Name one Islamic country who's Government was 'installed' by the US besides Afghanistan!
Morocco's monarchy, Egypt's dictators (which are changed by assassinations), Saudi-Arabia's dictatory Saud-family, Jordan's monarchy, Iran's Shah-regime,
all, of them were financed, trained and slowly but surely brought to power by the USA during and after the second worldwar 2, while Europe was busy making war with Hitler's Germany and lost most of its military power.
Iraq was the only success for the Soviet-Union, but was corrected in the sixties with the help of a CIA-coup.
The small Gulf-states are a special topic. They are all dictatory, but they are so small that there are basically only respectively one big family making up the whole population of these mini-states, the money from the sold oil makes most happy and they aren't allowing any other arabic people to found a family there, and to stay there permanently, they only let them in solitary as guest-workers...
Sorry, if this is news to you, but the islamic world is a US-neo-colony taken over from the Europeans. Iran is the only example of an islamic country successfully freeing themselves from the US-neo-colonialism, though that story is still not ended, as the US is preparing to change that probably.
The problem in Islam (such as it is) stems back several centuries - it was founded on what is called 'aql i.e. reason.
Briefly, this means theologically that if one is sincerely looking for truth (or God or whatever) then as God gave humans reason, reason will lead to the truth.
Therefore, traditionally in Islam, debate was encouraged about ALL topics. This was called the 'gate of ijtihad - nothing could not be argued and discussed as it was held that the truth would come out by that method.
Somewhere down the line, some Godless mullah passed a decree outlawing this and it caught on. Now it is frowned on. People are subject to law now rather than logic and reason. Discussion is not necessary because there is 'the law'. Questioning is in many cases not encouraged - especially by the Wahabis. This is not Islam anymore than the Crusades are Christianity.
I trust you can see the roots of the current problem in this theological turning-point rather than in an illusory 'reaction' to 'westernism' which may feed into it but is not the actual cause.
Actually this is a very interesting topic:
In Islam there can't be a mullah outlawing anything that isn't already outlawed by Quran.
Most of Islam's freedoms have been cut down during the ottoman-occupation and usurpation of the kalif-ship by the ottomans, that was the time it went down with islamic freedom of reason and thinking, etc... The people retreated into their private rooms and took their religion also inside, basically cutting the Islam from its economic and political elements..
The european colonists freed the islamic world from the ottomans and then took the opportunity of a resignated impolitical islamic population and became themselves the occupier...
Terrorism is the way that a part of the palestinian struggle, but it's not sufficiant, nor it's efficiant to kill civil palestinian or to destroy their houses. It just bring more fuel on the fire, and cancel any chances of peace.
Extremists on both sides co-depend on each other in a symbiotic way. Hamas and the militant wing of the PLO only exist, because they can point their fingers at the action of Israel - conversely, Sharon and his ilk are depending on the fear gripping the israeli society.
Because of this, those political figures that at some time try to bring peace are a prime target for assasination from their own side, for an example see:
Extremists on both sides co-depend on each other in a symbiotic way. Hamas and the militant wing of the PLO only exist, because they can point their fingers at the action of Israel - conversely, Sharon and his ilk are depending on the fear gripping the israeli society.
Because of this, those political figures that at some time try to bring peace are a prime target for assasination from their own side, for an example see:
Iran is the only example of an islamic country successfully freeing themselves from the US-neo-colonialism, though that story is still not ended, as the US is preparing to change that probably.
There seem to be plenty of Iranians who are preparing to change thestatus quo there too, no? That's not to say the US isn't into it also, just that I'd like to think that these people who are looking for a more liberal government there are more than mere marionettes to a puppeteer USA.
We need to distinguish what an extremist is - there are many people on these boards who are anti-Bush, anti-US policy, anti-Israel whatever. If they were muslims they would be branded 'extremists'.
Maybe so. But that doesn't mean they would be prepared to kill or undertake suicide missions.
There are two types of Islamic extremism - there is a very common one (more than 10% possibly I would say) that is literalist, fundamentalist and generally non-thinking. The Saudis spend billions on propaganda for this.
As an example, when I was at University in London 12 years ago studying Islamic religion, the faculty needed a new building. The government refused to put money into education so the Uni went cap in hand to various Islamic trusts whose purpose is the supposed furtherance of research into Islamic culture. Well, the Saudis (some minor prince) just doshed out a $2M cheque and voila, we had a Chair, a museum and a new building.
