American hostage beheaded.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The solution to this discrepancy is, essentially, RACISM. Real one, not the "you disagreed with me" kind, I mean. To some "sensitive" folks here, Arabs (and Muslims) are essentially savages, and as such simply cannot be held to the same standards of behavior expected even of a criminally delinquent fifteen-year-old westerner.

That's the conclusion I come too also, that this attitude comes from a fundamental assumption that Arabs are nothing more than unsupervised (and unsupervisable) children with access to guns, knives and explosives.

That’s not really fair, we’d expect more from children. Animals? Aliens?

I’d like to hear it from a proponent of this point of view. I’m sure they will claim it’s not racism, but I’d like to see a convincing argument that it’s not.

 

[Mycroft]

I didn't mention Arabs.

Oh don't be obtuse. You responded to a paragraph that specifically mentioned Arabs. If you think that your not using the word is somehow relevant, explain how.

 

[mummymonkey]

Oh don't be obtuse. You responded to a paragraph that specifically mentioned Arabs. If you think that your not using the word is somehow relevant, explain how.

I saw no need to single Arabs out when I wrote my post. They would be included in the term 'human beings'.

 

[CapelDodger]

from zultr:

How can you function in a global economy when half of your citizens (women) aren't allowed an education or a job ...

One reason why I expect Islamism to fail in a face-off is that they handicap themselves this way, discarding half their assets. (As an aside, the Nazis were unable to use the potential of half the German population for ideological reasons, whereas Britain was able to mobilise the whole society to great effect: in 1942 Britain out-stripped Germany in weapons production). These women are the ones who are bringing up the all-important sons - another handicap.

... or they gain access to nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of the world.

If they get one they'll use it, and that'll be the end of the story. There'll be a lot of collateral damage in the Muslim world, I imagine, but the nation-states and public of the world will all be behind dealing with the problem. No more equivocation, no more trying to play both ends like the Saudis or Musharraf (actually, he's stopped already). No worry about the French getting involved, it's not generally realised how much they're gagging to get confrontational with Islamism.

... the Arab world descends to the lowest wrung of the third world.

I assume that's a typo, but if not it's brilliant. Evoking the third world as a damp rag that's wrung out ... going through the wringer ... squeezed dry. I wish I'd said that ("Oh, you will, Oscar, you will").

 

[Commonwealth Cousin]

Why not take American interference in another (any) country's affairs as the starting point?

...you mean, like interfering with Hitler's plan of world domination?

Oh! I wasn't aware that the USA was in the fray on 1st September 1939. At that time many politicians in the USA could not have cared less, what with their isolationalist policy and any assistance provided was done so without the knowledge of the population.

It appears however that the US learned a lot from Hitler as they took over the mantle on his demise.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

I think CapelDodger will be especially pleased to be mentioned in the same breath as me.

The last time it happened, I think it was something about ignore-lists. As I've said before, I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death my right to say so.

Oh, and thank you Rob. You'll end up hating me. Everybody does.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Grammatron:

Al-Quada attacked USA on 9/11, what did they THINK would happen?

They thought they'd get the US caught up in an unwinnable war in the Muslim world. "Come into my parlour", said the spider to the fly. Their mistake was thinking that it would happen in Afghanistan. Not so much - but then, like England v France in Euro2004, the US snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! They invade Iraq. Which is what the current White House clique were focused on while they miss-read the al Qaeda threat, and remained focused on.

from ssibal:

I say we start off by bombing Mecca into nonexistence

I dream of seeing that CruiseCam sequence of the Great Mosque looming up, then ... static. It'll be must-have screen-saver.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Tony:

As tragic as this is, is anyone really surprised? This is par for the course when dealing with the religion of peace.

All religions claim to be the religion of peace. They just demand some war first as the price. And never stipulate how much. Religion is the problem.

from c0rbin:

In the oil-rich countries, aren;t the royal families the ones profiting the most? Or does the average citizen enjoy the profits of the oil fields?

Saudi Arabia has traditionally been a welfare-dependent state for Saudis. The Sauds rob the place blind, but they've been able to pacify the populace at the same time, until recently. One problem is that there are about 5000 royals who all demand a piece; another is that the oil price has been low until just recently. (Global warming has reduced the demand for heating and fuel oil, which has helped offset the growth of the Chinese car culture.) So the gravy train has been disrupted.

