Any thoughts on whether we could have another Iraq/middle east discussion?

[bobkoure]

AFAIR things got a bit out of hand last time.
I've been reading books (both left wing and right wing and some Islamic history and philosophy), have been trying to synthesize, and would like to discuss it - but don't want to re-kindle any leftover animosity from last time.
Maybe if we left out the "How the US came to invade" part?

[TerraMex]

Honestly, i wouldn't bother.
It will turn into a flamewar/insulting'r'us.
... and, imo, the how part plays a role,
don't thinks it's proper to dissociate.

[bobkoure]

But if it doesn't turn into a flame war, then differing opinions are a good thing.

[TerraMex]

In theory, yes.
Problem is, some (happened) will simply state that "because you don't know s***, your opinion doesn't count", or something similar, and discart anything written by that person. Pricks? No, worse, fanatics.
And on the same level, some patriots. And when fanatics and patriots go hands together, things get really bad...
... and parafrasing, "i will not give up humanity for patriotism".

Eh, reminds me of that beef between me and billA and airspirit ... last time this was discussed.

[bigben2k]

Keep it civil, and make it happen. (This would be a good test for everyone here).

So... In this topic, you want to leave the whole US involvement out? What specifically would you like to discuss, so everyone knows the scope of this thread?

[bobkoure]

I don't really want to leave "why/how the US came to invade Iraq" out - it's just that IMHO that that'd be the easiest thing for a flame-fest to start over - and I figure a lot of that's starting to come out in investigations anyway.

I've been more trying to wade through the polemic (on both sides) about why the US is a target, both deservedly and undeservedly so, and why there's at least one strain of Islam (call it Wahibism, Islamic fascism, or jihadism) that seems to be very much involved with terrorism.
Then there's "what's the deal with Saudi Arabia?" - at a minimum they've spread Wahibism all over the planet, spending billions on mosques where that's the Islam being taught.
And - if the general middle east population thinks jihadism is wrong, why aren't they speaking out about it - or maybe they all think it's OK(?)
Of course, the US support for Israel is clearly involved in all this - but this area might be flame bait as well.

Oh - there seems to be a lot more polemic coming from the Right - but that could just be my left-leaning attitudes kicking in

[9mmCensor]

Why bother?

Its the internet, everyone has an opinion, but no one listens (when it comes to politics especially).

There is enough fighting about what numbers are righter, without opening the can of polical worms.
Having said that.....


If it can be contained to the discussion areas fine, but if it spills out into the meat of this forum (the technical stuff)) then its gone too far.

If people feel free to share their thoughts and opinions on politics, I cant see there being a problem. Once things get nasty, we have a problem. But if you can approach a political discussion with a open mind, and _tolerance_ and a level head, hopefully this culmination of many points of view and experiances in life, can lead to enlightenment, rather that insults and nastyness.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by 9mmCensor

Why bother?

Its the internet, everyone has an opinion, but no one listens (when it comes to politics especially).

Actually, the only reason I'd bring something like this up here is for my own edification - not to persuade anyone else. So, yeah, I do want people to disagree with me to listen - at least enough so they can tell me exactly why they think I'm wrong.
And maybe (probably?) I am wrong - and this forum has a lot of folks who don't have a problem with "calling bullshit" - and we come from all spectra of the political landscape.
If we all get into just repeating polemics (both left: "the US is the problem", etc. and right: "They hate us because we're free (or non Islamic)", etc. ) then, yeah, it'll be a total waste of time. And it might be a totally stupid idea to even dream that something like this might be a good idea - which is why I started with having a conversation about having a conversation

[bigben2k]

A bit off to the side... I found out that the word "Jihad" actually means "to do one's best" and has nothing to do with war.

We actually had a guy at work here, who's name is Jihad.

[9mmCensor]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

A bit off to the side... I found out that the word "Jihad" actually means "to do one's best" and has nothing to do with war.

We actually had a guy at work here, who's name is Jihad.

Hmmm. Looks like its a word that has multiple meanings (as many words do).

The second most common meaning, other than the common war against infidels which I think is lame, is "striving in the way of God", and I would say that is the best definition of it, but then I am no linguist.

Of course fundamentalists take something that is a good concept but has an open defination and give it a spin to further their cause, and soon everyone belives that.

[TerraMex]

is it just me, or this is spiraling fast into seinfeld/dilbert cliche?

first the "which is why I started with having a conversation about having a conversation",
and then "I know a guy at the office named Jihad... the temp."

"so, jihad." (everybody looks)
"did you like yesterday's movie?"
"yeah, it was the bomb." (panic, everybody runs, some hit the flood, or the occasional wall.)
(loud) "It was a great movie."
(everybody relaxes, but only a little)
(loud)"yeah, a blast." (more running and screaming, just in case)
(low)"now you're being mean."
(low)"bah, I'm just screwing with them."

hmmm.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by 9mmCensor

fundamentalists take something that is a good concept but has an open definition and give it a spin...

I think that's exactly what's going on.

to further their cause, and soon everyone believes that.

