Western Society & Home-grown Terrorists.

[Britney Spears]

I'm afraid it's not unfounded, nor is it outrageous. I was not implying that all feminist organizers are aiding the disposed regime with direct support. I suggest you go to *any* anti-war demonstration (including anti-Iraq war demonstrations) and talk to the people you meet there. Ask them if they are feminist, and ask them how they feel women should be liberated from oppression in the Middle East. Forget the banners, talk to the individuals. I'll bet you all the money I have (which ain't much Wink), that in any sizable demonstration, you are apt to find at the very... very least one feminist who believes the Taliban should have remained in power.

OK, I'll take your word on this, since I don't have any anti-war protestors around handy to do any polling.

Your links are dated pre-war, and only further prove my point.

How did you come to this conclusion? The fact that many feminist groups opposed the Taliban before the war ( a fact also borne out in your sources) prove that post-war feminist must be aiding and abbeting the Taliban?

It's hard for them to understand how physical applications of force are almost always required to remove tyrants. Thus, the logical inconsistency in their platform of wanting women to be free but not wanting anyone to force the imprisoner away.

This I will more or less agree with, but again this isn't the same thing as you were claiming in your original post.

It seems that we may have been posting past each other to some extent. Your cites and arguments essentially tell me that most western feminist groups have so many other  conflicts(IMO quite legitimate, i.e. the embryotic Northern Alliance goverment was hardly a champion of women's rights either, which further illustrate the complexity of the issue) with the Bush&Co neoCon worldview that the little common ground that they do share (i.e. opposition ot the Taliban) is lost amongst the crossfire. I can agree with that, and I can also agree that radical feminists are idiots just as much as any other kind of radical,  but I still think you were, at best, painting with an overly broad brush witht he first comment on the supposed collusion between feminists and the Taliban.

P.S. Where'd you get that quote in your signature? That's awesome.  Grin

I got the quote from one of those blog sites collecting humourous responses to the bombings.  I can't find the link right now, but it also had some quotes from a WW2 Vet who survived the bombs, something like "Wot, is that all those Ale Cider boys can come up with? I've been bombed by people with more class than that, I tell you".....

 

[couchcommander]

Hey Dare,

I'm a little confused as to exactly what you are trying to convey (my two brain cells don't always work together).

I'm afraid it's not unfounded, nor is it outrageous. I was not implying that all feminist organizers are aiding the disposed regime with direct support. I suggest you go to *any* anti-war demonstration (including anti-Iraq war demonstrations) and talk to the people you meet there. Ask them if they are feminist, and ask them how they feel women should be liberated from oppression in the Middle East. Forget the banners, talk to the individuals. I'll bet you all the money I have (which ain't much ), that in any sizable demonstration, you are apt to find at the very... very least one feminist who believes the Taliban should have remained in power.

I would be willing to bet money that this feminist reasons are along the lines that she opposes the chauvinistic and violent interference in another nations affairs so that men can further their influence and grip on the world, not because they support the Taleban...

My words are an attack at hypocrites who are willing to leave Middle Eastern women in the dust to further their anti-War/US/West agendas. I welcome you to take a poll of your local universities Women Studies or Sociology departments and see how many support our removal of the Taliban.

I don't know much about Women's Studies but I know that as far as the sociology department goes, my experience is that you would indeed find a signifcantly higher proportion of the population against this action than you would find in the general population, but once again I don't think this is for due to any love for the Taleban. Many people I know who do not support armed interdiction in another states affairs do so not because they agree with what the state is doing (in fact for the vast vast majority of these people they think the Taleban and Saddam Hussein are some of the worst human beings that ever lived.... though they will usually put Bush on that list as well), but because they do not support the use of violence or force, period (some even for self-defence).

Your links are dated pre-war, and only further prove my point. The article you claim debunks the article I posted, doesn't address many points and what it uses to support it are specious and dated as well. I recommend you read the comments under it, the author seems to illustrate my point exactly (and also proves she doesn't know what she's talking about). The scarcity of articles on the Taliban from feminists post-war is telling. I would like to see even one celebrating our removal of the Taliban (A real celebratory one.)

I doubt you'd find a paper celebrating the removal of the Taleban. The Abstract from "Interchanges" explains why (I've typed it as it is in an uncopyable format):

    Establishing women's rights became part of the moral justification given for waging 'war on terror' by ensuring regime change in Afghanistan. Yet by December 2002, Human Rights Watch was reporting ongoing violations of women's rights. Western presumptions that women's lives would be transformed simply by removing the Taliban were false. This 'interchange' explains the gap between gender politics and the current political and economic situation. Acknowledging such factors reveals that Wstern intervention will not easily subvert the existing gender order. Rather, any real change will result, not from prescribing Western models, but by enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans.

Wylie, Gillian. 2003. Women's rights and 'righteous war'. Feminist Theory 4,(2): 217-223. Sage Publications, www.sagepublications.com. (those of your with a Campus Computing ID can view the journal online via the Library E -Journal Database... just search for "Feminist Theory", then the article....HA! Revenge upon all of you with DIN access, !!!)

It's hard for them to understand how physical applications of force are almost always required to remove tyrants.

You mean to remove them quickly.

Thus, the logical inconsistency in their platform of wanting women to be free but not wanting anyone to force the imprisoner away. You might not see it, but I see an incredible hypocracy to a feminist wearing a kaffiyah and waving a PLO flag. Or a feminist calling us Nazi's for attacking Afghanistan. As if they were real close to liberating themselves or holding a bloodless revolution. You might not call it support to conduct such actions, that's fine. Perhaps you are thinking in militaristic terms of direct support. I am thinking of moral support and popular support.

You don't need to go to war affect change. Their point is no war is good. They would rather be oppressed than kill tens of thousands of civilians (and yes, they do die under tyrants as well).

Another extract:

    A year ago, when women's rights and peace advocate Hibaaq Osman was giving a speech at the United Nations, she cited only one cause for which the use of military force might be justified: to oust the oppressive Taliban regime from Afghanistan. Now that the bloody effort is under way, however, Osman, who heads the Center for Strategic Initiatives in Washington, feels differently.

