is the War on Terror a War on Islam?

[Mapraputa Is]

I believe the subject of Political Correctness and the Liberal Anti-Judeo-Christian Movement thread is to discuss liberal assaults on freedom of speech in general and Gen. William G. Boykin's comments in particular. However, during the discussion an interesting question was raised: is the war on terror a religious war?
As an experiment, I decided to start a separate thread to see if the conversation will benefit from forking.
One of the links given states:
It's a religious war
The war on terrorism has pitted Christian values with fundamentalist Islam. Ben Kraudel cuts through the lies and declares the war a crusade.
"He [Boykin - Map.] spoke of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a holy war."
"We should be looking at what has just happened and actually addressing an issue. We are fighting a war, for the first time, which is almost entirely in a religious context. It is very much a war of religion."
Paul McKenna: "I dont doubt that USA is a judeo-christian country, I dont have a problem with that. I believe this is a religious war."
A question to Paul McKenna: what exactly do you mean by "this is a religious war"? Who is the enemy and how the victory will look like?

[Jason Menard]

Whether or not we choose to believe (or admit) this is a religious/cultural war, or whether we accept this from our standpoint, it is clear that the terrorists believe it is a religious/cultural war. We will never say as much, and may be afraid to admit it to ourselves, out of political correctness, but also because to do so would seem to be in violation of our societal values. But our societal values and political correctness certainly has little effect on how the terrorists choose to view things.
Btw, this topic would have been acceptable in the other thread, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to hilite this particular point either.
[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

it is clear that the terrorists believe it is a religious/cultural war. We will never say as much, and may be afraid to admit it to ourselves, out of political correctness, but also because to do so would seem to be in violation of our societal values.
To admit that it is a religious/cultural war from their side or from our side? "... may be afraid to admit it to ourselves" - who are "we" in this sentence? Are you personally afraid to admit well... "it"? (I am just not yet very clear on what "it" is)

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
it is clear that the terrorists believe it is a religious/cultural war. We will never say as much, and may be afraid to admit it to ourselves, out of political correctness, but also because to do so would seem to be in violation of our societal values.
To admit that it is a religious/cultural war from their side or from our side? "... may be afraid to admit it to ourselves" - who are "we" in this sentence? Are you personally afraid to admit well... "it"? (I am just not yet very clear on what "it" is)

We: the collective we. Western society in general, American society in particular.
It: In the sentence beginning "to admit that it" - the war between ourselves, the terrorists and those who support/facilitate the terrorists. In the sentence containing "afraid to admit it to ourselves" - that the war with the terrorists is a cultural/religious war.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

American women are a particulary important group of voters. Any nation that is of stategic or economic interest and represses its women is multiplying its risk. Is it human rights, religous or hiding an agenda?

[Dan Chisholm]

Map, I hope that you won't mind that I moved my final post from the other thread over to here.

Who was that guy that once said something like, "My Kingdom is not of this world"? Doesn't that statement suggest the speaker's support for the separation of church and state? If that person were considered to be an authoritative representative of a particular religion, then it would seem that any nation founded on the ideals of that religion would respect the separation of church and state.
Didn't that same guy also say something like, "If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." It sounds to me that the speaker was making a clear statement that wars on his behalf are not necessary. Wouldn't any suggestion of fighting such a war violate the principles of the religion?
Isn't it possible that the current conflict is really nothing more than what the president has stated? Isn't it possible that it really is a war against terrorism?

[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[Anonymous]

is the War on Terror a War on Islam?

It would be giving Bush the benefit of the doubt to call his "war on terror" a war on Islam; actually, it's too arbitrary and ill-conceived for that.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <allabout>:
is the War on Terror a War on Islam?

It would be giving Bush the benefit of the doubt to call his "war on terror" a war on Islam; actually, it's too arbitrary and ill-conceived for that.

Inciteful. :roll:

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Whether or not we choose to believe (or admit) this is a religious/cultural war, or whether we accept this from our standpoint, it is clear that the terrorists believe it is a religious/cultural war. We will never say as much, and may be afraid to admit it to ourselves, out of political correctness, but also because to do so would seem to be in violation of our societal values. But our societal values and political correctness certainly has little effect on how the terrorists choose to view things.

