The war in middle east : how it came ? and why is it so difficult to stop ?
Many events came from middle east.
More than commenting a specific event, wich are often a reply of an another specific event, I think it will be interesting to try to find out the historical, and geopolitical reasons for such a situation.
I would like also that we discuss, what are the forces who prevent the peace process to work.
Please it's not a A vs B. It's not football, there is no supporters here, just people trying to understand the situation. No personnals attacks or rants will be allowed. If we are not able to discuss peacefully here the situation there, dispite our lack for the vast majority of us, of personal implications, I don't see how it will be possible for these people to make peace.
Thanks for your understanding and all the wisdom and intelligent input that you should implement in this thread.
More than commenting a specific event, wich are often a reply of an another specific event, I think it will be interesting to try to find out the historical, and geopolitical reasons for such a situation.
I would like also that we discuss, what are the forces who prevent the peace process to work.
Please it's not a A vs B. It's not football, there is no supporters here, just people trying to understand the situation. No personnals attacks or rants will be allowed. If we are not able to discuss peacefully here the situation there, dispite our lack for the vast majority of us, of personal implications, I don't see how it will be possible for these people to make peace.
Thanks for your understanding and all the wisdom and intelligent input that you should implement in this thread.
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
The problem is - how far back do you want to go ? One could start with the Balfour declaration but I think that would set things off on a one-destination track and imo it would also be an incorrect starting point.
Imo, one would have to go to before the first Crusade and the reasons (politically and religious) behind that. One might even have to go as far back as Palestine at the time of Christ and explore the west/east dynamic inherit in the life of the Jews under Roman rule as well as the concepts of 'client-kings'.
Really not much has changed but things build on each other and one has to find the foundation. Not easy.
It's not easy. I think it's important to go far back, as long it brings comprehension keys of the present.
I will say that we are not so sure of the original teaching especially in case of Christianity who where made years after the death of the Christ.
For the jews maybe there is more transcriptions in the Talmud, althougth that they where differents groups, and we are not sure to know the teachings of every group.
I asked him if he wanted to say anything else and he made this observation: "When I watch the news from all over the world, I feel that we have returned to the Stone Age. The people fighting cannot stop and return to peace." This observation had been on his mind and he wanted to make sure the translation was correct. "All of humanity is suffering right now because of fanatics." This is exactly what he wanted to say and he had written it down to make sure we got it right. For Shabbar, Bush and Muqtada were manifestations of the same fault in human nature, the mysterious blown fuse that leads people to destruction. We considered what it took to make such a person, the banishment of doubt, the ugliness of absolute belief without reason. Najaf and Karbala were two places where the fanatics of the world were duking it out, a small stage that represented the greater world.
I think that both the Terrorist of AQ, the unrelated Al Mahdi army and the IDeological wing of Bush's administration are all fanatics
Bush's team are Straussian Ideologues who believe a political philosophy of power for the 'virtuous' elite, power through lying the 'noble lies' that maintain power for the elite (all from Strauss's Platonist ideas), and power for the maintinance of the superiority of the 'vituous' country, and its elite, through continual combat against a definite enemy: perpetual strife breeds superiority rather than decadent comfort and peace . . . . they also believe in God, well, rather they believe in the USE of 'God' as part of the 'noble-lie' that maintains their power . .. which of course is virtuous because they are the virtuous elite philosopher-kings.
Don't believe me?! How many of the main figures in the admin are professed 'Straussians'? and ex-pupils?
How many have read and understood Strauss here?
Its all in his ideas . . . read the current Harper's, it has a 'Strauss for beginners' in it . . . we should KNOW that however virtuous the admin says that it is being, and it believes that it is but its notion of virtue is not what is good for us or the world, it is what is good for their IDEOLOGICAL notion of the state as concieved by Plato: a radically hiararchical tyranny of the 'wise' for their own ends . . which are their own virtues . . . where virtues means power (root: virility)
So I say that the best way our of this war is a regime change here in the states.
And, Work with Sistani . . .as I said about four months ago, we better get it into our heads that he is our best friend in the region.
Externally, all it looks like to me is an ongoing culture of being the dominant tribal group and exercising power over pieces of land. As a culture they have not moved much beyond the "crusade era".
Originally posted by segovius
Btw - I have just heard that Sadr has withdrawn his militia from Najaf at the request of the Shi'i authorities who have basically said 'if you and the Americans want to play soldiers then go and do it somewhere where the Holy sites are not at risk - this isn't a battlefield'.
This seems a very positive development imo. If something were to have happened to the shrines the situation would have escalated and would be much harder to back down from.