"I said it, but I was just making a point," a distraught Osman recalls. "This predicament is a test for feminists. We have seen our worst nightmare -- women being dehumanized and shot in public -- and it makes us more radical. It makes us angry enough to entertain the idea of war. But do I support war?" Osman pauses to consider her own country, Somalia, with its brutal history, before bursting out with an emotional "No. No. No. War is not OK under any circumstances," and then concluding, "The whole thing simply breaks my heart."

The four-week-old military attack on Afghanistan is proving to be an excruciating dilemma for feminists. In heart-wrenching conversations and e-mail exchanges across the city and the globe, feminists find themselves split over how to handle possibly the most misogynistic regime in history. Many are deeply uncomfortable with the specter of a wealthy nation bombing a poor and already ravaged one -- a discomfort that is only deepened by the knowledge that more women than men die as a result of most wars. And as national loyalties are stoked by current events, feminists are further strained to reconcile their patriotism with the desire to reach out to women throughout the globe.

- http://www.newhumanist.com/feminists.html

The Feminist Majority, despite it's name and star power, is not actually the majorty of the feminist movement. People (of either gender), who honestly value the rights of women, don't support what the theocratic tyrannies allow against women.

http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2001/000114.html (succinct and on point)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52639-2001Oct12&notFound=true (the article which is linked in the above)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15242 (avec real sources. not the only university out there with such Professors)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11405 (note what the organizer of this event describes herself as: "anarcha-feminist",.. who happens to be organizing not just a rally, but an entire school tour!)
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/articles/brownshirts-of-our-time.htm (with response and counter response) A good example of what I am discussing.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/menasurvey/ (an interesting site)

Perhaps, you think these are isolated incidents? Or Horowitz constructed fantasies? Either way, introduce yourself to the mob. They'll gladly tell you everything about themselves and what they believe. I know several self described feminists who have gone through the (usual, bland) list of supposed western atrocities. Upon defeating each of these arguments it becomes clear that they are just repeating what they were taught by their Professors, and don't really understand how we are improving the lives of women in Afghanistan. How can you not see the parallels between fighting the "western imperialists" and fighting the "western patriarchy."

P.S. Where'd you get that quote in your signature? That's awesome.   ;D

I don't quite think the Feminist Majority supports islamic regimes. I'd check that over one more time.

In the end I think my point is that to me, and from my very limited understanding on the topic, I have not encountered a feminist yet who supported the Taleban or other islamic fundamentalists regimes. Their opposition to the invasion in afghanistan and their participation in anti-war demonstrations was based on a fundamental objection to violence, especially large scale war. Further, they usually believe that the removal of the Taleban did not actually help the situation enough to justify the lives lost.

(for the record I am 100% behind the Campaign in afganistan or any other war in which the removal of a dictatorial, abusive tyrant is the goal... as long as it is done in such a way as to minimize civilian looses.... nor am I a feminist, or a woman for that matter... I just have been exposed to them...*shudderz*... bah, feminists...gives me the shivers...)

 

[Dare]

OK, I'll take your word on this, since I don't have any anti-war protestors around handy to do any polling.

If you can keep a straight face, give it a go.

How did you come to this conclusion? The fact that many feminist groups opposed the Taliban before the war ( a fact also borne out in your sources) prove that post-war feminist must be aiding and abbeting the Taliban?

It's the (semi)mysterious silence after the war and in the run-up to the war as a generalized feminist group policy (as a part of the larger socialist construct) for many groups. It's difficult for me to describe the patterns I see emerging sometimes. This is one of those times. I have been to events where I have seen this merging take place (albiet the neo-Nazi element has yet to make a serious overt appearance at anti-war events (to my knowledge (although I suppose that Dresden protest could be considered one)). They are making inroads in concerts and festivals. Neo-Nazi music is gaining footholds in areas. There is a definite, and serious alliance forming. Right now it's street theatre but it's all on a rise, in all sectors of society.

Protestwarrior has some pretty decent protest videos if you want to take a look. There are other places you can download videos of them, but the best is always first hand.

This I will more or less agree with, but again this isn't the same thing as you were claiming in your original post.

It was part of what I was and am claiming.

It seems that we may have been posting past each other to some extent. Your cites and arguments essentially tell me that most western feminist groups have so many other  conflicts(IMO quite legitimate, i.e. the embryotic Northern Alliance goverment was hardly a champion of women's rights either, which further illustrate the complexity of the issue) with the Bush&Co neoCon worldview that the little common ground that they do share (i.e. opposition ot the Taliban) is lost amongst the crossfire. I can agree with that, and I can also agree that radical feminists are idiots just as much as any other kind of radical,  but I still think you were, at best, painting with an overly broad brush witht he first comment on the supposed collusion between feminists and the Taliban.

Well, N.O.W. is quite a large organization. The Feminist Majority is the only group that I could find that was in favour of removing the Taliban with force once we chose to make it happen and they're a relatively new group. Yes, there is a legitimate concern with the Northern Alliance, yet there is trumpetting of all sorts of victories and defeats on the mainstream feminist political landscape. Most are relatively mute on Afghanistan. There's two seperate issues that I was referring to here. The big Hush or lack of support for the Talibans removal, and afterwards several factions (the far left contigent) taking it even further and supporting the maligning dictators that ruled previous (over *cough* U.S. Imperialism). This is why I described it as I did. I did not say all feminists were supporting the Taliban, which is why I said that most feminists have come on side (as opposed to following the hypocracy of the herd.) Those that remain are the types you can see delivering firey anti-Imperialism, clap-trap filled speeches, completely ignoring the plight of most women and focusing on divisive issues like abortion. Their cause is not womens rights.

 

[Britney Spears]

Fair enough, thanks.

 

[Dare]

Hey Dare,

I'm a little confused as to exactly what you are trying to convey (my two brain cells don't always work together).

That's alright. Mine don't either.

I would be willing to bet money that this feminist reasons are along the lines that she opposes the chauvinistic and violent interference in another nations affairs so that men can further their influence and grip on the world, not because they support the Taleban...

I would say that is generally true in some matters. I'll explain at the bottom.

