profession--and it's not enough that we stay on our side of the ocean. I fear that once we leave, they'll think "Our women and children can see this decadent lifestyle, the Internet will corrupt them," and so on.
I agree that Iraq was perhaps the dumbest thing we could have done. The neos keep trying to say that Saddam was in with Al-Q in some form. Hah--he might have sold them a few weapons, but I doubt he'd want anything to do with them--anything that would strengthen them. He was running a secular state--none of that messy religion to complicate things. At this rate, it will be a religious state. It may be moderate to start--but if the terrorists get smart and start running for office, they'll control things within 10 years.
Do we change the way we live? No--but we must face the fact that we may be fighting occasional flare-ups of these guys for the rest of whatever. Because Group A could care less that Group C has declared a truce (as Palestine has proved over and over...)
no subject
skip to today - I can't think of one country where ALL of those factors are present. I can think of any number of places where some of the factors exist. Palestine comes close, but they are nowhere near independent, and much of their population live outside of the occupied territory. As you noticed, a truce with A doesn't mean jack to C.
I've heard several Islamic authorities condemn the killing of civilians, via suicide bomb or any other method. Killing non-combatants is expressly forbidden in the Koran.
But yes, we will have to deal with these guys forever.
no subject
I fear so. Their greatest threat may be that we will change ourselves to "protect" ourselves from them.
If we give up our freedoms in some crazy attempt to be safer, then Ben Franklin was right.
no subject
At best, one side will prevail and leave the losers plotting revenge for years, decades, centuries. If it comes to us or them, we'd be wise to remember that there are a LOT more of them than us.
no subject
Why we need to push their moderates to take things in hand. Because BushCo's way of dealing with it is the big stick. We're not the only ones with a big stick, but we have big sticks.
And other players with big sticks do not like the conservative fringe, either. If the fringe becomes enough of a nuisance, I fear that the same people who are justifying torture may justify genocide.
One of these primarily Islamic countries has already done it--maybe Pakistan, maybe Syria, I can't remember, but I saw a column on it years ago. They literally did a "scorched earth" on the village where the hotbed existed. After that time, their radicals took their hysteria outside of the country... .