Osama Bin Laden's address to the People of America, September 7th 2007

[spot]

Given that Osama Bin Laden has issued his first video address to the People of America since 2004 I thought I'd read the transcript. He argues that the People of America have a choice in determining the future course of their society. Either they can persevere with the indistinguishable consequences of future Democrat and Republican administrations or they can reject the identical two-party pretence of freedom and democracy and convert to Islam, thereby bringing in a genuine change to the values of governance.

Here's the transcript of the video. I find it hard to disagree with any of his comments, if one sets aside his ascription of Allah's grace to the events of September 11th 2001. Can anyone see a paragraph or two they'd like to take issue with?

[RedGlitter]

Peace be upon he who follows this Guidance? What does this crazy crackpot know about peace? I'm probably not the one who should be answering as I will not commend his diatribe against America but I refuse to lend intelligence to the enemy and he is just that. It wouldn't matter what he said, it comes from a lunatic and it warrants no trust, no belief.

In fact all it's done is **** me off.

[RedGlitter]

And furthermore, the reason it pisses me off so much is because of the backbone of its construct: "You deserved what you got." There's a reason slaves listened to their masters and it wasn't out of respect. How dare we become slaves to this evil mess's ways.

[spot]

RedGlitter;692539 wrote: It wouldn't matter what he said, it comes from a lunatic and it warrants no trust, no belief. The video mentions a very impressive analyst in the CIA called Michael Scheuer who has written extensively on Osama Bin Laden, and who "served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center". I can think of few writers whose grasp impresses me more.

He would disagree with you as regards the "lunatic" gibe. If you look at the wiki article on him you'll see what I mean.

Here's a paragraph from one of his books:In 1993 Osama bin Laden began speaking in detail to Muslim and Western journalists about his beliefs, goals, and intentions, and began publishing commentaries on these matters in the media.... While bin Laden's words have not been a torrent, they are plentiful, carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the United States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it.

[...]

It's always been hard for me to understand how we say people who support Osama Bin Laden or someone else like him – who are willing to give their lives to destroy the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia – how we can describe those people as people who hated freedom. It seems to me that their definition of freedom might be different than ours, but to oppose a dictatorship, one must want freedom in some kind of way.

Here's an absolutely key passage:The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society.

RedGlitter;692542 wrote: There's a reason slaves listened to their masters and it wasn't out of respect.Does it work the other way? Do Americans think the people of the Middle East are their natural slaves? Is that why such an effort's made to impose fear on Iraqis and Iranians?

[RedGlitter]

I'll get back to this, Spot. Right now I am purely reactionary and just starting my day. Eyes aren't even functioning yet.

By the way, good morning to you.

[Galbally]

I don't know, it sounds pretty much like your normal run of the mill sub-marxist antiwestern rant with some of the usual pseudo religious and historical self-justification that al queda specialize in. Its interesting as he seems to be suggesting that America or "The West" he doesn't really define things like that, (as I suppose to him we all look the same), dismantle its economic, political, religious, and cultural arrangements and adopt Osama's beloved and highly attractive brand of ultra exteme Islam somehow, en masse I suppose, without any complaints (or else he will kill us, thanks). So not much change there as reasonable as ever. Its kinda dissapointing as I prefer the more apocaylptic Osama myself, this guy comes over a bit sulky.

Its certainly true that complete dearth of political, and moral leadership that George Bush represents has been a huge boost for the ambitions of men such as Osama in the middle east, as has general western loss of self-belief and confidence in itself, and the utterly disasterous decision to invade Iraq by the U.S. and Britain, (once more, Tony what the hell were you thinking). However, all things change, (if there is one thing that Western countries are good at is adapting themselves to confront new realities in ways that societies based on monolithic and encumbering ideas like communism or theocracy, monarchy, totalitarianism, are completely unable to do) and we shall see what we shall see.

[spot]

Where on earth is sub-Marxist in what he wrote? He's the guy who kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan because he dislikes Marxism, remember?

[Galbally]

spot;692570 wrote: Where on earth is sub-Marxist in what he wrote? He's the guy who kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan because he dislikes Marxism, remember?


I guess in the tone of his anti western rants, its all a bit "imperalist running dogs" isn't it??? Then there is the inevitable "evil american corporations" bit, now look we all know that yes, okay corporations are evil (I mean apple computers wouldn't replace my iMac with a newer model when it came out for free, evil b*stards), but at least with corporations you get a 28 day refund if you don't like whats on offer, wheras with terrorist, anarachist, jihaddist, nationalist and other various dissaffected groups in this crazi world , all you get is a badly written pamphlet explaining why you are about to die, lose all your possessions, your job (etc etc) because you are evil (of course) because you are a westerner, a communist, a commie-nazi, a government official, a small farmer who won't pay off the local thugs (sorry I mean noble freedom attainers), or a charity aid worker, or I dunno, some woman at a bus stop.

I dunno, we have been here before with other people and movements, and what the long-term outcome of all this current conflict is, who knows, its got a bit of a historical edge to it, but from my perspective, Bin Laden and his world view, particularly in terms of the west is bullsh*t, so I don't subscribe to his take on world history (i.e. that Islam was ever something very attractive to Europeans, it wasn't historically, even at its zenith, and it certainly isn't now), its just the same old same old if you ask me.

[spot]

The man doesn't like having western armies in the Middle East.

If there were no western armies in the Middle East - and, to be fair, a settlement to the Palestinian issue, which is surrogate-Western in its financing - the man would have no axe to grind with the West. He'd still be pursuing political goals in the Middle East but then, he's a local politician. He'd criticize the West no doubt, but then so do I. He'd not organize attacks against the West, nor if he did would he have any grassroots support.