I don't know much about Women's Studies but I know that as far as the sociology department goes, my experience is that you would indeed find a signifcantly higher proportion of the population against this action than you would find in the general population, but once again I don't think this is for due to any love for the Taleban. Many people I know who do not support armed interdiction in another states affairs do so not because they agree with what the state is doing (in fact for the vast vast majority of these people they think the Taleban and Saddam Hussein are some of the worst human beings that ever lived.... though they will usually put Bush on that list as well), but because they do not support the use of violence or force, period (some even for self-defence).

Certainly, I would agree with that on one level. On another, I think that many want Bush to get some punches (like many in the rest of of the political realm), and will oppose any move he makes.

I doubt you'd find a paper celebrating the removal of the Taleban. The Abstract from "Interchanges" explains why (I've typed it as it is in an uncopyable format):

    Establishing women's rights became part of the moral justification given for waging 'war on terror' by ensuring regime change in Afghanistan. Yet by December 2002, Human Rights Watch was reporting ongoing violations of women's rights. Western presumptions that women's lives would be transformed simply by removing the Taliban were false. This 'interchange' explains the gap between gender politics and the current political and economic situation. Acknowledging such factors reveals that Wstern intervention will not easily subvert the existing gender order. Rather, any real change will result, not from prescribing Western models, but by enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans.

Wylie, Gillian. 2003. Women's rights and 'righteous war'. Feminist Theory 4,(2): 217-223. Sage Publications, www.sagepublications.com. (those of your with a Campus Computing ID can view the journal online via the Library E -Journal Database... just search for "Feminist Theory", then the article....HA! Revenge upon all of you with DIN access, !!!)

There's a few problems with this persons outlook. One is that Afghan women are definitely in a better position than they were before the war. Definitely. Of course, we can't do everything instantly, but no one really thought we were trying to do that. The second problem I see is that this person disconnects "Western models" from "enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans". That's exactly what our prescribed Western model is designed to do.

You mean to remove them quickly.

No, I would say my statement is fairly accurate that most tyrannical dictatorships are removed by force. Even slowly by force. Rose revolutions and violet revolutions are rare.

You don't need to go to war affect change. Their point is no war is good. They would rather be oppressed than kill tens of thousands of civilians (and yes, they do die under tyrants as well).

Certainly. Therein lies the logical defect.

Another extract:

    A year ago, when women's rights and peace advocate Hibaaq Osman was giving a speech at the United Nations, she cited only one cause for which the use of military force might be justified: to oust the oppressive Taliban regime from Afghanistan. Now that the bloody effort is under way, however, Osman, who heads the Center for Strategic Initiatives in Washington, feels differently.

"I said it, but I was just making a point," a distraught Osman recalls. "This predicament is a test for feminists. We have seen our worst nightmare -- women being dehumanized and shot in public -- and it makes us more radical. It makes us angry enough to entertain the idea of war. But do I support war?" Osman pauses to consider her own country, Somalia, with its brutal history, before bursting out with an emotional "No. No. No. War is not OK under any circumstances," and then concluding, "The whole thing simply breaks my heart."

The four-week-old military attack on Afghanistan is proving to be an excruciating dilemma for feminists. In heart-wrenching conversations and e-mail exchanges across the city and the globe, feminists find themselves split over how to handle possibly the most misogynistic regime in history. Many are deeply uncomfortable with the specter of a wealthy nation bombing a poor and already ravaged one -- a discomfort that is only deepened by the knowledge that more women than men die as a result of most wars. And as national loyalties are stoked by current events, feminists are further strained to reconcile their patriotism with the desire to reach out to women throughout the globe.

- http://www.newhumanist.com/feminists.html

I would say that is exactly my point, on one of my points. The moral confusion and compromising.

I don't quite think the Feminist Majority supports islamic regimes. I'd check that over one more time.

I don't think that they do either. Seperate those two sentences, I should have wrote that better.

In the end I think my point is that to me, and from my very limited understanding on the topic, I have not encountered a feminist yet who supported the Taleban or other islamic fundamentalists regimes. Their opposition to the invasion in afghanistan and their participation in anti-war demonstrations was based on a fundamental objection to violence, especially large scale war. Further, they usually believe that the removal of the Taleban did not actually help the situation enough to justify the lives lost.

Yes, there are many of those as well. That is part of what I am saying. They oppose violence against the Taliban which gives support to the Taliban. *Perhaps* it can be described as an anti-war position rather than a pro-Taliban, in that sense. Which is why I also mentioned that it is more akin to moral and popular support. Yet still, rather than directly supporting all the Talibans causes they support their continued existance (by not offering a realistic and practical solution to their removal), which is definitely a main Taliban cause and furthers the rest. Thus, the Taliban were (and are) served by these people who think we never should have gone to war in the first place. Now, I have encountered feminists who support Islamic fundamentalist regimes in more direct terms over western "imperialism" who are allied in their fights against the Dreaded Zionism. Strange creatures, but they exist. They don't know any better and I would say are akin to useful idiots. There are also seemingly intelligent "feminists" that I have seen (for instance) on CBC defending these theocratic tyrannies existence, and offering no other real practical solutions. Simply suggesting that we should mind our own business and it's excusable because it's another culture (and thus apparently legitimate) or that before Bush "they" were winning the war. While we have to realize that most people who support these regimes continued existance don't really believe in (or know of) the policies of the power structure they defend. They are often tricked into believing that the oppressors are the oppressed and that the reason they are oppressors in the first place is because we made them that way (absolving the oppressors of any responsibility for their actions). The fifth columnists don't care if their supporters truely believe in the cause, they only care how many broad groupings of the public these activists can get steered. The more the merrier.

(for the record I am 100% behind the Campaign in afganistan or any other war in which the removal of a dictatorial, abusive tyrant is the goal... as long as it is done in such a way as to minimize civilian looses.... nor am I a feminist, or a woman for that matter... I just have been exposed to them...*shudderz*... bah, feminists...gives me the shivers...)

 

[couchcommander]

Certainly, I would agree with that on one level. On another, I think that many want Bush to get some punches (like many in the rest of of the political realm), and will oppose any move he makes.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

There's a few problems with this persons outlook. One is that Afghan women are definitely in a better position than they were before the war. Definitely. Of course, we can't do everything instantly, but no one really thought we were trying to do that. The second problem I see is that this person disconnects "Western models" from "enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans". That's exactly what our prescribed Western model is designed to do.