That's how they operate (and another area where the cozy relationship with the Sauds and western government needs exploring). Anyway, lo, we found that we could not say certain things as we used to, could not discuss certain things, certain courses were removed from the curriculum.
I remember one lecture where some muslims walked out because the topic under discussion was 'did Muhammad write the Qu'ran or was it divine' or some such (actually a very interesting topic because if he did write it then he was one of the greatest poets of all time - up there with Shakespeare, so it is of interest to literature research also).
This is extremism - not being prepared to discuss your ideas or question them (hint: get out of the university - actually they do, they go to the madrasa) and as such your '10%' is analogous to the Christian fundamentalists in America and, imo, has the same psychological roots - very few of these people will kill.
So that's one group of extremists. The other, the supposed al-Qs, is a bunch of hotheads not numbering more than 100,000 imo. I think that is a figure I got from some US gov source but am not sure. Of course it is growing every day and when the US go into Syria and Iran it will increase.
The people fighting in Iraq are not 'terrorists' in the main, they are muslims who hate the US because of what it is doing to them.
There seem to be plenty of Iranians who are preparing to change thestatus quo there too, no? That's not to say the US isn't into it also, just that I'd like to think that these people who are looking for a more liberal government there are more than mere marionettes to a puppeteer USA.
I totally agree, eventhough Iran is free from US-neocolonialism, it isn't a real democracy, more like half of it. And there are definetly developments that will lead to more and more democracy in the future, if the US doesn't take again the opportunity to destabilise Iran by exploiting these developments to more democracy by choosing a special group in Iran be it a group in the army, or somewhere else, and deliver that with firepower and intelligence-information and convincing them to try a coup in Iran...
So it's the Europeans that installed the oppressive governments not the US like you claimed before ?
There is no change in the things I claimed, I just stopped my history-telling in the timeframe before worldwar2 in my last posting.
The US came into play during worldwar2 and after worldwar2, and changed the direct colonialism of the europeans to a neocolonialism, by installing and supporting dictatorships that work in the interest of the US, without having occupying troops there.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
Name one Islamic country who's Government was 'installed' by the US besides Afghanistan!
Morocco's monarchy, Egypt's dictators (which are changed by assassinations), Saudi-Arabia's dictatory Saud-family, Jordan's monarchy, Iran's Shah-regime,
all, of them were financed, trained and slowly but surely brought to power by the USA during and after the second worldwar 2, while Europe was busy making war with Hitler's Germany and lost most of its military power.
Iraq was the only success for the Soviet-Union, but was corrected in the sixties with the help of a CIA-coup.
The small Gulf-states are a special topic. They are all dictatory, but they are so small that there are basically only respectively one big family making up the whole population of these mini-states, the money from the sold oil makes most happy and they aren't allowing any other arabic people to found a family there, and to stay there permanently, they only let them in solitary as guest-workers...
Sorry, if this is news to you, but the islamic world is a US-neo-colony taken over from the Europeans. Iran is the only example of an islamic country successfully freeing themselves from the US-neo-colonialism, though that story is still not ended, as the US is preparing to change that probably.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by segovius
The problem in Islam (such as it is) stems back several centuries - it was founded on what is called 'aql i.e. reason.
Briefly, this means theologically that if one is sincerely looking for truth (or God or whatever) then as God gave humans reason, reason will lead to the truth.
Therefore, traditionally in Islam, debate was encouraged about ALL topics. This was called the 'gate of ijtihad - nothing could not be argued and discussed as it was held that the truth would come out by that method.
Somewhere down the line, some Godless mullah passed a decree outlawing this and it caught on. Now it is frowned on. People are subject to law now rather than logic and reason. Discussion is not necessary because there is 'the law'. Questioning is in many cases not encouraged - especially by the Wahabis. This is not Islam anymore than the Crusades are Christianity.
I trust you can see the roots of the current problem in this theological turning-point rather than in an illusory 'reaction' to 'westernism' which may feed into it but is not the actual cause.
Actually this is a very interesting topic:
In Islam there can't be a mullah outlawing anything that isn't already outlawed by Quran.
Most of Islam's freedoms have been cut down during the ottoman-occupation and usurpation of the kalif-ship by the ottomans, that was the time it went down with islamic freedom of reason and thinking, etc... The people retreated into their private rooms and took their religion also inside, basically cutting the Islam from its economic and political elements..
The european colonists freed the islamic world from the ottomans and then took the opportunity of a resignated impolitical islamic population and became themselves the occupier...
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Terrorism is the way that a part of the palestinian struggle, but it's not sufficiant, nor it's efficiant to kill civil palestinian or to destroy their houses. It just bring more fuel on the fire, and cancel any chances of peace.