He's offering Islam to the People of America because their troops are on his soil. If they weren't, he wouldn't. Western resistance to occupation is considered laudable by Westerners, but people seem incapable of extending the thought beyond their borders.

He's quite incapable of destroying America and he'd have no support for attacking if America were not Imperialist. The "Imperialist running-dog" is, conventionally, Great Britain, an epithet first applied by Mao, in that we hunt with the Yanks.

To laugh at matters with "why you are about to die, lose all your possessions, your job (etc etc) because you are evil (of course) because" is to lose the chance to contend seriously with the content of the transcript. As with other addresses to the People of America it's quite honest, I think. It has to be honest in order to be a prelude to more mayhem.

[Kathy Ellen]

Spot,

No disrespect to you, but I could honestly give a rat's ass about what this monster says or thinks. He's pure evil ,and I appreciate nothing that he has to say.

[spot]

Kathy Ellen;692723 wrote: He's pure evilThat opinion is the consequence of refusing to follow events, and I'm sure you've learned it from your mass media. It's a major mistake. Nobody, anywhere, ever, is or has been "pure evil". They can be, on balance, evil, if you evaluate the consequence of their actions and consider their motives. The consequence of Osama bin Laden's actions may turn out to be beneficial in the long term, who knows. He's certainly responsible for far fewer deaths than some other current participants in world events. Refusing to read his words is childish spite.

[RedGlitter]

I wish, just once, I could be as well spoken and possess the ability to translate my thoughts as well as Galbally. Instead I stumble most blindly.

I think it is very possible to be an intelligent human and still be a lunatic crackpot. I offer Hitler as a tired example.

When the school bully beats you up and then tells you if you'll hand over your lunch money every day, he'll stop beating you, and that it's all your own fault, do you believe him? In fact, do you care at all about anything he has to say about anything?

Osama is nothing but a very intelligent bullying lunatic zealot. To listen to what claptrap he speaks is (in my mind) to give credence to the enemy.

He bombed America. He IS the enemy. I can think of nothing that would have the ability to sway me on this. We're not doing things Osama's way.

If he didn't want to hear from us, he should have kept his damned planes in his own country.

[spot]

All that you say is true, Red, except that Osama bin Laden is very weak and the only bully on the block is the American armed forces which are so overwhelmingly more powerful than anyone else's that the difference is laughable. The sheer asymmetry is the problem. America decides to station troops in the Middle East, how's anyone supposed to get them withdrawn? Who wants them there other than America and any stooge they've pushed into high office, like the Shah? And what happened to Iran as a consequence of the Shah being forced into office? Anti-Americanism for the next fifty years, that's what happened. Who would have thought it.

By all means call Osama bin Laden an intelligent zealot but you can't call him a bully, he's the weaker party. He's not a lunatic because his arguments and behavior are quite evidently sane and explicable. He has a simple demand which is for foreign armies of occupation to leave the Middle East. If you think that foreign armies of occupation should stay in the Middle East then you really ought to be able to out-argue his reasons. The plain fact is that he's right. Armed forces legitimately live in their homeland, not in 400 bases scattered around the planet to hold down foreigners. In the homeland they're defense. In 400 bases scattered around the planet they're an Imperial Occupation.

[RedGlitter]

spot;692882 wrote: All that you say is true, Red, except that Osama bin Laden is very weak and the only bully on the block is the American armed forces which are so overwhelmingly more powerful than anyone else's that the difference is laughable. The sheer asymmetry is the problem. America decides to station troops in the Middle East, how's anyone supposed to get them withdrawn? Who wants them there other than America and any stooge they've pushed into high office, like the Shah? And what happened to Iran as a consequence of the Shah being forced into office? Anti-Americanism for the next fifty years, that's what happened. Who would have thought it.

By all means call Osama bin Laden an intelligent zealot but you can't call him a bully, he's the weaker party. He's not a lunatic because his arguments and behavior are quite evidently sane and explicable. He has a simple demand which is for foreign armies of occupation to leave the Middle East. If you think that foreign armies of occupation should stay in the Middle East then you really ought to be able to out-argue his reasons. The plain fact is that he's right. Armed forces legitimately live in their homeland, not in 400 bases scattered around the planet to hold down foreigners. In the homeland they're defense. In 400 bases scattered around the planet they're an Imperial Occupation.


Spot, I'm afraid I just cannot see it the way you are presenting it. Or wait, maybe I am able to see your points rather, but it's that I cannot excuse or remotely justify Osama's actions. He is responsible for 9/11. Almost wholly except for the lunatic pilots who carried out his wishes.

I continue to apply lunacy to these wretches on purpose. I do not see Osama and his ilk in the same light as the above mentioned analyst apparently does. Obviously he is intelligent enough to commandeer other losers into destruction of another country but that does not make him just, right, fair or sane. I may be a holdout in this PC age but I still believe if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. In this case substitute "crackpot" for duck.

I do not think we should be occupying the middle east as a rule. But nor do I think we should accept what was done to us and do Bin Laden's bidding. I think we should have found him and annihilated him six years ago. And while I think it would be coming too late, I don't think it would be wrong in coming at all.

I can't pretend to be as knowledgable as some on this whole issue (much as I'd like to try!) and I apologize for my shortcomings regarding. But I have nothing but hatred for this monster, I do see him as evil and hateful and I can't apologize for that. It is my feeling that his removal would be no loss to the world.

[nvalleyvee]

spot;692522 wrote: Given that Osama Bin Laden has issued his first video address to the People of America since 2004 I thought I'd read the transcript. He argues that the People of America have a choice in determining the future course of their society. Either they can persevere with the indistinguishable consequences of future Democrat and Republican administrations or they can reject the identical two-party pretence of freedom and democracy and convert to Islam, thereby bringing in a genuine change to the values of governance.