I'd challenge you to demonstrate your assertion that they are, for the most part, in a better position, as I would argue that for the majority of Afghan women their situation is fundamentally the same (some more superficial things may have changed, and yes for a great many opportunities are greatly increasing, that is true). Regarding the problem with adopting western models, it's not that western models are bad, in fact I would say that this is what they are aiming for. Her point, however, is that imposing them from the top down is not going to be effective. The change needs to occur within Afghan society itself and start with the women themselves expressing what it is they want. Many Muslims women I know have no problem wearing a burqa, or a head scarf, and many are in fact proud of it. Though I personally agree that removing the Taleban has done a lot for this cause, they can quite sucessfully argue otherwise (you mentioned reactive factors.... people don't like being told what to do, doubly so when it is at the point of a gun...)

No, I would say my statement is fairly accurate that most tyrannical dictatorships are removed by force. Even slowly by force. Rose revolutions and violet revolutions are rare.

People die, people get old. And there are many examples of so called "peaceful" revolutions in history...

Certainly. Therein lies the logical defect. I would say that is exactly my point, on one of my points. The moral confusion and compromising. I don't think that they do either.

I don't see any logical contradiction in wanting to acheive ones ulitmate goals of peace, happiness, acceptance, etc. by only supporting peaceful methods. In fact I would argue that it would be morally compromising for them to support violence and warfare (We want a harmonous society where no one is oppressed, and we will not only oppress you but kill you to get it!).

Yes, there are many of those as well. That is part of what I am saying. They oppose violence against the Taliban which gives support to the Taliban. *Perhaps* it can be described as an anti-war position rather than a pro-Taliban, in that sense. Which is why I also mentioned that it is more akin to moral and popular support. Yet still, rather than directly supporting all the Talibans causes they support their continued existance (by not offering a realistic and practical solution to their removal), which is definitely a main Taliban cause and furthers the rest. Thus, the Taliban were (and are) served by these people who think we never should have gone to war in the first place.

The old "You're either with us or against us...." I don't buy that. Saying I don't support killing people is not even close to saying "I support the Taleban", even on moral and popular groups. In fact taking a stand against violence and opression would be taking the moral opposite of Taleban thinking. Not doing anything is oftentimes just as effective as doing something drastic.

Now, I have encountered feminists who support Islamic fundamentalist regimes in more direct terms over western "imperialism" who are allied in their fights against the Dreaded Zionism. Strange creatures, but they exist. They don't know any better and I would say are akin to useful idiots. There are also seemingly intelligent "feminists" that I have seen (for instance) on CBC defending these theocratic tyrannies existence, and offering no other real practical solutions. Simply suggesting that we should mind our own business and it's excusable because it's another culture (and thus apparently legitimate) or that before Bush "they" were winning the war. While we have to realize that most people who support these regimes continued existance don't really believe in (or know of) the policies of the power structure they defend. They are often tricked into believing that the oppressors are the oppressed and that the reason they are oppressors in the first place is because we made them that way (absolving the oppressors of any responsibility for their actions). The fifth columnists don't care if their supporters truely believe in the cause, they only care how many broad groupings of the public these activists can get steered. The more the merrier.

There are crazy people of all stripes.

[edit]

Forgot my disclaimer...

I am not a feminist and I was for the war in Afghanistan, I am just trying to express where it is some of these people are coming from.

[edit again]

I will definately agree that there are some very confused people out there who are more concerned with what their image is, and as you said, opposing everything Bush does, than actually pursuing postitive change. However, the reason for my response here I think lies in my rejection of the notion that regime change must be done using violent means, and further and more substantially a refusal to accept the assertion that by opposing the invasion of Afganistan and other wars, these feminists, and other humanitarian groups are someone not only "doing nothing" to help their own causes, but somehow helping and supporting the enemy.

However, I think we've managed to diverge from the track this thread was supposed to go on, that being how do we "combat" terrorists who are members of our own society? (correct me if I am wrong Edward Campbell).

Luckily, it can be saved. In this argument, and the one before it (regarding subcultures), my main, overriding, and cohesive point was that when we are faced with a situation such as this, traditional militaristic solutions may not be the best way of dealing with them. Though, IMO (and many disagree with this), they do indeed serve their purpose , if we are to "win" this war, and I would indeed call it a war, we must do more than engage only the most visible enemies, using only a fraction of our resources, on battlefiels far from where the real threat lies.

The real threat is beside us, within our own nation. We must, in short, mobilize the entire population, but in a very different way than is usually the case. Rather than mobilizing to fight, we must mobilize them to care and accept. Only by taking down the invisible, societal barriers that seperate our cultures can we identify with one another and begin to see us for the fundamentally homogenous group we really are. Only by doing this can we ensure that an attack upon Canada is seen for what it really is, an attack upon us all as a Nation.

By ensuring that Muslim communities are wholey part of this nation we ensure that they will be as concerned and upset about even the possibility of such an event as we all here are. They will not see it as an attack upon outsiders, but upon themselves as well. With this attitude in place we will deny those people who are pursuing this war the fuel they need to carry it out, and in short, we will win.

Otherwise, if we continue to pursue a policy of "them" vs. "us" we will only continue to breed more "them's"

Thanks,

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
From my own, very superficial and quick dive into muslim theology (so I could be very wrong), I didn't see any real conflict between western libertarian values and Islam. In fact if one looks back into history one can see that Islamic societies, can, and have been some of the most accepting and toleran societies around. In short, I don't think the values that you and I hold dear are all that foreign to your average Muslim, nor are they things which they would need to come to accept but rather are values that they already hold. I think you are very right, however, that these views infuriate some muslims, but that can be said about Christians as well.

IMO the disconnect, and the cause of our apparent inability to live harmonously (I am not saying that muslims and Christians don't live harmonously, just that some don't), is sadly not some fundamental value difference but a set of assumptions and perceptions based more upon hersey and snap judgements that put up a wall between people before they have even met...