Extremists on both sides co-depend on each other in a symbiotic way. Hamas and the militant wing of the PLO only exist, because they can point their fingers at the action of Israel - conversely, Sharon and his ilk are depending on the fear gripping the israeli society.
Because of this, those political figures that at some time try to bring peace are a prime target for assasination from their own side, for an example see:
- Yitzhak Rabin, shot by an Israeli.
- Anwar al-Sadat, shot by islamic fundamentalists.
Originally posted by Smircle
Extremists on both sides co-depend on each other in a symbiotic way. Hamas and the militant wing of the PLO only exist, because they can point their fingers at the action of Israel - conversely, Sharon and his ilk are depending on the fear gripping the israeli society.
Because of this, those political figures that at some time try to bring peace are a prime target for assasination from their own side, for an example see:
- Yitzhak Rabin, shot by an Israeli.
- Anwar al-Sadat, shot by islamic fundamentalists.
I agree with this one.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Iran is the only example of an islamic country successfully freeing themselves from the US-neo-colonialism, though that story is still not ended, as the US is preparing to change that probably.
There seem to be plenty of Iranians who are preparing to change thestatus quo there too, no? That's not to say the US isn't into it also, just that I'd like to think that these people who are looking for a more liberal government there are more than mere marionettes to a puppeteer USA.
Originally posted by segovius
We need to distinguish what an extremist is - there are many people on these boards who are anti-Bush, anti-US policy, anti-Israel whatever. If they were muslims they would be branded 'extremists'.
Maybe so. But that doesn't mean they would be prepared to kill or undertake suicide missions.
There are two types of Islamic extremism - there is a very common one (more than 10% possibly I would say) that is literalist, fundamentalist and generally non-thinking. The Saudis spend billions on propaganda for this.
As an example, when I was at University in London 12 years ago studying Islamic religion, the faculty needed a new building. The government refused to put money into education so the Uni went cap in hand to various Islamic trusts whose purpose is the supposed furtherance of research into Islamic culture. Well, the Saudis (some minor prince) just doshed out a $2M cheque and voila, we had a Chair, a museum and a new building.
That's how they operate (and another area where the cozy relationship with the Sauds and western government needs exploring). Anyway, lo, we found that we could not say certain things as we used to, could not discuss certain things, certain courses were removed from the curriculum.
I remember one lecture where some muslims walked out because the topic under discussion was 'did Muhammad write the Qu'ran or was it divine' or some such (actually a very interesting topic because if he did write it then he was one of the greatest poets of all time - up there with Shakespeare, so it is of interest to literature research also).
This is extremism - not being prepared to discuss your ideas or question them (hint: get out of the university - actually they do, they go to the madrasa) and as such your '10%' is analogous to the Christian fundamentalists in America and, imo, has the same psychological roots - very few of these people will kill.
So that's one group of extremists. The other, the supposed al-Qs, is a bunch of hotheads not numbering more than 100,000 imo. I think that is a figure I got from some US gov source but am not sure. Of course it is growing every day and when the US go into Syria and Iran it will increase.
The people fighting in Iraq are not 'terrorists' in the main, they are muslims who hate the US because of what it is doing to them.
What is so hard to understand ?
Well, i don't say it much, but well written seg.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
There seem to be plenty of Iranians who are preparing to change thestatus quo there too, no? That's not to say the US isn't into it also, just that I'd like to think that these people who are looking for a more liberal government there are more than mere marionettes to a puppeteer USA.
I totally agree, eventhough Iran is free from US-neocolonialism, it isn't a real democracy, more like half of it. And there are definetly developments that will lead to more and more democracy in the future, if the US doesn't take again the opportunity to destabilise Iran by exploiting these developments to more democracy by choosing a special group in Iran be it a group in the army, or somewhere else, and deliver that with firepower and intelligence-information and convincing them to try a coup in Iran...
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by pfflam
(to Nightcrawler) Boy, it must be dark up there . . . and warm . . . and slippery wet with mucous.
It's at least not as cold and wet as the icy water you have just broken into.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by segovius
So it's the Europeans that installed the oppressive governments not the US like you claimed before ?
There is no change in the things I claimed, I just stopped my history-telling in the timeframe before worldwar2 in my last posting.
The US came into play during worldwar2 and after worldwar2, and changed the direct colonialism of the europeans to a neocolonialism, by installing and supporting dictatorships that work in the interest of the US, without having occupying troops there.
Nightcrawler