Here's the transcript of the video. I find it hard to disagree with any of his comments, if one sets aside his ascription of Allah's grace to the events of September 11th 2001. Can anyone see a paragraph or two they'd like to take issue with?


Hey Spot.....................

I am quite sure Osama is a dead mofo. His followers may keep his spirit alive.............that MOFO is dead

[spot]

nvalleyvee;692948 wrote: Hey Spot.....................

I am quite sure Osama is a dead mofo. His followers may keep his spirit alive.............that MOFO is dead


Who wants him dead, nv?Think about an administration that has used the terrorist bogeyman to justify outright war on two countries and threatens another. One that has declared economic and diplomatic war on others; that has used the terrorist threat to build up its arms budget to unprecedented heights; that has extended the prerogatives of the president beyond all constitutional measure - and invented a whole set of them for the vice-president.

Would all this have been possible if Osama bin Laden had been brought to justice and revealed to be just a ramblingly discursive, albeit murderous, faith-based fanatic? [...] Objectively, who benefits from allowing this malevolent, self-confessed mass murderer to remain at large?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian ... large.html

The video mentions "the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown" showing the recording was made at least after the French Presidential election in May this year and presumably after Brown took office this June. Then you get:TECHNICAL analysis suggests the voice on a new al-Qaeda video made public today is that of Osama bin Laden, a US intelligence official said today. "Initial technical analysis suggests that the voice on the videotape is indeed that of Osama bin Laden," the official said. - or why did the US Senate in July approve "doubling to $50 million the reward for information leading to the capture of bin Laden" if he was dead before then? Suggesting it's a fake video or older than this summer is going off the edge, surely. Or are you insisting he died in the last three months?

[gmc]

posted by galbally

I dunno, we have been here before with other people and movements, and what the long-term outcome of all this current conflict is, who knows, its got a bit of a historical edge to it, but from my perspective, Bin Laden and his world view, particularly in terms of the west is bullsh*t, so I don't subscribe to his take on world history (i.e. that Islam was ever something very attractive to Europeans, it wasn't historically, even at its zenith, and it certainly isn't now), its just the same old same old if you ask me.


Actually if you did a little digging you might get a bit of a surprise.

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/antisectar ... erview.asp

Relationships were not confined to the intellectual, but also included political and partisan connections. For example, King John was excommunicated by Pope Innocent III in the twelfth century for offering his help to the North African King, Abu Abdullah Mohammad an-Nasir, in his campaign against the Spanish Catholic King of Aragon. Much later, Elizabeth I offered in 1588 to enter into an alliance with Murad III (1546-95) to overthrow the then King of Spain, as she viewed the Muslims as 'fellow monotheists' and the Spanish King as 'idolatrous' (M. Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 1991).

Religious fundamentalists of any kind are dangerous if they start getting people following them.

[spot]

RedGlitter;692934 wrote: I can't pretend to be as knowledgable as some on this whole issue (much as I'd like to try!) and I apologize for my shortcomings regarding. But I have nothing but hatred for this monster, I do see him as evil and hateful and I can't apologize for that. It is my feeling that his removal would be no loss to the world.But you were justifying your hated for him by describing him as a bully, Red. And I pointed out the utter imbalance between his miniscule power, totally unable to destroy the USA, and the power of America to totally destroy other countries whenever the mood takes them to do so - such as Iraq. How can you possibly call him a bully? He's reacting to events, he's not instigating them. He said to the USA way way back withdraw your troops and stop attacking Arabs, long after the USA had stationed troops in the Middle East and attacked Arabs. What possible right did the US have for doing either? A bully isn't someone who finally lashes back after being gratuitously used as a punchbag for years.

Neither is such an action lunacy if you consider that doing it got him absolutely everything he could have wanted - a huge rise in grassroots support for anti-American and pro-fundamentalist action within the Middle East. You might loathe him but if he's been successful in achieving his ambitions, and those ambitions are sensible for someone in his position to want, he's not mad.

What would you say to someone who applied "Obviously he is intelligent enough to commandeer other losers into destruction of another country but that does not make him just, right, fair or sane" to your own President? Holding up a mirror helps clarify matters sometimes.

[RedGlitter]

spot;692964 wrote: But you were justifying your hated for him by describing him as a bully, Red. And I pointed out the utter imbalance between his miniscule power, totally unable to destroy the USA, and the power of America to totally destroy other countries whenever the mood takes them to do so - such as Iraq. How can you possibly call him a bully? He's reacting to events, he's not instigating them. He said to the USA way way back withdraw your troops and stop attacking Arabs, long after the USA had stationed troops in the Middle East and attacked Arabs. What possible right did the US have for doing either? A bully isn't someone who finally lashes back after being gratuitously used as a punchbag for years.

Neither is such an action lunacy if you consider that doing it got him absolutely everything he could have wanted - a huge rise in grassroots support for anti-American and pro-fundamentalist action within the Middle East. You might loathe him but if he's been successful in achieving his ambitions, and those ambitions are sensible for someone in his position to want, he's not mad.

What would you say to someone who applied "Obviously he is intelligent enough to commandeer other losers into destruction of another country but that does not make him just, right, fair or sane" to your own President? Holding up a mirror helps clarify matters sometimes.


I think we're going around in circles, Spot. I call him a bully regardless of whether or not his power is more formidable than ours. He knowingly took the lives of two loons who were willing to sacrifice themselves by crashing planes through buildings. At least our troops can reasonably expect to live after they complete their tour. He's a bully for attacking our country for no reason that I can see. Bullies aren't just about the measure of their power, they are also about the magnitude of their threat. And I do think he was (is) an instigator rather than a reactionary.

How do you see Osama as having been the US's punching bag?