[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

From the viewpoint of the islamic extremists (not an insignificant minority), it is a holy war. But the US is not out to exterminate/repress Islam (exterminate/suppress 1.5 billion people?) or spread Christianity (remember the US is controlled by Jews as per Malaysian PM), rather it is simply a case of aggresive self-defense, or as my political opponents will say, its all about the oil... (sigh). In either case, in the final analysis, its not a holy war despite misperceptions, willful or otherwise, by the islamic extremists. The political correctness come into play when people refuse to acknowledge the breadth and depth of the extreme, irrational hatred of many muslims against the US. I've seen many people try to ludicrously claim Christian fundamentalists are somehow equivalent to Islamic extremists. This would be laughable if the PC people didn't actually believe it. This foundational doctrine of moral equality amongst all cultures, ethics, peoples, religions, etc, is one of the unquestioned bedrocks of PCness.

[Mapraputa Is]

To Jason: Ok, so you are saying that "Western society in general and American society in particular is afraid to admit that that the war with the terrorists is a cultural/religious war".
Now what "religious war" means? How is it different from other wars? I mean, it is clear (more or less) what "religious" war means for terrorists, but what it means for us?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
To Jason: Ok, so you are saying that "Western society in general and American society in particular is afraid to admit that that the war with the terrorists is a cultural/religious war".
Now what "religious war" means? How is it different from other wars? I mean, it is clear (more or less) what "religious" war means for terrorists, but what it means for us?

What I was trying to imply is that whether or not we choose to view the war as one of religion, that doesn't mean that it isn't from the enemies point of view, which is enough. However our political correctness, a grave handicap in this war and a clear advantage to the enemy, prevents us from fighting the war to win in a decisive manner. Heavens forbid we offend anybody.
The President is correct when he states that Islam as a collective whole is not really what we are fighting. But why not come out and something along the lines that while Islam as a whole is not our enemy, extreme Wahhabism certainly seems to be. Too bad if it offends people, it's the truth. In actuality, the Muslim nations should be dealing with extreme Wahhabism themselves, but they are unwilling to. Does that mean tacit approval and wide support for their beliefs and goals? You tell me.
So what does a "religious war" mean in our terms? I think it should mean that we drop the politically correct facade and openly admit that the followers of a particular brand (extreme Wahhabism) of a major religion actively seek our demise. If Wahhabis don't seek reform of these extreme elements, and Muslims don't speak up en masse against it and instead choose to look the other way, then what are our options? The roots of Islamic terrorism aren't oppression or Western foreign policy, rather the religious intolerance taught by extreme Wahhabism.
[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

Iraq is a secular country, and was especially so under Saddam Hussain.
Therefore anyone stating the war on terror (one part of which was the destruction of the Iraqi regime) is a religious conflict has some explaining to do right there.
Of course the Baath regime USED outside religious to further their goals, and the removal of that regime was a quick way to hurt those groups, but a strictly religious conflict would have bypassed the Baath regime and struck directly at those outside groups (in fact, the Baath regime quite harshly oppressed fundamentalist Muslims at home (while supporting them abroad), knowing full well what they can do when left to fester).
While there are certainly religious elements in the conflict, those are mainly answers against religious elements in the other camp.
Remember who it is started this war and what their goals are (a world spanning Islamic fundamentalist state).

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
A question to Paul McKenna: what exactly do you mean by "this is a religious war"? Who is the enemy and how the victory will look like?

The war on terror is by definition a war on religion. Take a hard look at the cause of terror and you will find religion. Every act of terror carried out on the United States (barring Tim McVeigh) has been carried out by radical Islamists in the name of their religion. So, Map, even if we (meaning the West in general) were to be polite / PC enough to not call this a war on religion it has already been deemed so by the opposition.
Who will win? Hard to say. I would "Like" the West to win, but can I be sure of that? No! Why not? A number of factors play a role.
1. The west in general is at present divided over this entire issue. While US and few European countries agree with this war many big players are abstaining their vote. E.g. Germany, France, Britain (Britain's politicians may be agreeing with this war, but their people in general are against it)
2. Population - Islam and Christianity have almost equal number of followers and the former is growing even faster due to the very high birth rates in that community. The west on the other hand is heading towards extinction
3. Penetration - Islam wins hands down. They have penetrated the west in great numbers. Look at the muslim population in any of the western countries and this will be evident. France - Muslims are biggest minority. US - 2 millions muslims. UK, Germany - Again a leading minority faction
4. Dedication - Sad to say that Islamists are more dedicated than their western counterparts. The westerners are more humane and considerate in comparison. Contrast this with the "homicide" bombers, I cant picture an American solider blowing himself up in the middle of an Iraqi market because he believed brining death to innocents will cause the terrorists to cease their activity.
5. Weaponry - West wins! But the west will need to shed any sympathy and be ruthless about how it uses the weapons.
6. Hidden Factor - The west probably has an edge in the fact that people everywhere would like to be free. And that is the biggest possible advantage the west has over the oppressive and hardline factions of Islam.