I must stipulate, first, that my knowledge of Islam is deficient â “ worse than superficial, I'm sure.

That being said, I do see a â ?... real conflict between western libertarian values and Islam.â ?  It seems to me that there is one huge gap which makes the Western canon inaccessible to Islam.  Islam requires, in fact Muslim means submission to the will of god as defined, etc, etc, etc.  The entire liberal Western canon is about individuals â “ sovereign individuals, answerable only to their conscience or ideals or intellects, not to gods and shamans, struggling with all sorts of authority.  It has its roots in Greece and in Christianity but the liberal, modern Western canon is profoundly secular: everything from Milton's Principia Mathematica through Beethoven's 5th symphony and John Stuart Mill's essays scream â Å“Iâ ? ... â Å“I, canâ ? ... â Å“I, unchained from gods or God, can understand and deal with the entire universe, with all that is, seen and unseen, and I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul*.â ?

It seems to me that submission to God's will, in all things â “ which I understand to be the absolute core of Islam -  is totally and completely antithetical to our liberal, Western Civilization, as in Clash of Civilizations.

I, personally, believe Sam Huntington was far more right than wrong in 1993 and I still believe that his thesis, The Clash of Civilizations**, is 'right' because it does a good job â “ better than any other with which I am familiar - at explaining what we are seeing, which is what theories are supposed to do.

Maybe I'm just a pessimistic chauvinist.

By the way, elsewhere - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32541/post-240019.html#msg240019 to be specific - Kevin B said: â ? I dont see any of us espousing carpet bombing the ME just to get insurgents ...â ?  I expect that the entire Arab world and those of many of the North African and South-West Asian neighbours will be convulsed in bitter, bloody, internecine wars and revolutions for a couple of generations, at least, while religious reformations (including of both the reformed and fundamentalist varieties) and counter-reformations are attempted.  I think carpet bombing the ME might provide a welcome respite for the people there.

Those inevitable (in my opinion) long, bloody wars are, I think, an essential precursor to some sort of peace between the Arabic Muslims and the West.  I believe Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is, right now, sowing the seeds for those reformations (we had more than one, if you stop and think about it) and the consequential, deeply hoped for enlightenment which may follow.

----------

* Yes, I know that these are (reputed to be?) McVeigh's last words but that stupid cracker was never man enough to fill Henley's shoes or dirty his cri de coeur.

** http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

 

[paracowboy]

I'd challenge you to demonstrate your assertion that they are, for the most part, in a better position,

'kay, in the 6 months I was there, I saw 3 schools opened that were expressly for women to learn trades, computer skills, and English. The women began to speak to us (yeah, to us, foreign males), and some stopped wearing burkhas in the alleys or sidestreets, even when we approached. In the last elections, women voted and women are in government. That work?

The old "You're either with us or against us...." I don't buy that. Saying I don't support killing people is not even close to saying "I support the Taleban", even on moral and popular groups.

no, but speaking out aginst the soldiers risking their lives for the very people speaking against them is demoralizing for friendlies, and improves morale for enemies (see Hanoi Jane) and increases the risks those soldiers are undergoing.

Not doing anything is oftentimes just as effective as doing something drastic.

not doing anything means you are giving those you oppose carte blanche to do as they will. If you get slapped and do nothing, you will continue to get slapped. At least by covering your head, you minimize the effect of the blow.

However, the reason for my response here I think lies in my rejection of the notion that regime change must be done using violent means,

and how do you propose overthrowing a tyrannical regime by non-violent means? Amnesty International has shown us all how incredibly ineffective letter campaigns are. History is replete with examples of violence proving effective. I am completely unaware of any historical example of a dictator or cartel being overthrown through peaceful means. At the least, there has always been a power standing nearby with a large stick, threatening violence.

Though, IMO (and many disagree with this), they do indeed serve their purpose , if we are to "win" this war, and I would indeed call it a war, we must do more than engage only the most visible enemies, using only a fraction of our resources, on battlefiels far from where the real threat lies.

yes, our gov'ts and militaries are aware of this. It's why they have developed an integrated approach using economic pressure, political pressure, economic incentives, re-building nations, and men like me shooting people.

Only by taking down the invisible, societal barriers that seperate our cultures can we identify with one another and begin to see us for the fundamentally homogenous group we really are. Only by doing this can we ensure that an attack upon Canada is seen for what it really is, an attack upon us all as a Nation.

and we can best do this by simply treating everyone as equals. And everyone is treated exactly the same in Basic Training.  Jus' messin' with ya, ya hippy freak, ya.  ;D

By ensuring that Muslim communities are wholey part of this nation we ensure that they will be as concerned and upset about even the possibility of such an event as we all here are. They will not see it as an attack upon outsiders, but upon themselves as well. With this attitude in place we will deny those people who are pursuing this war the fuel they need to carry it out, and in short, we will win.

ah, but there's the rub! By going out of our way to make them feel included, we simply emphasize their "different-ness". We have done our part, now it's up to those disenfranchised Muslims to do theirs, and step up to the plate. Canada has made "Tolerance" our national religion. How much more can we do? And when should we expect some returns on our investment?

Otherwise, if we continue to pursue a policy of "them" vs. "us" we will only continue to breed more "them's"

to me, "us" is any Canadian citizen. Them is anyone who attempts to harm a Canadian citizen. And the "them's" started it. Even after "us" welcomed "them" into our nation, "them" have continued to act against "us". "Them" have used our resources to sponsor acts of terror against "us" and our allies. It's up to the Muslims amongst "us" to speak out, and act out, against "them". Having served alongside 4 Muslims in the past, I know well that there are Muslims amongst "us". But too few speak out, and make their presence amongst "us" known.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is yet another point of view, this time from Robert Fulford in yesterday's National Post:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=146797ec-ea45-4876-95ac-dd0c4a1a3111

Islamophobia isn't the problem

Robert Fulford
National Post

Saturday, July 16, 2005

After the London bombings, the BBC as usual tried hard to avoid using the word "Muslim." British police insisted that everyone avoid mentioning Islam when discussing those crimes, and the government planned to extend the law protecting minorities. Britain seems determined to carry tolerance to the point of idiocy.