How do you see America as destroying whole countries whenever the mood strikes?

We may have different understandings of madness. I guess I'm supposed to view Bush as a crazy crackpot who is just as bad as Osama. Except I don't. I don't like Bush and I am embarrassed by him and even though I disagree with much of his policy, I don't think he's insane or evil. I do think those things of Bin Laden though. I understand that it's beneficial to know/understand one's enemy. But at the same time I think humanizing someone with little to no conscience who is capable of masterminding such unwarranted destruction is a very dangerous act. I don't have that mirror you speak of. What I would say to that about Bush being insane, evil and unjust is simply that's it's wrong. That may be an unpopular view but that's what I would say.

[Galbally]

spot;692674 wrote: The man doesn't like having western armies in the Middle East.

If there were no western armies in the Middle East - and, to be fair, a settlement to the Palestinian issue, which is surrogate-Western in its financing - the man would have no axe to grind with the West. He'd still be pursuing political goals in the Middle East but then, he's a local politician. He'd criticize the West no doubt, but then so do I. He'd not organize attacks against the West, nor if he did would he have any grassroots support.

He's offering Islam to the People of America because their troops are on his soil. If they weren't, he wouldn't. Western resistance to occupation is considered laudable by Westerners, but people seem incapable of extending the thought beyond their borders.

He's quite incapable of destroying America and he'd have no support for attacking if America were not Imperialist. The "Imperialist running-dog" is, conventionally, Great Britain, an epithet first applied by Mao, in that we hunt with the Yanks.

To laugh at matters with "why you are about to die, lose all your possessions, your job (etc etc) because you are evil (of course) because" is to lose the chance to contend seriously with the content of the transcript. As with other addresses to the People of America it's quite honest, I think. It has to be honest in order to be a prelude to more mayhem.


I have to disagree with you on your interpretation of Bin Laden's agenda. Al Queda do not seek a peaceful middle-east, on the contrary, they seek to destroy western interests in the region (and whether they are a good or bad thing for us is a different argument) precise because the agenda is to wipe away the existsing political arrangements in the region, and establish a quasi-mythical caliphate, by any and all means necessary. You know what that entails spot, and it won't be achieved by peaceful means. But that is not the end of the ambition, then there is Al Queda's own version of "globalization" in which they envisage a world ruled from mecca and medina by a global theocracy (or Islamic thought police) which would undoubtledly have to rule by a rule of terror that would make Stalin and Beria look tame, a world with one centrally enfourced religion, a semi-feudal economic system in which no doubt the holy men would live in marble palaces, and where the value of a persons life would be judged in their conformace to come Islamic theorcractic standard, all other cultures, creeds, ideas wiped out, a kind of lunatic religious nazi empire, with the Arabs as the master race.

You might think thats hyperbole, but it isn't just look at some of the literature coming out of the extremist movements, thats their vision, and its a dark one indeed, and its motivating many young men to violence and not just against us in the west, but also against non muslims in Africa, SE Asia, and now Europe as well, if you prefer to ignore the actual reality of the message and cause of Al Queda (what the followers and leaders of that organization actually espouse) thats your privilegde. I advise against it though, I think you are only hearing what you want to hear to be honest spot, his "apeal" to the Americans is just cynical propaganda which is more for Arab consumption than anything else, as in his own land he is trying (and not without success) to paint himself as a hero, a modern Saladin, or Attaturk, he is none of those things, but all it takes is for enough people to "believe" he is, and his job is done. One thing I will agree with you on, is that US policy in the region in the last 5 years has only strengthened his hand, and that is a sad endictment of the Bush administration.

[Galbally]

gmc;692962 wrote: posted by galbally



Actually if you did a little digging you might get a bit of a surprise.

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/antisectar ... erview.asp

.

Religious fundamentalists of any kind are dangerous if they start getting people following them.


yes they certainly are, its taken us the best part of 1,500 years to free ourselves from the dark ages of religion here in Europe (of which great scots such as David Hume and other leaders of the scottish enlightenment played so great a part in). The fact that christian European kings were prepared to form alliances with powerful muslim states in the past is hardly a revelation, after all the Ottoman Empire was a fully active part of the "concert of Europe" in the 19th century, and that was an Islamic Empire par excellance.

However, I also would suggest that overall, the civilization of Europe, from which modern western civilization sprang was completely inimical to Islamic ideas, and visa versa, and in truth very little has changed, we just were in the luxurious position of being able to ignore all other competing world-views from our lofty position of absolute power in the past, however, that reality is changing for certain in the 21st century, and we need to quicly reasses and redfine what and who we are as civilizational grouping, what is important to us and what isn't, and most importantly get our heads out of the clouds before its too late and we once more find ourselves plunged into a world of religion and superstition and ultimately a relgiously inspired armageddon. That threat comes from inside our own societies most certainly, but also very much from the outside as well, and we are not immune or invunerable to it, and to think thats the case is either based on parochialism or hubris. Thats my opinion anyway.

[spot]

Galbally;693014 wrote: I have to disagree with you on your interpretation of Bin Laden's agenda. Al Queda do not seek a peaceful middle-east, on the contrary, they seek to destroy western interests in the region (and whether they are a good or bad thing for us is a different argument) precise because the agenda is to wipe away the existsing political arrangements in the region, and establish a quasi-mythical caliphate, by any and all means necessary. You know what that entails spot, and it won't be achieved by peaceful means. But that is not the end of the ambition, then there is Al Queda's own version of "globalization" in which they envisage a world ruled from mecca and medina by a global theocracy (or Islamic thought police) which would undoubtledly have to rule by a rule of terror that would make Stalin and Beria look tame, a world with one centrally enfourced religion, a semi-feudal economic system in which no doubt the holy men would live in marble palaces, and where the value of a persons life would be judged in their conformace to come Islamic theorcractic standard, all other cultures, creeds, ideas wiped out, a kind of lunatic religious nazi empire, with the Arabs as the master race.