[Ashik Uzzaman]

This is a war against muslims, no doubt...

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Ashik uzzaman:
This is a war against muslims, no doubt...

Please explain why you believe this.
Does US seek to destroy islam? If so, why did the US chose this particular time in history, rather than a more advantageous time such as when US oil property was stolen via nationalization in the 1950s by Saudis, etc?

[Vinod John]

IMHO, this war is by no means a war modern day "crusader"and US will be one of the last country to think about starting or participate in it, considering the diversity here.
This war is by no means a 100% war on terror, if that is the case why is Iraq and not Saudi, or Pakistan or Iran. Though it can be dubbed as a war on terror, one of the real reason is US wants an reliable, alternate source of supply of oil, which by the way the only important commodity US had to export (atleast for the time being). A stable allay in Iraq reduce the US dependency Saudi, which is well know to be involved in most terroist activity around the world, and US could undermine or sideline Saudi when taking important decisions regarding middle east. War for nation's security, Oil and terror may be right or wrong based on an individuals interpretation and it is hard to come to a conclusion.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Take a hard look at the cause of terror and you will find religion

So you blame Islam for 9/11, why ?
Because majority of them hate US and the West or because the terroist used Islam to justify their act.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

6. Hidden Factor - The west probably has an edge in the fact that people everywhere would like to be free. And that is the biggest possible advantage the west has over the oppressive and hardline factions of Islam.

You may think it as oppression but most people in that country may consider that it is the best they have for the time being. Most peoples sentiments are build by their language, religion and custom. How foreigner like you can come any kind of conclusion ?
Paul, you observation are bit naive and one sided.
[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: Vinod John ]

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Vinod John:
This war is by no means a 100% war on terror, if that is the case why is Iraq and not Saudi, or Pakistan or Iran.

So, in your opinion this is a war for oil/money/power? And your reasoning behind this? As Herb asked in an earlier post.. why did the US choose this occasion? And could you please provide me some evidence of the fact that US will be taking Iraq's oil for free because of its role in liberating Iraq. Of all that I have heard, Iraqis will be responsible for selling their oil and thereby funding their own programmes (the Americans will only be helping them extract it). Maybe you have some better knowledge.

You may think it as oppression but most people in that country may consider that it is the best they have for the time being. Most peoples sentiments are build by their language, religion and custom. How foreigner like you can come any kind of conclusion ?

Ok First up! You perhaps dont know me well enough or you have been around on the ranch long enough. I am from India, so I have a pretty good knowledge of what Islam is, what its basic tenets are and the problems of terrorism.
Now coming to your point, in your opinion people in Afghanistan were happy under Taliban??? Oh! but didnt I see men and children jumping and dancing in joy when the American tanks rolled into Kabul. Perhaps they were American children made to dance in front of the cameras.. Oh! the student protests in Iran were also staged I suppose. My my.. how wrong the west is!
:roll:

Paul, you observation are bit naive and one sided.

I rest my case!

[Rufus BugleWeed]

As Herb asked in an earlier post.. why did the US choose this occasion?

1. Iraq greatly weakened by ten years of sanctions.
2. US can hide behind terrorism flag.
3. US can justify on case of non-compliance with UN sanctions.
4. World is smaller than in 1955.
5. In 50's US had plenty of cheap oil.
6. GWB sees political advantage in toppling Saddam.
7. Soviet power no longer a threat.
[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]

[Paul McKenna]

Many of your points dont hold any water..

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
1. Iraq greatly weakened by ten years of sanctions.

Why were the sanctions there in the first place? So that means Iraq did something wrong!

