And the Jihad continues...

[Mycroft]

Mycroft,

You've won the argument, it's all the fault of Islam..........


What next ?

That is very simplistic and not at all my point of view.

I don't have any problem with Islam, but I have a problem with Muslim businessmen in Indonesia funding Holy War in Lebanon just as I would if Christian businessmen in the USA were funding Holy War in Africa. I have the same problem with Muslims in London suicide-bombing trains and busses that I have with fanatic Christians in the States bombing abortion clinics.

We can't pretend that religion isn't part of the problem.

 

[pipelineaudio]

What do you base that on?

base what on ?

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

You're completely right, what do we do ?

How do we address the situtation without making things even worse ?

Well, you could write a book on this topic but I will try and cover what I think needs to be done immediately or this is going to explode into a unstoppable problem. (No pun intended)

First I think the United States needs to pull out of the U.N. and other countries should follow suit. The U.N. is a failed body that does little more than waste money, perpetuate corruption, and bicker with little action. In almost every prior human rights violation (Rwanda) to current problems with Israel and Lebanon (U.N. was stationed there for decades and did not prevent the terrorists from moving in) did nothing or prevented nothing. The United States funds around 25% of the U.N. budget a year, yet has its proposals blocked by Russia and China who obviously have other agendas.

Once the United States is out; the U.S. and its allies need to find which countries actually, truly, want to help curb terrorism and open the diplomatic channels with these countries to start gathering and sharing all information that these countries have on terrorists and the like. Possibly even start a computer based system that makes this easier. Hell, all the money the U.S. spends on the U.N could more than fund this.

Secondly the U.S. and its allies (allies referring to countries that are 100% for removing terrorism and not playing politics) need to come to a understanding that this might require military force and that if that should happen a international force could be assembled. Something similar to a NATO force. But there must be international planning and strategy to assure that the best people are running the show, so we don't have another Iraq war.

I know this sounds a lot like the U.N., but its vastly different. Here we don't have a huge paper pushing body centrally located somewhere. What I am talking about is having summits, like what happened after WW2, where the top dogs from each country meet and hammer out an action plan. It would take as long as possible; days, weeks, months. But the absolute key to this is human intelligence, which requires that we have middle eastern allies. And not just good intelligence, but the sharing of everything; not just the intelligence, but how it was obtained so that you can have the entire international body working as efficient as it can But with how the U.S. has been doing business in the middle east, that may be hard. And I know this is all wishful thinking, but sometimes that what it takes to get the job done.

 

[Crossbow]

The Shah wasn't a totalitarian regime. The revolution happened because he ticked off the religious leaders by taking their land and eroding their wealth and power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution

No, the problem with the Shaw wasn't that he was totalitarian, the problem with him was that he was inept.

Wow oh wow!

I guess the sun is always shining in your world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

...

The Shah had been in power since 1941, with a brief interruption in 1953; through the 1960s and 1970s he faced continued opposition from a diverse array of Iranians. The Shah enforced a strict dictatorship, imprisoning hundreds of political activists, and enforcing censorship laws. At the same time, however, living conditions for the people improved significantly, and many basic human and democratic rights were established (e.g. extending suffrage to women). Many prominant religious figures and Mullahs felt many of these reforms indicated the Shah's regime was overtly secular, and thus anti-Islamic. Such opponents also characterized the monarch as a "puppet" of the West, especially the United States and Israel. Many of the nation's urban middle classes, by contrast, felt Iran was not modernizing fast enough, and desired a more liberal constitutional democracy with fewer powers resting with the Shah.

...

Pahlavi [the Shah] maintained good relations with the United States and most other western countries, and was often praised by western leaders for his role as a force of "modernity" in the West. Yet as the years progressed his government was increasingly criticized for its political corruption and the brutal practices of SAVAK (secret police) that, in response, generated protests in Iran and elicited condemnation from many parts of the international community.

...

In addition in the years following his restoration in 1953, the Shah's position became increasingly perilous. This was due in large measure to his close ties to the West, unsuccessful reforms enacted during the White Revolution, internal corruption, and the despotic nature of his government, especially its secret police known as SAVAK.

...

In the 1970s, as the rise in global crude oil prices increased the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, the pressure for a change in government policies became more acute. Even pro-Western elements in Iran became disturbed by the increasingly autocratic style of government and increased use of the secret police. Many fled Iran before the Revolution, and others began to organize. At the same time, a broader populist movement found its source of organization in mosques, and in sermons that denounced the wickedness of the West and Western indulgences. The collision between a young and growing population, and a social structure which offered neither advancement in a modern state, nor the stability of a traditional society, created the conditions which were ripe for revolution.

...

In the future, I suggest that you research things a bit more before making such outlandishly wrong claims on the facts.