You might think thats hyperbole, but it isn't just look at some of the literature coming out of the extremist movements, thats their vision, and its a dark one indeed, and its motivating many young men to violence and not just against us in the west, but also against non muslims in Africa, SE Asia, and now Europe as well, if you prefer to ignore the actual reality of the message and cause of Al Queda (what the followers and leaders of that organization actually espouse) thats your privilegde. I advise against it though, I think you are only hearing what you want to hear to be honest spot, his "apeal" to the Americans is just cynical propaganda which is more for Arab consumption than anything else, as in his own land he is trying (and not without success) to paint himself as a hero, a modern Saladin, or Attaturk, he is none of those things, but all it takes is for enough people to "believe" he is, and his job is done. One thing I will agree with you on, is that US policy in the region in the last 5 years has only strengthened his hand, and that is a sad endictment of the Bush administration.


That's such generalized rhetoric, Gallbally - I'll even show you so. Let's hold the mirror up again.I have to disagree with you on your interpretation of America's agenda. The USA does not seek a peaceful Middle East, on the contrary, it seeks to destroy Arab and Iranian interests in the region (and whether they are a good or bad thing for us is a different argument) precisely because the agenda is to wipe away the existing political arrangements in the region, and establish quasi-mythical democracies, by any and all means necessary. You know what that entails Galbally, and it won't be achieved by peaceful means. But that is not the end of the ambition, then there is the USA's own version of "globalization" in which they envisage a world ruled from Washington and New York by global capitalism (or World Bank dividend police) which would undoubtedly have to rule by a rule of terror that would make Stalin and Beria look tame, a world with one centrally enforced religion, a capitalist economic system in which no doubt the CEOs would live in marble palaces, and where the value of a person's life would be judged in their conformance to come capitalist profitability standard, all other cultures, creeds, ideas wiped out, a kind of imbalanced minority Hyper-Wealth Oligarchy, with the Americans as the master race.

You might think thats hyperbole, but it isn't just look at some of the literature coming out of the Project For The New American Century (PNAC), that's their vision and it's a dark one indeed, and its motivating many greedy men to violence and not just against Iraq and Iran, but also against the poor in South and Central America, and now the USA itself as well, if you prefer to ignore the actual reality of the message and cause of PNAC (what the followers and leaders of that organization actually espouse) thats your privilege. I advise against it though, I think you are only hearing what you want to hear to be honest Galbally, Bush's "appeal" to the Iraqis is just cynical propaganda which is more for American consumption than anything else, as in his own land he is trying (and not without success) to paint himself as a hero, a modern Washington or Abe Lincoln, he is none of those things, but all it takes is for enough people to "believe" he is, and his job is done. One thing I will agree with you on, is that Palestinian policy in the region in the last 7 years has only strengthened his hand, and that is a sad indictment of the Fatah administration.

[Galbally]

spot;693030 wrote: That's such generalized rhetoric, Gallbally - I'll even show you so. Let's hold the mirror up again.I have to disagree with you on your interpretation of America's agenda. The USA does not seek a peaceful Middle East, on the contrary, it seeks to destroy Arab and Iranian interests in the region (and whether they are a good or bad thing for us is a different argument) precisely because the agenda is to wipe away the existing political arrangements in the region, and establish quasi-mythical democracies, by any and all means necessary. You know what that entails Galbally, and it won't be achieved by peaceful means. But that is not the end of the ambition, then there is the USA's own version of "globalization" in which they envisage a world ruled from Washington and New York by global capitalism (or World Bank dividend police) which would undoubtedly have to rule by a rule of terror that would make Stalin and Beria look tame, a world with one centrally enforced religion, a capitalist economic system in which no doubt the CEOs would live in marble palaces, and where the value of a person's life would be judged in their conformance to come capitalist profitability standard, all other cultures, creeds, ideas wiped out, a kind of imbalanced minority Hyper-Wealth Oligarchy, with the Americans as the master race.

You might think thats hyperbole, but it isn't just look at some of the literature coming out of the Project For The New American Century (PNAC), that's their vision and it's a dark one indeed, and its motivating many young men to violence and not just against Iraq and Iran, but also against the poor in South and Central America, and now the USA itself as well, if you prefer to ignore the actual reality of the message and cause of PNAC (what the followers and leaders of that organization actually espouse) thats your privilege. I advise against it though, I think you are only hearing what you want to hear to be honest Galbally, Bush's "appeal" to the Iraqis is just cynical propaganda which is more for American consumption than anything else, as in his own land he is trying (and not without success) to paint himself as a hero, a modern Washington or Abe Lincoln, he is none of those things, but all it takes is for enough people to "believe" he is, and his job is done. One thing I will agree with you on, is that Palestinian policy in the region in the last 7 years has only strengthened his hand, and that is a sad indictment of the Fatah administration.


Sure, but how do discuss a rhetorical argument regarding the rhetoric of the said Bin Laden without using rhetoric, and also how do you argue about geopolitical debates without using generalities? A major flaw in your well argued post is that you cannot equate the United States, which is a nation of 300 million people of very varying political, cultural, relgious, civil, social ideas and agendas. And Al Queda which is a monolithic political movement of several thousand people based on a very simplistic idea of the ascendancy of one form of Extremist Islam. Also, as far as I am aware, the politics of the middle east is driven by more than just American Foreign policy and the need for oil. This was the situation prior to 2003, 2001, 1990, 1973, 1967, 1948, 1919, etc etc. Likewise Al Queda are not (whatever commentators might say), broadly representative of Arab opinion, many Arabs are deeply hostile to the fundamentalism that is tearing Arab socities apart and despair of the retrenchment into violent religiosity and xenophobia which seems the only answer of some muslim groups to the problems that face Islamic countries in the modern era. I would contend that therefore to compare Al Queuda, which is an ultra violent, nihilistic, millenarian, unrepresentive, small terrorist/politcial organization to the U.S. government, which among other things is the culmination of 200 years of the civil administration of the entirety of the people living in the territory of the United States is like comparing say David Korseh and the Branch Davidians with the EU as if they are equally valid or quantifiable entities.