Nothing that emerged in these last nine days has been more telling than the claim, by several articulate Muslims, that Britain has been far too kind to radical Islam. For instance, Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, who runs the 24-hour news channel in Dubai, recalled this week that for 10 years he and other Arab writers have warned Britain against its bizarre habit of making known terrorists feel at home. He pointed out that the British not only admit such criminals, they also provide them with accommodation, financial help and free legal advice. Britain's "blind generosity" means that advocates of "fundamentalist fascism" can set up mosques and schools, reaching communities with no previous record of extremism. As Al-Rashed said, "The results were illustrated last Thursday." The British government made possible the religious cult that seduced and entrapped the young men of July 7.

Thoughtless, genial tolerance has been built so firmly into the British system that the most vicious radicals don't hesitate, even now, to express their bigotry. On the day after the bombings Hani al-Siba'i, the Egyptian who runs the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London, shocked even an interviewer from al-Jazeera TV. Hani al-Siba'i said that if al-Qaeda was behind the bombings, it was a great victory; disturbing the G8 meeting "rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud."

The al-Jazeera interviewer asked: "Is targeting wretched civilians considered brave or manly?" Al-Siba'i answered that the term "civilians" doesn't exist in Islamic religious law: "People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not." Dar Al-Harb variously means the house of war, territory not under Muslim rule, the home of the unbelievers. Therefore, beyond compassion or mercy.

The British have grown so masochistic in the last 20 years that they listen willingly to people who sympathize with murderers. On Wednesday the Guardian carried an article in which Dilpazier Aslam, a Muslim self-described as a "Yorkshire lad, born and bred," said that while bombing was the wrong way to express political anger, the young killers nevertheless represent an understandable position. Many British Muslims, he wrote, will compare the London atrocities to the defeat of Falluja by coalition forces. "It is not the done thing to make such comparisons, but Muslims on the street do." Especially the young, whom he depicted as tougher and less tolerant than their parents and grandparents. "We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not ... anger is seething on the streets."

It was as if Aslam and the Guardian were inviting Britain to take a sterner and more vigilant approach to young Muslim radicals. But that seems unlikely. British leaders fear Islamophobia more than they fear bombs.

Islamophobia means a dislike of Muslims that produces harmful behaviour. It's become a favourite term of Islamic propagandists because it helps create a culture of victimhood in their community. It turns Muslims against the non-Muslim world and helps suppress debate; questioning the word of an imam can be equated with assisting the Islamophobic world.

But does Islamophobia exist? Last winter Kenan Malik, a London writer, interviewed dozens of ordinary Muslims for his Channel 4 documentary, Are Muslims Hated? They all believed that police harassment was common, though none of them had been stopped and searched. They thought physical attacks were also common, but few had been attacked or knew anyone who had. He ended up with the conviction that Islamophobia is a device for scaremongering.

Even so, it has paralyzed the British Establishment. Ken Livingstone, the London Mayor, said that what the bombers believe in "is not an ideology or even a perverted faith." How could he speak such nonsense? Does he think it a coincidence that they were all Muslims? Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police said, "Islam and terrorism don't go together." What mendacious imam told him that? Paddick will apparently do or say anything to appease the Muslims of London.

The British are intoxicated by their self-image of fair-minded tolerance and their fear of Muslim unrest. Their need to feel righteous and avoid social turmoil has overwhelmed common sense and political will. Canadians, who suffer from related delusions, should not ignore the implications of London's July 7 tragedy.

© National Post 2005​

â ?Thoughtless, geneial toleranceâ ? is, of course, the centrepiece of liberalism - if we have to stop and think about being tolerant then we are anything but liberal - we do not see people as individuals, rather we classify them by groups: class, race, nationality, sex - whatever.  But how can we, all of us in the West, resist the siren song of â ?carefully considered toleranceâ ? - casting a suspicious eye at our neighbours just because of their ethnicity or religion?

 

[couchcommander]

'kay, in the 6 months I was there, I saw 3 schools opened that were expressly for women to learn trades, computer skills, and English. The women began to speak to us (yeah, to us, foreign males), and some stopped wearing burkhas in the alleys or sidestreets, even when we approached. In the last elections, women voted and women are in government. That work?

Was this widespread across the whole country, or limited to certain urban areas under NATO control (I don't know, that's why I am asking)? If it was widespread then I would certainly agree,but my impression to this point has been that for the majority of afghan women, not just those in certain areas, things are fundamentally similar (ie they still have no respect from the men, they are still considered property, etc., though once agian I could be very wrong).

no, but speaking out aginst the soldiers risking their lives for the very people speaking against them is demoralizing for friendlies, and improves morale for enemies (see Hanoi Jane) and increases the risks those soldiers are undergoing.

Fair enough, but they still are not supporting the taleban, even if they are making our jobs harder.

not doing anything means you are giving those you oppose carte blanche to do as they will. If you get slapped and do nothing, you will continue to get slapped. At least by covering your head, you minimize the effect of the blow.

How does the Napoleon quote go? "Never interrupt your opponent when he is in the middle of making a mistake"?

 and how do you propose overthrowing a tyrannical regime by non-violent means? Amnesty International has shown us all how incredibly ineffective letter campaigns are. History is replete with examples of violence proving effective. I am completely unaware of any historical example of a dictator or cartel being overthrown through peaceful means. At the least, there has always been a power standing nearby with a large stick, threatening violence.

An example off the top of my head, that i hope won't inspire much debate (as there are many, though I'm sure you would not readily agree to most), is Pinochet, in Chile (and yes, there was violence in Chile, and yes, there were violent groups operating against him, HOWEVER, his downfall cannot be attributed to either of these, rather a mistake on his part (calling a plebiscite).....I really don't feel like getting into a debate on this small point, if you don't like it, say so and I will find another).

yes, our gov'ts and militaries are aware of this. It's why they have developed an integrated approach using economic pressure, political pressure, economic incentives, re-building nations, and men like me shooting people.