2. US can hide behind terrorism flag.

GWB has gone on record to state that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Its that stupid VP who keeps giving this kind of information (apologies to all fans of Cheney, but I have little or no respect for that man)

3. US can justify on case of non-compliance with UN sanctions.

So Iraq truly was non-compliant with UN sanction, right??? What more to argue about?

4. World is smaller than in 1955.

duh!! great heavens! someday perhaps I'll be able to fit greenland in my pocket!

5. In 50's US had plenty of cheap oil.

So why didnt they go behind these countries during the oil crisis in mid 70s early 80s

6. GWB sees political advantage in toppling Saddam.

So...

7. Soviet power no longer a threat.

To compensate we have France / Germany / Entire middle-east

[Vinod John]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

in your opinion this is a war for oil/money/power

Just wondering did I mention anything about money/power in my post.

could you please provide me some evidence of the fact that US will be taking Iraq's oil for free because of its role in liberating Iraq

"alternate source of supply of oil" dosen't mean free oil. Try not to assume things.

You perhaps dont know me well enough or you have been around on the ranch long enough

Yes, I relatively new. Are you some one I should be knowing to participate in the discussion here ?

"I am from India"

Are you one of those Indians who still feel India would have been better off if the British had extended their stay ?

"so I have a pretty good knowledge of what Islam is, what its basic tenets are and the problems of terrorism"

Why do you associate terrorism with Islam ? Do you think problems in Kashmir is because of Islam and Terroism punjab was due to Sikhism and Rajiv gandhi was killed because of "Dravidianism" ?, If so you are try to find an excuse, to you inability accept the reality or your ignorance.

"Now coming to your point, in your opinion people in Afghanistan were happy under Taliban??? Oh! but didnt I see men and children jumping and dancing in joy when the American tanks rolled into Kabul. Perhaps they were American children made to dance in front of the cameras.. Oh! the student protests in Iran were also staged I suppose"

Where they in majority ? or why did it not give US enough reason to invade Iran ? Iran is declared islamic state and Iraq has always been liberal. Afganistan was invaded because they were directly supporting terroist (and weren't ready to give up) and not because they were oppresive or Islamic.

"My my.. how wrong the west is"

Why don't read west's colonial past and tell me the answer ?.
[ October 24, 2003: Message edited by: Vinod John ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ashik uzzaman:
This is a war against muslims, no doubt...

If you mean that it is Muslims that are killing Americans that the US is killing Muslims in response then you are correct. But then you could equally say that this is a war against men as the US is killing men. There are some Islamic nations that are actually friendly to the US. In fact, we couldn't have invaded Iraq without the help of some Islamic nations.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: However our political correctness, a grave handicap in this war and a clear advantage to the enemy, prevents us from fighting the war to win in a decisive manner. Heavens forbid we offend anybody.
Well, we just invaded and occupied a country on what turned to be false intelligence data -- in spite of broad international protests. If this is not "fighting the war to win in a decisive manner" then what is your idea about "fighting in a decisive manner"? Before that we bombed another country and helped to overturn its government... Hardly "Heavens forbid we offend anybody" can be applied here. If you mean countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, then there are political games at work, apparently the administration hopes to win something else by avoiding open confrontation.
PM: Penetration - Islam wins hands down. They have penetrated the west in great numbers. Look at the muslim population in any of the western countries and this will be evident. France - Muslims are biggest minority. US - 2 millions muslims. UK, Germany - Again a leading minority faction
From here I am making a conclusion that you see the whole thing along "clash of civilizations" lines. Basically, "we against them".

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Well, we just invaded and occupied a country on what turned to be false intelligence data -- in spite of broad international protests.

(just chuckling and shaking my head)
Map's revisionist history at work again...
WMD may or may not be found, but that's not the primary reason we invaded the country. We invaded the country because we were tired of a brutal regime that was killing its own people. The UN agreed. And until the French and the Germans got cold feet (for purely monetary reasons), we had broad international agreement, not protest.
But hey, your version of history is fine, as long as you don't care about things like, oh, accuracy.
Joe

[Joe King]