The analysis is still valid, what you have to ask yourself is would our interests be actually served by appeasing al queda, surrendering the middle east to their organization. Do you agree with Bin Laden's vision of the world, where would you suggest the part of European intellectuals such as yourself would exist within that world? Also, just because right wing conservatives in the U.S. are democrats, is this enough that you would say thay democracy is something that is inherently wrong, guilty by association, or "mystical" a chimera? Would you describe the U.K. as a democracy, is that something you find to be a good thing or bad thing as a model for the governance generally? You know, parliament, the rule of law, seperation of powers, the idea of fundamental rights? Is this something non Western people are capable of maintaining as a system or something that is only valid for say Europe and North America? Is that argument over? I don't think so.

That this idea that somehow Arabs cannot have democracies and are are just happier living in repressive regiemes based on some outmoded socialist doctrine or even an absolute monarchy is fine, irks me. Even worse that perhaps really they would be better off with Bin Ladens version of the Muslim world is to my mind deeply offensive. This is something I don't understand, how can you argue in favour of a man with such obscene views and suggest that in reality his world view, should it ever come to pass, would be beneficial for one fifth of all humanity, seriously, come on Spot.

I just don't get that, seeing as you would never, ever accept such things in the U.K. Imagine a totalitarian Labour party in the U.K. with Blair as lifetime leader, followed by his son Ewan for example, based on Christianity of the more robust kind, and run for the benefit if an elite military and civil class, involving the use of religious courts, the deranking of all women to second class citizens, the reintroduction of the death penalty for lifestyle choices, (such as sleeping around or homosexuality), the complete intellectual subjugation of the population to the government, the discimination of minorities based on race, religious affliation, the primacy of religion over rationalism, of fundamentalist christianity over humanism, and the peace of the grave for those who dissent. You are suggesting that, in the case of the entire region of the Muslim world we should watch this very thing happen on a continental scale, and we should simply say, yeah, fine, just leave us alone.....please??

So why is somehow wrong to aspire to proleytise for the ideas we find equitable in our own societies, and not in others, is it that basically "whitey and all his works are evil?" you are just becomming an apologist for the most base, violent and idiotic anti-westernism, that is at its heart as xenophobic and racist as any other form of particularist biogotry. And I say this in spite of all the very cynical and frankly stupid policies that the U.S. is following in relation to the middle east, but that still doesn't mean that we should simply retreat into some rhetorical position and hope everything just turns out nice in the end, thats foolish.

[gmc]

Galbally;693018 wrote: yes they certainly are, its taken us the best part of 1,500 years to free ourselves from the dark ages of religion here in Europe (of which great scots such as David Hume and other leaders of the scottish enlightenment played so great a part in). The fact that christian European kings were prepared to form alliances with powerful muslim states in the past is hardly a revelation, after all the Ottoman Empire was a fully active part of the "concert of Europe" in the 19th century, and that was an Islamic Empire par excellance.

However, I also would suggest that overall, the civilization of Europe, from which modern western civilization sprang was completely inimical to Islamic ideas, and visa versa, and in truth very little has changed, we just were in the luxurious position of being able to ignore all other competing world-views from our lofty position of absolute power in the past, however, that reality is changing for certain in the 21st century, and we need to quicly reasses and redfine what and who we are as civilizational grouping, what is important to us and what isn't, and most importantly get our heads out of the clouds before its too late and we once more find ourselves plunged into a world of religion and superstition and ultimately a relgiously inspired armageddon. That threat comes from inside our own societies most certainly, but also very much from the outside as well, and we are not immune or invunerable to it, and to think thats the case is either based on parochialism or hubris. Thats my opinion anyway.


posted by galballyy

so I don't subscribe to his take on world history (i.e. that Islam was ever something very attractive to Europeans, it wasn't historically, even at its zenith, and it certainly isn't now), its just the same old same old if you ask me.


I was disagreeing with your contention that musulim civilisation has never been viewed with respect and was making the point that contacts between Muslim and Christian have not always been hostile. That a protestant English queen could make common cause with a Muslim one against a catholic would beggar belief for some people.

posted by galblally

However, I also would suggest that overall, the civilization of Europe, from which modern western civilization sprang was completely inimical to Islamic ideas, and visa versa, and in truth very little has changed, we just were in the luxurious


Indeed perhaps any middle eastern religion. The concepts of Democracy and republics owe nothing to any monotheist religion, indeed you could make a good case that it has done much to counter an egalitarian instinct and valuing of individual freedom amongst Europeans. No pagan ever argues for the divine right of kings.

posted by gablally

I just don't get that, seeing as you would never, ever accept such things in the U.K. Imagine a totalitarian Labour party in the U.K. with Blair as lifetime leader, followed by his son Ewan for example, based on Christianity of the more robust kind, and run for the benefit if an elite military and civil class, involving the use of religious courts, the deranking of all women to second class citizens, the reintroduction of the death penalty for lifestyle choices, (such as sleeping around or homosexuality), the complete intellectual subjugation of the population to the government, the discimination of minorities based on race, religious affliation, the primacy of religion over rationalism, of fundamentalist christianity over humanism, and the peace of the grave for those who dissent. You are suggesting that, in the case of the entire region of the Muslim world we should watch this very thing happen on a continental scale, and we should simply say, yeah, fine, just leave us alone.....please??