And I suspect that this is what is effectively happening - but, although it's not subtle, there's a part we're missing due to our own "world view". There's no tradition of religious dissent in Islam - if an imam says something is true, it must be true. Only another imam can disagree. Everyone else is to simply believe and obey. The few non-imams who speak out are very, very courageous - and other folks might think they're exactly right, but cannot follow them because "it's not right" - so there's little or no dissent

[Brians256]

Fundamentalism. I'm beginning to think this word has the same problem that liberal had: a smear campaign.

All fundamental means it that base principles are adhered to. In a way, all of us are really fundamentalists. Some are more honest about it, though. The "liberals" are fundmentalists in their religion of equal rights, wealth redistribution for fairness, helping the poor and many other completely laudable goals. If you are stubborn and fight for any principle, you are in the same mold as a "fundamentalist". The difference is only WHICH principles you fight for.

C'mon guys. Be good liberals and see where these "fundamentalists" are coming from. It's not their fault. They are fighting hard, enduring hardship and keeping the faith to better mankind. Just like you.

[bobkoure]

I don't particularly care what you call 'em - by "Islamic fundamentalists" I meant folks who claim to be extracting the truth from what was actually written in their respective holy books - which puts them beyond dissent from "laypeople" (or whatever you'd like to call Islamic believers who are not imams).
I've had almost no contact with Christian fundamentalists, but, from what I've read, it doesn't work that way for them - it's more of a Protestant fundamentalism, in the sense that you read the holy books yourself and figure out what they mean yourself, potentially with guidance (do I have that right?) I'm out of my depth on this one - but have never used "fundamentalist" as a pejorative.
Again, the problem is that, with Islamic fundamentalism (or whatever you'd like to call those threads of Islam claiming authority because they are "returning to the words of the Prophet"), there's no dissent. There's not even any "finding other opposing passages" in the Koran.
Oh, while I'm at it, Wahibism is one of those radically conservative "returning to the words of the Prophet" threads/sects - and it's been/being spread worldwide by the Saudis as they build mosques.
Now, one of the reasons the Saudi royal family (el Saud) adopted Wahibism is that they hold territory that is very holy to Islam - so they must appear to be most conservative to deflect criticism. IMO, they've also been building these mosques to also deflect criticism (and they certainly have the dough to do it.)
And... although it seems like a really trivial thing to us, it's important to Moslems that "infidels" (that'd be most of us here, I guess) are on this holy territory (meaning US troops in Saudi Arabia). Yes, I know, this was, at least originally to protect the Saudis (or at least the house of Saud) from Saddam - but we can leave there now - Saddam's in a jail cell. bin Laden listed this troop presence as one of al Quaeda's "grievances". Was it really a reason? I dunno - but it resonates with Islamic people, and for that reason alone, we should be at least evacuating Saudi Arabia (or only staffing with troops who are Islamic). So long as there's one "infidel", it's an issue. Now, yes, there has been a long history of the US supporting the house of Saud in return for concessions, but we don't need to have troops there to do that

[TerraMex]

They are fighting hard, enduring hardship and keeping the faith to better mankind. Just like you.

Not me. I'm not even a vegetarian.

[TerraMex]

relax bob, you're trying too hard.

you're going at it from a wrong angle, imo.
its about power and influence. Not religion, that's just means to an end.

[Brians256]

OK, on a more serious note...

People are being manipulated, and religion is a very powerful lever. Also, things will never get any better in the middle east until the violent people are dead or imprisoned. Real social change happens generationally, not by short sanctions. Too bad the world has such little fortitude. The world underestimated the time and force it would take to bring people 600 years forward in social evolution.

And while we're doing this, Africa goes up in flames.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by TerraMex

you're going at it from a wrong angle, imo.
its about power and influence. Not religion, that's just means to an end.

Oh, I don't think religion is the only thing, but it's definitely a factor - and more than it would be here - at least the "here" of Europe / America post 1750 or so - which is not that long ago.

Of course, if you mean it's only power and influence, I'd disagree pretty strongly - I don't think it's only anything - but a stew (or confluence, if you prefer that image)

I do find myself wondering if there would be as many potential suicide bombers if there wasn't anything religious going on...

[TerraMex]

Also, things will never get any better in the middle east until the violent people are dead or imprisoned

Ok, and who are those violent people? How do you tell, or for that matter that, find them? And why are they violent? Is it just because someone told them to be?

And lets separate what it's called terrorism, and guerilla warfare. Where is the line drawn, on all this Iraq thing?

Of course, if you mean it's only power and influence

Of course, not only. But the main factors are those, imo. Thats what's on the background noise, not the religious nature one might see on the tube.
People like, i'd venture want, to have a purpose, and to belive, and that's what's provided. Else is cultural and educational.

Besides, if you have followed the Iran situation, it's a dick size talk, they're nowhere near to nukes, but use this as leverage internally as Iran's president internal approval had been dropping the last year, not anymore. All this to seem like the big heros against the opressors of the middle east, and of course, Bush does the same, trying to get away from the bad press of Iraq. Influence. What for? Keeping power.