 

[Tony]

Isn't it time to set the political correctness aside and look at the Islamic angle to this?

Huh? Where have you been? Most people have been looking at the Islamic angle to this for years.

 

[Mycroft]

Wow oh wow!

I guess the sun is always shining in your world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution


In the future, I suggest that you research things a bit more before making such outlandishly wrong claims on the facts.

Uhm, in what way was my characterization inaccurate?

The Shah's rule was a constitutional monarchy. Yes, he jailed some of his political opponents, but that's parr for the course in a monarchy. He didn't do anything that isn't done regularly today by Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, the Shah was a reformer. He tried to modernize Iran technologically, politically and socially. He poured money into education, he gave women the power to vote, he made landowners out of their peasantry.

Was he perfect? No, but neither was he, as is often portrayed, some terrible evil inflicted on the Iranian people by the United States. What he tried to do he didn’t do well enough, but what he tried to do was good and certainly worlds better that his predecessors.

 

[The Don]

.....various suggestion.....

Thank you for being the only person to actually respond to my question. I may disagree with the course of actions you propose but I have to concede that at least you've spent some time and energy looking into it.

Some observations (which speak more of my prejudices than any flaws in your proposals):

• I'm not happy with the disbanding of the UN. Without it, only the strongest militarily has a voice. I do not wish to be at the bidding of the United States
• The U.S. appears to have a very black and white view of the world "you're either with us or against us". Asking 100% support from any country is a big ask
• I'm most worried about the "5th column" in the UK at the moment. Better intelligence will help, but restricting out allies to those who are 100% committed will very much restrict our intelligence gathering opportunities

 

[Crossbow]

Uhm, in what way was my characterization inaccurate?

The Shah's rule was a constitutional monarchy. Yes, he jailed some of his political opponents, but that's parr for the course in a monarchy. He didn't do anything that isn't done regularly today by Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, the Shah was a reformer. He tried to modernize Iran technologically, politically and socially. He poured money into education, he gave women the power to vote, he made landowners out of their peasantry.

Was he perfect? No, but neither was he, as is often portrayed, some terrible evil inflicted on the Iranian people by the United States. What he tried to do he didn’t do well enough, but what he tried to do was good and certainly worlds better that his predecessors.

You flat out said that the Shah regime was not totalitarian, and that is flat out wrong.

I had hoped that by providing you with the supplementary data you would have found that fact out for yourself. However, I see now that I was quite wrong about raising such hopes since you are unable recognize the facts regarding how the Shah ran his kingdom.

 

[CFLarsen]

base what on ?

That there is not all that much wiggle room for interpretation.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Shah wasn't a totalitarian regime.

You have just got to be kidding.

The Shah's rule was a constitutional monarchy. Yes, he jailed some of his political opponents, but that's parr for the course in a monarchy.

Excuse me? Denmark is a constitutional monarchy, but the Queen - or anyone else, for that matter - jail her political opponents.

 

[Beerina]

You could argue that the Republican Terrorists got absolutely everything they wanted apart from the unification of Ireland.

Using this as a model for the Muslim population would be very bad because we'd end up with everything the Muslims want apart from Sharia law.


I don't know the answers to the following questions but finding out be a start:

- Why are Muslim populations so disinclined to integrate ?

Are they? Or are these just first generation people largely, who brought their children over. Within living memory of the very old, in the US the Italians and Irish were the troublemakers who refused to give up their culture and melt into the melting pot of the US.

In one generation, the kids who fully grew up "here" will be fully Americanized (or UK-ized, or wherever-ized). I know no fewer than two Indian university professors here in the US who have fully Americanized kids (read: lazy and going to community college when not playing their DS or Xbox 360.)

Wooo hoo!

- Why are Muslim youths so ready to believe that Islam is under attack ?

Disasterbation fed by the rhetoric of the power hungry. Same ol' same ol throughout human history. Nothing new to see here, move along, move along.

- Why is the government and its motives so distrusted ?

Ironically, in any other context, distrust of the government is seen as a positive and healthy property of the modern free-state citizen.

Of course you could substitute the fundamental group of any religion in the above list.

Ding!

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Thank you for being the only person to actually respond to my question. I may disagree with the course of actions you propose but I have to concede that at least you've spent some time and energy looking into it.

Some observations (which speak more of my prejudices than any flaws in your proposals):

• I'm not happy with the disbanding of the UN. Without it, only the strongest militarily has a voice. I do not wish to be at the bidding of the United States
• The U.S. appears to have a very black and white view of the world "you're either with us or against us". Asking 100% support from any country is a big ask
• I'm most worried about the "5th column" in the UK at the moment. Better intelligence will help, but restricting out allies to those who are 100% committed will very much restrict our intelligence gathering opportunities

Well clearly something needs to be done about the issue, and the current policy of "playing politics" with other countries just doesn't seem to be working. Of course what I said was extreme but I just don't feel that what is being done now will ever yield anything. (By "what is done now" I mean the current policy for dealing with terrorisim and international problems. As for the U.N., I think it needs to be seriously overhauled or closed, because it is an ineffective body in its current state. But thanks for the follow up.