We've had a fundamentalist government here, thankfully a long time ago and i digress.

posted by galbally

That threat comes from inside our own societies most certainly, but also very much from the outside as well, and we are not immune or invunerable to it, and to think thats the case is either based on parochialism or hubris. Thats my opinion anyway.


Free societies are destroyed from within not by external forces. It's if we are persuaded to allow too much power to our leaders by fear of external threats that we have a problem.

posted by spot

I have to disagree with you on your interpretation of America's agenda. The USA does not seek a peaceful Middle East, on the contrary, it seeks to destroy Arab and Iranian interests in the region (and whether they are a good or bad thing for us is a different argument) precisely because the agenda is to wipe away the existing political arrangements in the region, and establish quasi-mythical democracies, by any and all means necessary. You know what that entails Galbally, and it won't be achieved by peaceful means. But that is not the end of the ambition, then there is the USA's own version of "globalization" in which they envisage a world ruled from Washington and New York by global capitalism (or World Bank dividend police) which would undoubtedly have to rule by a rule of terror that would make Stalin and Beria look tame, a world with one centrally enforced religion, a capitalist economic system in which no doubt the CEOs would live in marble palaces, and where the value of a person's life would be judged in their conformance to come capitalist profitability standard, all other cultures, creeds, ideas wiped out, a kind of imbalanced minority Hyper-Wealth Oligarchy, with the Americans as the master race.


PNAC and al queda have are similar in that they are certain of their own world view and assume that everybody is going to stand around and let the have their way.

[YZGI]

Has anyone noticed that Osama has dyed his beard in the latest video? So is he also a vain person?

[RedGlitter]

I just read that beard dying is common among them and that in Assama's case, it may help his followers to have more confidence in him if they consider him youthful and in good health.

I read another theory that offers that he made the video before he became gray.

[Galbally]

I was disagreeing with your contention that musulim civilisation has never been viewed with respect and was making the point that contacts between Muslim and Christian have not always been hostile. That a protestant English queen could make common cause with a Muslim one against a catholic would beggar belief for some people.

I agree that certainly in the early middle ages (say 1000-1,200 AD) that Western Europeans recognized that Muslim civilization was far more civilized that they were themselves, and that they had a lot to learn from the "mohamadeans" whether that translated into actual respect or any desire to adopt islamic ideas outside of technical and schloarly matters is less certain, after all Europeans and Islam had already been in almost a constant state of war since the battle of Poiters in 732 AD, in fact many scholars contend that without the existence of an "Islamic World" and the threat it posed to christian states, there would have developed no sense of a European "chrisendom"; however, how true this is, is hard to judge. What is certain is that since the rise of both Christianity and Islam, their stories are inextricably linked (to quote a phrase) and wherever the two religions have overlapped, there has been violence and political discord.



Indeed perhaps any middle eastern religion. The concepts of Democracy and republics owe nothing to any monotheist religion, indeed you could make a good case that it has done much to counter an egalitarian instinct and valuing of individual freedom amongst Europeans. No pagan ever argues for the divine right of kings.

I agree.



We've had a fundamentalist government here, thankfully a long time ago and i digress.

That was a very long time ago, and hopefully we won't see another one.



Free societies are destroyed from within not by external forces. It's if we are persuaded to allow too much power to our leaders by fear of external threats that we have a problem.

I agree that certainly the freedom within a society is destroyed internally by reactionary and short sighted policies. But societies can also be destroyed internally by decadence, hubris, and stagnation, social breakdown, and a loss of will to actually defend themselves, as much as by the forces of reaction. Our own societies remain free and strong, (to a point) but certainly there are both reactionary forces within them up to no good, as well as a current fad for self-hatred and civilizational suicide which seems to me to be based on revisionism and an over-indulgence in accepting enemy propaganda at face value for far too long, maybe thats the legacy of colonialism, and this collective sense of guilt for the past that western people seem to have inherited.

[spot]

RedGlitter;693493 wrote: I just read that beard dying is common among them and that in Assama's case, it may help his followers to have more confidence in him if they consider him youthful and in good health.

I read another theory that offers that he made the video before he became gray.




He does talk about the President of France now being Sarkosy, who was only elected this June. Making the video years ago makes no sense unless you think he's totally clairvoyant. He expresses too much evident awareness of current events for it not to be made in the last three months.

His dyed beard is also spoken of as possibly fake if he goes around day-to-day clean shaven these days.

[YZGI]

spot;693597 wrote: He does talk about the President of France now being Sarkosy, who was only elected this June. Making the video years ago makes no sense unless you think he's totally clairvoyant. He expresses too much evident awareness of current events for it not to be made in the last three months.



His dyed beard is also spoken of as possibly fake if he goes around day-to-day clean shaven these days.

Ooh, never thought of that. He probably wears a suit and tie also. Everyone be aware he could be the guy standing behind you at the local Starbucks. Sneaky character:D

[gmc]

posted by galbally

I agree that certainly the freedom within a society is destroyed internally by reactionary and short sighted policies. But societies can also be destroyed internally by decadence, hubris, and stagnation, social breakdown, and a loss of will to actually defend themselves, as much as by the forces of reaction. Our own societies remain free and strong, (to a point) but certainly there are both reactionary forces within them up to no good, as well as a current fad for self-hatred and civilizational suicide which seems to me to be based on revisionism and an over-indulgence in accepting enemy propaganda at face value for far too long, maybe thats the legacy of colonialism, and this collective sense of guilt for the past that western people seem to have inherited.