Yes indeed, this is all good, but this needs to be combined with social action by the people.

and we can best do this by simply treating everyone as equals. And everyone is treated exactly the same in Basic Training.   Jus' messin' with ya, ya hippy freak, ya.   ;D

Mandatory military training is not something I am opposed to (and yes, for the last freakin time, how many times do i have to say it!? i AM NOT advocating treating them differently, but rather trying to eliminate within ourselves, and they within therselves, the perceptions and attitudes towards one another that prevent us from becomming a cohesive unit).

ah, but there's the rub! By going out of our way to make them feel included, we simply emphasize their "different-ness". We have done our part, now it's up to those disenfranchised Muslims to do theirs, and step up to the plate. Canada has made "Tolerance" our national religion. How much more can we do? And when should we expect some returns on our investment?

Bah! No, no different. It's simple, think of them as part of "us" rather than "them" becuase as long as we continue to see them as "them" they will continue to be "them" and not a homogenous part of our society.

to me, "us" is any Canadian citizen. Them is anyone who attempts to harm a Canadian citizen. And the "them's" started it. Even after "us" welcomed "them" into our nation, "them" have continued to act against "us". "Them" have used our resources to sponsor acts of terror against "us" and our allies. It's up to the Muslims amongst "us" to speak out, and act out, against "them". Having served alongside 4 Muslims in the past, I know well that there are Muslims amongst "us". But too few speak out, and make their presence amongst "us" known.

Perfect! "us" includes all Canadians against terrorist acts, while "them" are the terrorists, perfect.... that's what we need IMO, now we just to move this into action and start behaving like it (which, I am not saying you aren't, I am using a very large "we").

Edward Campbell:

I'm at work now and I don't have access to my library, and I need to look some things up so that I don't go off spattering what may be useless and incorrect information, so I will get to your substantive post in a few hours. 

But re: the National Post article, I would ask at what University or Colledge did Robert Fulford undertake a study Sociology that would enable him to make such bold statements as he does in his last two paragraphs? (this is one thing I hate Journalists for.... you give them an audience and all of a sudden they are experts on everything, if they were forced to follow Mike's rules most would be banned by now....)

Saying that, however, I think that this article goes towards the point I am making regarding accetance, and the point you and dare are making towards equality.

I mentioned that not only do we need to ensure that we take down the barriers that prevent us from treating muslims groups as part of our society (and I would question whether the British truely do this or just go out of their way to "appear" friendly, while still treating them as outsiders, which is what I would suspect is the case, and seems to be the case most of my English relatives, though of course they are only a very small portion), but at the same time I was clear that the Muslim groups need to do this as well, and this paragraph:

"But does Islamophobia exist? Last winter Kenan Malik, a London writer, interviewed dozens of ordinary Muslims for his Channel 4 documentary, Are Muslims Hated? They all believed that police harassment was common, though none of them had been stopped and searched. They thought physical attacks were also common, but few had been attacked or knew anyone who had."

shows that at the very least the muslims still see it, "them" and "us".

Thanks,

 

[Britney Spears]

Well I guess you never spoke to someone from pre-moorish Spain, Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, Balkans, Barbary Coast etc. but then again I haven't either   maybe they liked having their political and spiritual leaders killed and being forced to adopt the culture and religion of the benevolent conquerers?  

Uhhhh are you quite sure about this one sir? Everything I've ever read seems to indicate that the Islamic Empire of the 11th and 12th Century was by far the most progressive and tolerant that Europe and the Near East had ever seen, hardly suprising since it was also the richest and most prosperous. Just off the top of my head, I know that

- Almost everything we know about the acient world comes from sources that were preserved by Muslim scholars and later translated from Arabic.

- Our modern day scientific method mostly traces it's roots back to Islami thinkers and philosophers,, at the time the only ones who had access to the earlier works of Aristotle and Euclid.

- It was the crusaders who destroyed Byzantium and Jereuselum(Sp).

 

[Britney Spears]

OK, so do you agree or disagree with this statement:

The Islamic Empire of the 11th and 12th Century was by far the most progressive and tolerant that Europe and the Near East had ever seen, hardly suprising since it was also the richest and most prosperous.

 

[paracowboy]

OK, so do you agree or disagree with this statement:

I agree. A quick perusal of journals/letters dating from the time tell you how shocked Europeans were at the advanced society found under Islam. Chinese and Indian travellers/merchants considered it to be on par with their own.

But, your minds are made up.

 

[Acorn]

Islam specifically prohibits "conversion by the sword" and the expanding Muslim Empire of the 7th to about the 12thC actually followed that (more or less). They conquered, sure, but they didn't conduct anything resembling the Inquisition either. They were certainly very advanced, in medicine and science (particularly astronomy - the Great Navigators of Europe made good use of that science later).

Acorn

 

[48Highlander]

Well, with the exception of a few people who seem to like sticking to pre-conceived stereotypes, I think we can all agree that in the 11th-12th Century, Islamic society far surpassed Christian society, both in technological achievements and benevolence.  That's not to say they were angels by any means, but they were certainly better than any fifedom in Europe.  Now, why is this argument relevant in modern times exactly?  So Europe and Christian society improved, while the Middle East fell apart and regressed.  I'm just curious why anyone would bother arguing about what they were like a thousand years ago.

 

[paracowboy]

Now I can see why the majority of Canadians in a recent pole trust the benevolent rulers in China more that the warmongering Americans.    Benevolent Islam, I love it...you need to read a few more history books about Islamic conquests, they certainly were not Jehova witnesses or Mormons knocking at one's door....  

However I can see this conversation is going no where.

yes, that's right. All Canadians despise America.  :  Especially those of us here. Yup, nobody hates America more than us.

I suggest you take your own advice and

read a few more history books about Islamic conquests

. What is being related here are simple facts. At the time, the Islamic world was far more advanced than the Christian. In the same time frame, Christians were far more primitive, more blood thirsty, and less tolerant, than Muslims. In the time since, they have regressed while we have advanced.

 

[48Highlander]

I think possibly because the Islamo facists indeed use the 7 century arguements for justifying their attacks on the Christian west.