 

[RyanRoberts]

Are they, or are they first generation people

In the UK, it's second and third generation that is far more millitant than their parents.

As an obvious external sign of a religious revival - Jilbab (often misidentified as a burkha) was almost never worn by the mothers of the mainly Pakistani immigrants in northern towns, its a traditional Arab costume. Until the last decade or so, most Muslim girls wore light headscarves and the occasional hijab, you will now find hijab is almost universal and the jilbab is pretty common.

We are seeing a change in the muslim populations here, as well as in some ways becoming more like the majority population there is also a tendency to identify with a trans-national Islamic identity, which is unfortunately tainted with extremism.

Hindus and Sikhs have on the whole integrated far better, possibly because of the middle class background of recent Hindu immigrants and also due to the fact there is no international movement to conquer in the name of Shiva and support Hindu warriors in their terrorist activities against Pakistan.

 

[The Don]

Are they? Or are these just first generation people largely, who brought their children over. Within living memory of the very old, in the US the Italians and Irish were the troublemakers who refused to give up their culture and melt into the melting pot of the US.

In one generation, the kids who fully grew up "here" will be fully Americanized (or UK-ized, or wherever-ized). I know no fewer than two Indian university professors here in the US who have fully Americanized kids (read: lazy and going to community college when not playing their DS or Xbox 360.)

As RyanRoberts mentioned, it's actually 2nd and 3rd generations too. In many cases they look at their parents and grandparents as sell-outs.

One thing we're bad at here in the UK is non-white supremacist partiotism. In a study here they don't think of the Uk as their country. I don't think that there are many immigrants to the US who don't think of it as home.

Here is a link which includes within it an indication that nearly half of UK muslims consider themselves Muslim first and British second.

Clearly we've done something wrong here. Whether its the fact that we allow ghettoisation and/or redical clerics or perhaps something else

 

[The Don]

The Shah's rule was a constitutional monarchy. Yes, he jailed some of his political opponents, but that's parr for the course in a monarchy.

Are you sure ?

Perhaps it's par for the course for a Middle Eastern monarchy but I expect that Brits, Norwegians, Spaniards, Swedes, Dutch, Belgians and Liechtensteiners (I know it's a Principality) would be interested to learn this.

I cannot speak for the Danes, they are much less civilised

 

[Crossbow]

I think that the people who are essentially saying that sometimes the second and third generations can be much more militant than the original generation are quite correct.

To illustrate, these comments have made me think of the history of the KKK where the first group that came up during the 1870's were quite militant. Then the movement gradually faded into almost oblivion in the following decades.

Then, the KKK was resurrected during the 1920s, then as infighting and violence developed, it faded away yet again.

Now, for the past several years, it has been growing again.

While it is a simplification, one sees the same pattern of the KKK skipping for about three generations before being resurrected to support/fight some new social developments.

 

[RyanRoberts]

growing again

Really? I thought the black baby kissing stuff and resulting in fighting had put them in an even worse state.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you sure ?

Perhaps it's par for the course for a Middle Eastern monarchy but I expect that Brits, Norwegians, Spaniards, Swedes, Dutch, Belgians and Liechtensteiners (I know it's a Principality) would be interested to learn this.

I cannot speak for the Danes, they are much less civilised

In the monarchies you mention, how much power is really held by the throne? Is it really a monarchy if the monarch is just a figurehead?

 

[The Don]

In the monarchies you mention, how much power is really held by the throne? Is it really a monarchy if the monarch is just a figurehead?

One of the characteristics of a Constitutional Monarchy is that the power of the monarch is usually tempered:

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen reigns with limits to their power along with a governing body (i.e. Parliament), giving rise to the modern adage "the Queen reigns but does not rule".

If the monarch wields sufficient power to have opponents of the monarch improsoned then perhaps it isn't a constitutional monarchy but is instead an absolute monarchy.

The claim was that

The Shah's rule was a constitutional monarchy. Yes, he jailed some of his political opponents, but that's parr for the course in a monarchy.

I was attempting to demonstrate that it isn't

But as it's a thread derail I guess it isn't that important anyway

 

[Mycroft]

If the monarch wields sufficient power to have opponents of the monarch improsoned then perhaps it isn't a constitutional monarchy but is instead an absolute monarchy.

You're right. The essential point we both agree on, I think, is that as monarchies go, Iran was more comparable to other middle-eastern monarchies than to European monarchies.

But as it's a thread derail I guess it isn't that important anyway

Feh, derail away.