All the news says that it is conditinal on an American pull-out.
Do you have a better source than Rueters?
Unfortunalty Islam is being left in the past, as most other religions/ideologies have transformed themselves to advance freedom (dirty little secret here, freedom hinges on self government---not subserviance to the One.)
The war in the ME is the same as the wars in Europe, the tribal confilcts of the American Indians, and the feudal wars in Japan, in general, all these things have stopped except for the Islamic citizens.
The problem is not that it is happening, that's easy, it's that they cannot stop.
Back in 1973, when the defences of Syria and Egypt were crumbling, and both Damascus and Cairo laid ripe for the taking by the ?evil Zionist imperialistic soldatesque?, only to be saved (in the nick of time I might add) by the combined efforts of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (in one of those rare moments of complete agreement between these two, which wouldn't have occured if the roles were reversed).
But before that, both Syria and Egypt had idle troops near their borders with say, Iraq and Lybia, so why wouldn't these soldiers be involved? The reason was very simple: it would have been a folly for Syria and Egypt to expose these borders, for their ?brotherly neighbours? would have been eager to seize the opportunity to invade them.
Every country in that area of the world had either had a war, or came to the brink of war with nearly each and every one of its neighbours.
That's not to say there is a continuity between all current conflicts and earlier ones.
Two examples:
The war between the Sublime Porte and the rebelling Khedive of Egypt (in the nineteenth century) is most certainly over.
The bloody conquest of most of Arabia (nineteen-twenties to early thirties) by the zealot Wahabi king of Nadjd, ?Abd al-?Aziz ibn-Sa?ud, resulting with the inception of the private estate known today as the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that war is also done.
All this to say, this is not a region known for its peace and quiet. But then neither was Europe in the larger part of the last five hundred years (so it's no surprise the founders of the American Republic sought to avoid involvment with that continent).
It seems to me the kind of U.S. invovlement which brought an end to European unrest, could achieve similar results in the M.E.. However I am neither expecting, nor asking for such a generous undertaking.
But I'd most certainly welcome it.
Originally posted by dmz
The war in the ME is the same as the wars in Europe, the tribal confilcts of the American Indians, and the feudal wars in Japan, in general, all these things have stopped except for the Islamic citizens.
The problem is not that it is happening, that's easy, it's that they cannot stop.
You absolve the Israelis (whom you would not, I suspect, call 'Jewish citizens') from participating or formenting any conflict at all. You blame the Muslims for everything and the Israelis for nothing. 2-year old girls are getting 2 sniper bullets to the head. But you only see the suicide bombers. They are BOTH inhuman, both cowards.
You also miss the point that the most 'Christian' President I can remember just invaded a Muslim country for no good reason. People are murdered and tortured in his prisons. But you don't say he 'can't stop.' A Christian just started a war with Muslims. Iraqis are now fighting back. But Bush's actions are civilised; he's a modern peacemaker presumably.
Muslims are uncontrolled savages, left behind by history, who can't stop fighting. The Christian and Jewish peoples meanwhile are peaceniks, spreading love and tolerance throughout the area, turning the other cheek at every opportunity.
I don't expect for a second you'll understand how illogical (and racist) you're being.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
It seems to me the kind of U.S. invovlement which brought an end to European unrest, could achieve similar results in the M.E.. However I am neither expecting, nor asking for such a generous undertaking.
But I'd most certainly welcome it
Expand ?
For some years now, the industrialist Stef Wertheimer had been attempting to promote the idea of ?Marshall Plan for the Middle East?, he even got a segment in that CNN show hosted by Rula Amin.
Something in that general direction.
And Europe is far better now than in 1945, or 1900 for that matter; it wouldn't have been possible without serious U.S.involvement and effort.
Originally posted by Harald
You absolve the Israelis
I acually didn't mention the Israelis---that is another kettle of fish.
You also miss the point that the most 'Christian' President I can remember just invaded a Muslim country for no good reason.
Actually there are very good reasons, in theory, if "those people" are serious about accepting democracy---and that theorectical event's effect on the stability in the ME.
Muslims are uncontrolled savages, left behind by history, who can't stop fighting. The Christian and Jewish peoples meanwhile are peaceniks, spreading love and tolerance throughout the area, turning the other cheek at every opportunity.
Generally (very generally---over the centuries) speaking, this true in it's outcome.
Originally posted by segovius
With respect, you need to clarify some terms. For yourself - not for those who have experience of the region and/or its religions.
You are clearly drawing no distinction between dictatorial regimes and Islamic religion.
I don't mean to equate dictatorships with too much more than a general level of brutality and oppression in history---and that level of brutality is generally fading in the West.