So you have to sink down to the same level?  Seriously, anyone with an IQ over 40 should be able to figure out that the state of certain societies over a thusand years ago, or actions perpetuated by them at that time, cannot be seriously used as a justification for anything done today.  Even your "islamofascists" aren't trying to get revenge for the crusades - they have current goals that are relevant to the world as it is today and use examples of persecution (real or imagined) which occured over a thousand years ago only to perpetuate the idea that they've somehow always been victimized.  For instance, a suicide bomber might blow himself up because he feels that the invasion of Iraq is imperialistic and he wants Americans out of the middle east because he doesn't want foreigners influenceing the way Islamic states are run.  That's a current goal, something that he feels can be accomplished.  On the other hand, I'm sure you'd have quite a rough time convincing the same man to blow himself up because some Christians a thousand years ago went rampaging through the middle east.

That's also why there's no point for us to argue about the past.  What matters is our current goals and objectives, and justifications which are relevant today.  Even assuming that Muslims were burtal horrible mindless savages who slaughtered the pure-hearted Chirstian Crusaders, that has no relevance to us today.  We fight for goals we feel are acheivable - such as curbing terrorism, promoting freedom and democracy, encouraging globalization and securing resources.  Those are goals we feel are worth fighting for, goals that many of us would lay our lives on the line for.  Good luck convincing your average soldier to do the same thing in order to get revenge for Christian deaths which occured during the Crusades.

 

[paracowboy]

Seriously, anyone with an IQ over 40 should be able to figure out that the state of certain societies over a thusand years ago, or actions perpetuated by them at that time, cannot be seriously used as a justification for anything done today.   Even your "islamofascists" aren't trying to get revenge for the crusades - they have current goals that are relevant to the world as it is today and use examples of persecution (real or imagined) which occured over a thousand years ago only to perpetuate the idea that they've somehow always been victimized...

hmmm, gotta disagree here. They also use the argument that they are owed the land from Southern France to the Bering Strait. Because at one time or another, they did have possession. And they are intent on utilizing tactics similar to those used by the Hashishan. So, studying the ancient history of Islam is pertinent to understanding what they're after now. In the Islamic world, last century and last week are equally relevent. After all, they refer to us as 'Crusaders' and 'Franks'.
They base their entire fight on a cause begun 1200 years ago. That seems like a good reason to look into the roots of the Islamo-nutjob movement.
While we're shooting them in the face, we need to know how make them stop requiring us to do it. Eventually, the recoil is gonna start making troop's shoulders sore.

 

[Infanteer]

I agree 100% with my learned friend Paracowboy (I really like the recoil statement.... >)

I think there could be some utility in exploring these questions.  From my understanding, time is viewed within a much more compressed factor when it comes to Islamic scholarship and thought - what happened in the 7th, 11th and 17th centuries are discussed as if they happened yesterday.  This is certainly apparent in reading some of the publicized writings of our enemies, such as Fatwas and the like, where supporting evidence is drawn from the Hadith (biographies of the Prophet and his companions) and the works of scholars from 1000 years ago.  I imagine that this is why Al Andalus seems to be a hot topic of time, although Islam has been pretty dead in Spain for 500 years.  As well, it appears that Islam seems to stick much closer to the "Core Doctrine" of the Qu'ran and the Hadith, so scholarship from the 8th century is still very relevent to Muslim people.

Now, as I've been harping of late, if we are going to undermine the enemy, we must do it through his frame of reference and not ours.  We have proof positive that, under the Abbasid Caliphs, the Islamic world was a truly progressive one.

Perhaps, instead of attacking the reactionary viewpoints espoused by men like Osama bin Laden with notions of democracy and liberalism (to a society which has no history of the Magna Carta, Reformation, or Suffragettes) we should be looking to the past to find the social influences within an Islamic framework that made the Caliphate and its culture one of openness, learning, and prosperity.  We should combat intolerant viewpoints with the words of Omar al-Khayyam, Ibn Khaldun, al-Ghazali, and Averroes - which are likely to have a much more resounding affect on Muslims who hold a different view than us Westerners of Islam, history and the Ummah. (In essence, fight the Hearts and Minds battle with the right tools)

Infanteer

PS: In regards to paracowboy's advice on reading more books, I agree.  You seem to be confusing the Caliphate with some of the later empires such as the Ottomans.  Although, like most empires, it was one based upon conquest, it's rule was hardly the dark shroud you seem to imply that it is.  Here's a start for reading up on what set them apart from the "Dark Ages" of European culture.

As well, "conversion by the sword" was not the standard tactic - in Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples, reference is made to a study of naming conventions within and outside of the Middle East; it appears that Islam did not become the dominant religion of the Middle East for 200 years after the coming of Muhammed - it took longer in other regions.

PPS: Regarding concepts that could be useful to undermining the enemy through a Islamic framework, one interesting principle I discovered was Dar al-Ahd.   Osama bin Laden and Co. take a hardline stance, pointing out the difference between Dar al-Islam (the House of Submission) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War) demands that the infidel (re: us) be fought.   Perhaps we can utilize this very real idea from within an Islamic religious and legal framework to undermine this black-and-white interpretation of the world and to move mainstream Islam (ohh, about a billion people) to an acceptable (to Islamic thought) co-existence with the non-Muslim world.

 

[a_majoor]

My take on the matter is this is another aspect of the "Root Cause" manifesting itself: the Will to Power.

Muslims in the West are marginalized for many reasons, most of them not very good. This is the seemingly natural order of things, reading Canadian or American history, we know that the Irish, Ukrainians, Jews, Chinese, Poles, Blacks and virtually every other immigrant group was initially marginalized. In the United States, the model was "the faster you assimilate; the faster you succeed", and well assimilated groups are represented in all walks of society, from top to bottom.

For poorly assimilated groups, the desire to rise is there, but the outlets are not. If you can't make it in the outside world, you can always gain status and respect (or at least fearful acquiescence) in the "Black Hand", the "Triads", the "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam", as a member of the "Indian Posse", and now, of course, one of the Islamic Terror groups.

This is one of the reasons I am not very convinced that "affirmative action" or group rights or any other program which highlights the differences between peoples and cultures can make a difference, it only reinforces the stereotyping and strengthens the cohesiveness of the group, and allows the "us and them" mentality to grow. These strengthen the hold of the groups offering power and influence, and this IMO is the real threat. In revolutionary warfare terms, this also fosters the creation of parallel infrastructures, which weaken the influence of the legitimate authorities.