The main reason that there is so much dispute about this war is that the reasons for going ahead with it are not totally clear, or rather that there is a lot of inconsistency surrounding the arguements for and against the war.
* Breaking resolutions. Well, ok this is a good reason to do something, but Iraq has been breaking resolutions for ages. So has Israel for that matter....
* Human rights. This is probably the main reason (and in my mind 90% justifies the war alone), but its not consistant. China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Israel (again), etc etc - there are many countries with human rights records just as bad as Iraqs.
* The whole religious thing. Some people think that the whole war is a religious war, but this is again inconsistant - the US and UK went into muslim albania to help them.
* WMD. Probably the most contentious issue with the weopans not found. Although it seems like this was not the main argument in the US, in the UK this was the main reason that parliament voted for war, and its all getting a bit heated now that intelligence is being questioned. the big problem with this argument is that other similar countries have or are developing WMD. N Korea exports missles around the world. China surely has them
Undoubtibly one of the big stumbling blocks with understanding between the middle-east and the west about the war is Israel. On one side of the argument is it is a state plagued by terrorists, surrounded by opposition states and must do everything it can to protect itself. On the other side of the argument is that it is a country that ignores the UN (only because it is able to with US support), bombs people within its own borders and builds walls through terretory that it shouldnt even be in. It doesnt matter how much the west tries to solve problems in the middle-east, until it manages to bring the two sides of this argument together, there will always to questions over boths side's policies.

[Richard Hawkes]

I thought it was because Iraq had a secret icecream factory that could make really tasty, *cheap*, icecream
N. Korea has one too but its icecream tastes a bit funny so no one cares.

[Richard Hawkes]

It is a holy war because its full of holes

[frank davis]

Interesting paper Map, sums up a lot of things and gvies a plausible big picture macro view of whats happening. Interesting in view of this morning's news http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/23/muslim.indicted/index.html, the recent news about the 3 US military muslims under charges for actions in Guantanamo, and the Big Lie speech this week by Malaysia's Prime Minister that received a standing ovation by every Muslim nation including our so called "allies".
On the subject of "allies", note the high activity of terrorist recruitment from our "allies" Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
On the subject of "muslim moderates", in view of the ovation received by Malaysia's PM, I have grave doubts as to what this really means. The man indicated in this morning's news was a president of the American Muslim Foundation and founder of the American Muslim Council, both of which were widely lauded as moderate muslim organizations. Additionally, he founded a Muslim council that reccomended msulim chaplins to US military (remember the Guantanamo muslim under arrest now).
Although the war on terror was not a religious war, we may could find ourselves forced into one if the "muslim moderates" perceive it as such (they do) and then begin to act on that perception (so far limited action).
[ October 24, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

After reading your article Map, I'm abandonning my position of religious war. The Iraq action is motivated on the concept of regime-change. Bush-Blair sold it under another agenda. Other agendas will be promoted while the west is at it.
Bush would like to create a modern western democracy. But it looks like economics and the French will prevent that. Does anyone think that if the US pulls out tomorrow any outcome but the rise of a new war lord to power will occur?

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Does anyone think that if the US pulls out tomorrow any outcome but the rise of a new war lord to power will occur?

It would more likely be multiple warlords and decades of civil war.

[Vinod John]

Richard, I have other thoughts
There is common joke about Sikh "revolution" in India, Years after fighting against Indian army, in village in Punjab, village heads got together and were discussing future plan of action ... one old man stood up and said "I have a better idea that would make us rich and developed community", while the rest listened he continued "We can attack US, if we by chance win the war we can occupy 'US' and will become rich or if we loose they will occupy us and still we will be rich".
I suspect Iraqi some how heard this story but Bush didn't .

[Mapraputa Is]

Herb: Interesting paper Map
I believe I read somewhere that it was Huntington who coined the term "Clash of Civilizations". He wrote a book with the same name. I must admit I didn't read the whole paper myself Need to read it...
--------------------
"It is a holy war because its full of holes" -- Richard Hawkes

[Mapraputa Is]

Ha! I just figured that the famous quote on Salam's blog is from "Clash of Civilizations" book:
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington
--------------------
"It is a holy war because its full of holes" -- Richard Hawkes

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington

While it would be a pc-sin to ever suggest that the ideas or values of one group might be superior to that of another group, the above quote could certainly be argued.
Ref your sig Map... pretty weak.

[Mapraputa Is]

Ref your sig Map... pretty weak.
I liked it because it's cute, deep and ambiguous.
--------------------
"It is a holy war because its full of holes" -- Richard Hawkes

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Vinod John:
Yes, I relatively new. Are you some one I should be knowing to participate in the discussion here ?