The exodus of Westerners might actually leave the Sauds having to do some work, rather than just drawing a salary. That'll be a crisis.

from Skeptic:

The "feminists" who rant against GWB's "disrespect for women's rights" say nothing at all about the way women are treated in the Arab/Muslim world

Rubbish. I've had decades of experience of the feminist movement, and the treatment of women in the Muslim world has been a major issue over all that time. What it never was was an issue for the allies of Saudi Arabia. Why do idiots like you keep spouting these cliched "Oh, they never mention ..." bollocks? Don't you see what a fool you make of yourself? Even fellow zionists tell you to shup up because you're an embarrassment.

 

[TAILGUNNER]

IMO Its a good game plan of the free western countries to do battle and i mean actual battle on 'those others' soil

life for life its balancing out fairly well too with every western life taken being easily outdone on arab/muslim/terrorist lives as wars go i think so far we're ahead

---------------------------------------------

I would quite like to believe that should all western elements pull out of the middle east the enemy would turn upon itself in a massive bloodfest

however then we would have the usual bleating groups begging western forces to return to act as buffer zones between the different forces in the holy name of humanity

it would seem then that as tolerant caring nations we have to take the lead in sorting out the uncivilised elements of 'other' cultures and to achieve this casualtys are unavoidable in both military and civilian terms and unless we here in the west can get over our sensibilities and become more uncivil to those wishing us harm ( i do like the suggestion of leaving them to eat sand for a few centuries) i cant see any other way of dealing with them

expect more beheadings, expect more outrages until we finally get over our soft civilised approach to those who are not civilised hiding in cultures that should by rights be dealing with these people themselves

 

[CapelDodger]

from TillEugenspiegel:

I'm sorry to disagree with you sundog but first You invoke the specter of a crime ridden city then you try to compare a random act of criminals in that place with a specifically targeted individual ( in an obviously dangerous place) by people who hold a particular religious (?) point of view. There is no comparison.

The point isn't the motivation or the scale, it's that you have to appreciate that local cultures differ. When you go somewhere new you should consider whether it's likely to be different, and if so how. You have to do that in London or New York, even Cardiff. The US tends not to do that when engaging with the outside world, which is odd when you consider how diverse it is internally. It's almost as if there's a limited amount of complexity that can be handled by statesmen. Internal US politic is such a complex business in itself that the winners turn to the outside with a weary "Yeah, right, they're like this, they're like that, gotcha, what the hell, talk loud enough and they'll understand".

 

[zultr]

Your first point concerning women/economy would be better viewed in terms of women/politics. How did American politics change when women got the vote?

Well, I think you could make the argument that economic liberation followed political liberation.

Your second point concerning Islam/oil wealth seems accurate but I'm not up to endorsing it. How many problem have poor, un-oil-funded islamic nations caused us. Does Afganistan fall in that category? How about Malaysia?

I didn't say they caused problems, I just said they'd really be in the sh!tter without the oil subsidy.

Your third point about running out of oil is wasted. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Oh, I don't necessarily think I'll be around for it, but some things could develop. Maybe we have 100 years at current use; China's growing appetite might decrease that significantly. In any event, I just suggested it would be interesting to see how it plays out. For the record, I think they'll get nukes before they run out of oil.

I think we've evolved in some areas way to fast for our own good.

 

[zultr]

Here is something I don't understand. According to those who opposed the war in Arab countries (or more generally, US inteverntion anywhere), the situation is roughly this:

As someone who opposed the preemtive invasion of Iraq, I have a few comments.

1). US intervention / actions make the vast majority of Arabs (or whatever group is "interfered" with) angry.

Who cares if anyone is angry. If someone or some country presents a threat to the U.S., they should be neutralized either by containing them or killing them.

2). The acts of terror they perform are a natural reaction of angry people who are "interfered" with.

3). But only a tiny minority of the group are terrorists, since the vast majority of them are moderates and are against terrorism.

Again, who cares?