Really, logic would dictate that either the oppressors are the 'real' Islam and the oppressed follow a false version or vice versa. They cannot both be 'the real thing' yet your initial presupposition rests on just this fallacy.
I think the general "submission" principle really generates both the opportunities for oppression and the level of acceptance it receives.
....[Ed: Jordan] semi-democratic, forward moving state that has successfully made peace with Israel and confronts the Islamist problem in its own (rather than the west's) way. With infinitely more success than has been shown elsewhere - but we can' have that. Move along....
Yes but it still has a King. I can't speak to Jordan much more than that, except that it gets good press.
Now unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask you for your definition of 'Islam' and what you understand by it.......
I think the "submission to the One" principle is probably the most important thing to consider here.
You see, we didn't see Al Queda, and other "insurgents" acting out in Iraq until American invaded---apparently SH's brutal use of power did not bother these same parties in a fundemental way.
Originally posted by segovius
Oh dear
Be fairminded---look back 200 years at Europe and Western thought in general---look at the advances. When you do, look back 500, 1000 years and see the fundamental changes, from the divine right of kings to the Manga Carta to Democracy in America.
Then look at the middle east, and Islam in general, something is wrong.
What is wrong is the vicissitudes of history: Islam was THE center of culture and learning until Subudai Khan and the Mongols destroyed Iraq, killing every muslimn in the city . . the Melemids(sp?) who finally defeated them started to institute a strict authoritarian and anti-progressive form of Islam . . .
and when the Spanish Muslims, who were exceedingly cultured were booted out of in favor of Christian biggotry and four-hundred subsequent years of Inquisition, the thriving Muslim culture hardened and lost its vitality . .
It could have happened to any culture, and almost did happen to Europe, the Mongols were set to invade but stopped due to the death of the Khan.
Originally posted by segovius
I'm not sure you've fully grasped this concept. In Islamic theology everything is the will of God.
It doesn't fall into an ontological trap such as that encountered by (orthodox 'churchian' versions) of Christianity where you have a God and it is necessary to have an opposite to explain 'evil'.
You cannot have a situation (for example) where a muslim struggles with questions such as 'how can a loving God allow x terrible thing to happen to me' or some such because it is a given that only God exists therefore everything must be his will.
As it is also believed that we as humans can never possibly know the mind of God, His complete nature or intentions then it follows that humans cannot possibly judge God (this would be blasphemy anyway). So, in Islamic terms, what else is there to do but to submit ?
The submission is to 'the way things are' in any case. You can call it God, fate or chance. It doesn't matter.
Actually, your assumption here seems to be that 'submission' is related to the western concept of 'force'. You submit because youa re forced too. This has been the classic misunderstanding (calumny ?) of Islam by the west for centuries and as such does nothing really apart from illustrate a western mindset which fails when it is forced (ha) onto an eastern framework.
It's not just muslims - it's all easterners who don't share the western view of 'submission' as related to force you have displayed. From Hinduism to Tao to Zen - acceptance of what is has everywhere been a staple of the highest metaphysical speculation and philosophy.
Everywhere except in the 'Christianised' west.
Excellent post.
Your first statement sums it up completely. Order is subsumed into the One. Couple that with redemption through outward works---this is not a good thing.
The eastern theology is another kettle of fish as well, but in general the outward workings are much more pragmatic.
Originally posted by segovius
This thread is discussing the outcome of such illusory divisions and I suppose my post to you and yours to mine are also classic textbook examples of it.
You may have a point there.
HOWEVER
.....my wife just came back from garge saleing with The Fifth Element
Luc Besson....Gary Oldman.....there goes my evening. I'm afraid the 23" cinema, apple pro speakers, and iSub may have to be deployed!
human nature i guess.
Originally posted by soulcrusher
people have disliked jews as long as they've existed. It's a trend.
human nature i guess.
There is no group of people that haven't been disliked for as long as they've been around.
Originally posted by bunge
There is no group of people that haven't been disliked for as long as they've been around.
if you say there's always been as much hatred for jews than say scientologists then you're wrong.
Originally posted by segovius
That's got to be a crock of bs - if Adam and Eve were Jewish (and surely they were - though I'd have thought the first humans would be African but no matter ????) then 'anti-semitism' can't have kicked in for quite a few generations. Certainly not in the immediate area as they were all Semites there (even though occassionally at war) and no-one had redefined the term then.
Adam and Eve can't have been 'jewish'. Jews=Hebrews=Children of Israel. You are right, the jew-haters wouldn't have kicked in till a long time after Adam and Eve. Around the time of the first Jews would be my guess.