I introduced myself briefly to help you prevent making assumptions about my knowledge. As you had done in one of your earlier posts.

How foreigner like you can come any kind of conclusion

Are you one of those Indians who still feel India would have been better off if the British had extended their stay ?

What bearing does this have on this discussion??

Why do you associate terrorism with Islam

Again, with respect to this discussion, namely "War on Terror" which is led by United States the main perpetrators of terrorism are Islamists. Not sikhs or dravidians. So keeping this in mind, I stated radical / hardline factions of Islam are to blame. Hopefully this set things straight!
On a side note, I read an interesting Wall Street Journal article today that spoke immensely about the rise of Islam in the Black population of America. I was wrong in my earlier post, there are seven million muslims in America. And many of them refuse to believe Osama Bin Laden was the cause behind 9/11.

Where they in majority ? or why did it not give US enough reason to invade Iran ? Iran is declared islamic state and Iraq has always been liberal. Afganistan was invaded because they were directly supporting terroist (and weren't ready to give up) and not because they were oppresive or Islamic.

Neither you nor I can make the judgement on whether the people celebrating were in the majority because none of us were physically there. But if we were to take news sources from around the world, most of them spoke in unison regarding how Afghanistan was celebrating its liberation. I also am further inclined to believe that Afghanis were indeed happy with American presence because for almost a year and half now Hamid Karzai has successfully led a goverment without much problems from the warlords
Now coming around to Iran, be patient. I'm sure they are somewhere on the list unless they decide to reform and allow democracy to flourish. Like how the Saudis have decided to hold elections for the first time. Think the saudis just decided to do an about turn?? Think again! Its the presence of US troops just across the border that led to this. Oh! and did anyone forget about the fact that Iran declared it would be suspending its nuclear programmes??? So, next time .. a little homework would be helpful

Why don't read west's colonial past and tell me the answer ?.

:roll: How conveniently you forget the barbaric past of India under muslim rulers. When women were raped and those who didnt convert were sentenced to die or live in poverty. Compared to this, the British were a million times better. I'd any day live in Colonial India rather than Islamic India. Atleast in colonial India I had an eyewink of a chance to come up in life.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: While it would be a pc-sin to ever suggest that the ideas or values of one group might be superior to that of another group, the above quote could certainly be argued.
Ref your sig Map... pretty weak.
I am not sure if I confused everybody again.
I mentioned the quote from Huntington's book because according to my best knowledge his theory is now in an arsenal of "pro-war" and "anti-Islamic" side (these can be very inaccurate labels, I just do not have better now). So I found it ironical that he said what he said and that his words where quoted by an Iraqi guy.
I was browsing through this book in Powells, looks interesting. The author developed a mental framework to deal with "objectivity" problem. He said that what we usually call "objectivity" can be achieved only when an arguer isn't personally interested in the result, which can happen in mathematics, for example :roll: Most of dialogues, however, involve (naturally) people who *are* personally interested in outcome. So he proposed three possible degrees of "objectivity". I can be wrong with labels, because I do not remember them and they aren't that important anyway.
1) neutrality. This is a canonical case of objectivity when an arguer doesn't have any personal gain to pursuit, when he is basically a disinterested outsider.
2) open-mindness. When an arguer is willing/capable to change his opinion when presented with good arguments/counter-arguments.
3) fair-mindness. Ability to suspend judgment for a while and empathize with an opposite opinion, to give it a fair chance to be understood.
Well, something like that.
I guess I am somewhere between case 2 and case 3 in this "war on terror" thing. A lot of crap has been written on both sides, and I am just trying to find something meaningful to read, on either side. That's why I liked "It is a holy war because it is full of holes" joke. It can be applied to both sides, more so to the extremist Islam, of course. That you take issues with it only proves that it can be applied to our side also. As for it being "weak", heck, it isn't even an argument, just a joke, why should it be "strong". I could say more about Holy Wars but this post is already terrible long.
[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

In actuality, the Muslim nations should be dealing with extreme Wahhabism themselves, but they are unwilling to. Does that mean tacit approval and wide support for their beliefs and goals? You tell me.
[...]
I think it should mean that we drop the politically correct facade and openly admit that the followers of a particular brand (extreme Wahhabism) of a major religion actively seek our demise. If Wahhabis don't seek reform of these extreme elements, and Muslims don't speak up en masse against it and instead choose to look the other way, then what are our options? The roots of Islamic terrorism aren't oppression or Western foreign policy, rather the religious intolerance taught by extreme Wahhabism.