Therefore, according to this worldview, terrorism (or support for it) is, at the same time, both the natural reaction of the majority of Arabs to "US interference", and a sick extremism that "only a tiny minority" of Arabs commits or supports.

So... which one is it? It can hardly be both!

Whether terrorism is a natural reaction of the majority or extremism by the minority is irrelevant to whether or not a threat exists. Such analysis can be done to potentially avoid problems in the future but has nothing to do with responding to a current threat. Iraq did not pose a threat to US interests. There was no connection to al-Qaeda, no connection to 9/11, and Saddam, as miserable a tyrant as he was, was contained via no-fly zones. There was no threat and invading without cause does nothing to ensure the safety of Americans - in fact, it risks increasing the danger if Iraq falls into civil war or anarchy and becomes Afghanistan part 2. The questions about how the Arab world views the US should be examined in the context of moving forward - I'd guess that not invading for no reason would help reduce angst by Arabs, and also reduce terrorism. However, regardless of the cause, the US should respond to actual threats swifty and severely.

 

[zultr]

duplicate post

 

[Mycroft]

The last time it happened, I think it was something about ignore-lists. As I've said before, I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death my right to say so.

Oh, and thank you Rob. You'll end up hating me. Everybody does.

I don't know that everyone hates you. You're growing on me.

 

[CapelDodger]

from TAILGUNNER:

it would seem then that as tolerant caring nations we have to take the lead in sorting out the uncivilised elements of 'other' cultures ...

Not in the Congo, apparently, nor Burma. Chechnya's right out. Zimbabwe? Forget it. Iraq - yes. Because it was the birthplace of civilisation, perhaps?

however then we would have the usual bleating groups begging western forces to return to act as buffer zones between the different forces in the holy name of humanity

The "bleating groups" could be ignored as they are now. Their influence on the White House and Blair is nil.

expect more beheadings, expect more outrages until we finally get over our soft civilised approach to those who are not civilised hiding in cultures that should by rights be dealing with these people themselves

So let's leave them to deal with these people themselves. Western involvement only complicates matters. The Sauds are condemned as agents of the US; Musharraf ditto; the Iraqi government will be condemned as the same. If the West is not involved the internal conflicts will be clearly stated as problems within Islam, and that's a requirement for solving said problems.

 

[crackmonkey]

An aside; I disagree with much of what you have to say, CD, but you say it eloquently. You're always thought-provoking and interesting.

Getting back to the topic at hand -
Leaving these problems as internal matters to be sorted out by the Islamic world is to abandon the search for a solution forever. The Islamic world (at least the African and Middle-Eastern branch) is as dysfunctional as it gets. Is there any institutional problem that HAS been resolved? They still have slavery, for God's (Allah's?) sake...

 

[Rob Lister]

They still have slavery, for God's (Allah's?) sake...

That's about the tenth time I've read that in as many days. Do you have any evidence for that claim? I'm not calling you out, I would just like to know the exact context of slavery claimed.

 

[crackmonkey]

There has been a thriving slave trade in the Sudan, I believe. Indentured servitude is common throughout the Middle East.

http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42015,00.html

 

[Rob Lister]

There has been a thriving slave trade in the Sudan, I believe. Indentured servitude is common throughout the Middle East.

http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42015,00.html

Thank you for the reference. May I quibble/question it a bit? Strictly for clarification.

“In order not to die of hunger they work for free in the homes of merchants or in palm groves. They wash pans, do gardening and yard work, gather dates and make bricks. All in exchange for a bowl of millet, noodles, coffee and some cigarettes. Their desire was to reach Italy, but became slaves instead. It is only after months of hard work that the owner lets them go, paying them finally a ticket to Libya: 25,000 African francs or 38.50 euro.

Is this really slavery? It implies such with the emphasized text, but here again I need to know the context. Stated slightly differently, very slightly, one might consider my employer a slave owner as well.

 

[crackmonkey]

I'm not sure of the exact situation of the servitude described in your link, but the slave trade in the Sudan is very much 'slavery' as we know it. Missionaries from Western countries have been buying freedom for slaves from the Sudanese for years. There are charities that are established to do just that... these are slaves, owned people, pure and simple.