For lots of governments of islamic countries extreme wahabism is a thread. And they are actually fighting against it for years: Best examples are Moroco, Turkey and Algeria. Things are'nt that easy.
Why is wahhabi extremism so atractive for inhabitants of muslim world?
- Wahhabists have money they can spend among their followers. They get the money from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been a long standing ally of the west.
- nearly all muslim countries never developed true democratic societies. Lots of people there are excluded from any oportunities to climb up the social ladder out of their own effort. Economies are heavily regulated.
- traditional anti-islamist elites are often very corrupt (Turkey, Marroco)
I am by no means going to defend crashing planes against buildings. There have to be a strong and unanimous reaction against that from the west.
But during our way towards more or less democratic and prosperous societies there have been mayor errors, too. Savonarola in middle age, Jacobinists in french revolution, a form of very strict slavery not comparable to the endemic in Africa, child labour, Pinochet, etc.
Things aren't black and white. They evolve with times. For example the current government of Turkey has quite strong links to islam. But its that government who has its voter base in the anatolic "underdeveloped" which started a lot of promising reforms in terms of human rights, peace with kurds and war against corruption.
To call this a religious war, would mean capitulation against line of argumentation of OBL. Religions are open to interpretation. They change with the time. This is a war against madness.

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Most of dialogues, however, involve (naturally) people who *are* personally interested in outcome. So he proposed three possible degrees of "objectivity". I can be wrong with labels, because I do not remember them and they aren't that important anyway.
1) neutrality. This is a canonical case of objectivity when an arguer doesn't have any personal gain to pursuit, when he is basically a disinterested outsider.
2) open-mindness. When an arguer is willing/capable to change his opinion when presented with good arguments/counter-arguments.
3) fair-mindness. Ability to suspend judgment for a while and empathize with an opposite opinion, to give it a fair chance to be understood.
Well, something like that.
I guess I am somewhere between case 2 and case 3 in this "war on terror" thing. A lot of crap has been written on both sides,

You could add one more point wrt the war.
Europeans tend to waffle whereas Americans see that as a weakness.
A typical European speech would be elaborate and profuse with embellishments. To a European "while clarity is rude, obfuscation is a virtue" while to the Americans obfuscation is rude. An American speech would constitute of a couple of jokes and then make one serious point. "We will support you even if France doesn't".
You can blame it on the EU , where under overt consensus there is a culture of covert disagreement. While we both speak English,we don't really speak the same language any more.
I can relate to that view on a personal level. Once when in the States at a meeting , I brought all sorts of "latches" on my background wrt to the meeting, but with no definite direction as to what the outcome should be.
The response was "You are English. Well,lets get on with it and move in this direction."
That was a bit off-putting.
Next time, I'd probably prepare on several outcomes and try and act on all but not at the same time. But I feel we'd never come back to the original point.
Enough waffling.
I think the word I am looking for is:
4) negotiation
regards
[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Mapraputa Is]

On the subject of broad international support of US invasion, here is a good article:
"After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States put together a historic, worldwide coalition to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda. China, India, Japan, Pakistan, and Russia all supported the enterprise, as did Europe. The subsequent war may have scattered al Qaeda rather than destroyed it -- key operatives remain at large today -- but the mission was widely seen as a success.
Eighteen months later, the Bush administration went to war again, this time to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On this occasion, however, most of the same countries that had backed the United States in Afghanistan bluntly opposed the campaign -- as, indeed, did most of the world. Washington's failure to muster international support to depose a despised dictator was a stunning diplomatic defeat -- a failure that has not only made it harder to attract foreign troop contributions to help stabilize post-Saddam Iraq, but will more generally damage U.S. foreign policy for years to come."
James P. Rubin. "Stumbling Into War"
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html

[Donald R. Cossitt]

is the war on terror a religious war?

Most definitely!! The religion of terror against those who prefer peace religiously. However, and unfortunately, in this fallen world, peace can only be found on the other side of war.