Depends on your perspective. One man's decadence is another following a life style that his society allows him to without interference-so long as it doesn't harm others- because it is a free society. Do you really want to go back to the day when single mothers were damned for all eternity and their bastards were an object of pity and derision? The moral majority are more often a vocal minority that think they have a god given right to tell everybody how to live and will make live misery for everyone that doesn't agree with them given half a chance.

Revisionism is what a cold blooded look at the past is called by those who prefer a rose tinted image of past glories where all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds and the brutal reality of imperialism was glossed over because it was good for the fuzzy wuzzies. No need to feel guilty for the past but not being aware of it is foolish. It's hardly surprising that blind patriotism in eurpe has rather died the death and people are cynical about what governments tell them. It may bother the establishment and big business may dislike curbs put on their freedom to do as they like and people boycotting their goods if they don't like their business practices but the alternative is even less appealing.

in accepting enemy propaganda at face value for far too long, maybe thats the legacy of colonialism, and this collective s


What enemy propaganda? Who are this enemy you see attacking us? The notion that alqueda and his ilk can bring down western civilisation is a load of codswallop. Personally our bigger concern should be those that peddle such rubbish and try and convince us we need draconian measures to allow them to throw people in jail whenever they feel like it and anyone criticising govt action is somehow a traitor to society seeking to end liberal democracy.

[weeder]

It is not for certain that Osama arannged the Sep. 11th massacre. Just like how Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill Kennedy. These people, in my opinion, are diversions. How ridiculous is it for the American people to be shown Videos? produced by a supposed madman who is supposedly being hunted down as we speak here. Swirling sand over a desert... caves nestled between big bolders where the monster hides, only coming out to go to the store to buy video components.. that he needs to produce presentations in the cave. Donning disguises because he really is just a jokster with a huge sence of humor. Driving hundreads of CIA agents crazy... looking for him.

Give me a break!! No one is looking for him. I wouldnt be surprised if his videos were made here, in the US and some actor with friends in high places dresses up to play the role. Call me crazy. Call me paranoid. We are like sheep being led to the slaughter as we are slowly day by day being fed propaganda to confuse us,and to blind us from seeing the real plan. Which is moving ahead quite rapidly.

[Galbally]

gmc;693899 wrote: posted by galbally



Depends on your perspective. One man's decadence is another following a life style that his society allows him to without interference-so long as it doesn't harm others- because it is a free society. Do you really want to go back to the day when single mothers were damned for all eternity and their bastards were an object of pity and derision? The moral majority are more often a vocal minority that think they have a god given right to tell everybody how to live and will make live misery for everyone that doesn't agree with them given half a chance.

Revisionism is what a cold blooded look at the past is called by those who prefer a rose tinted image of past glories where all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds and the brutal reality of imperialism was glossed over because it was good for the fuzzy wuzzies. No need to feel guilty for the past but not being aware of it is foolish. It's hardly surprising that blind patriotism in eurpe has rather died the death and people are cynical about what governments tell them. It may bother the establishment and big business may dislike curbs put on their freedom to do as they like and people boycotting their goods if they don't like their business practices but the alternative is even less appealing.



What enemy propaganda? Who are this enemy you see attacking us? The notion that alqueda and his ilk can bring down western civilisation is a load of codswallop. Personally our bigger concern should be those that peddle such rubbish and try and convince us we need draconian measures to allow them to throw people in jail whenever they feel like it and anyone criticising govt action is somehow a traitor to society seeking to end liberal democracy.


To answer the first part, I certainly don't want us to go back to the harsher more self-righteous moral codes that were used to reinforce the control of the wealthy few over the poor many in Europe in the past, thats not my point at all. Also in assessing history, I also agree that revisionism can be used in many ways, usually to reinforce a current political agenda by spinning past events or creating romantic nationalistic pictures of a golden age, that works on either a narrow right-wing agenda, or a so-called "progressive" left wing one. What you actually see in history are constant patterns of human behaviour repeating over various political and cultural scenarios, always dictated by power. That power runs the gamut from economic, intellectual, and always, back to military power, the power to establish a way of life by force, either within a grouping of people, or between one grouping and another.

What I would say is that if you look at western societies presently the fad is to decry our (especially American) societies and shallow, materialistic, self-absorbed societies where a mega rich few lord it over the many, and of course there is a large element of truth in this. However, what is also true is that people living in Western Europe and North America have more personal latitude in terms of economic, religious, and political choices than at any point in their history, and here I am talking about the vast bulk of the population, not the top 5 or 10 percent. If people make foolish choices about what to do with this latitude of action (or freedom if you prefer) then that more than anything is thier own issue. In general the major instrument of control in our societies now is the economic structure. Materially our societies have achieved very high levels of wealth, health, protection, security, technology, and access to information about the world, but it hasn't always translated into content societies, partly because life is hard, and the nature of people makes true contentment or complete security an illusory goal, also because as ever fear and greed are the 2 great human motivators, as is seen so clearly in western popular culture. Certainly over the past 4 centuries there has been enormous progress in our societies, based on their technical achievements in science, engineering, medicince, military technology, and information technology, but the underlying pattern of human nature hasn't changed one bit.

Your last question is interesting when discussing who I percieve as enemies, and your assertion that Al Queda do not have the ability to "bring down" western civilization. I disagree, and I think this hubristic idea that Western civilization is invunerable is misguided, we are not as omnipitent as many believe, and we are not the "culmination of history" as so many seem to believe. That western civilization and the modern world are one and the same and that the only thing that needs to be done now is to push on the progressive agenda, everywhere greeted by gratitude and flowers, thats as naive as the neocons thinking that they could push on into bagdad and be greeted with hurrahs by the locals. In truth the world contains serveral civilizations of which we are just one, and because of the past, the exploitation of others, and our power and wealth a pretty unpopular one. The sucess of western science and technology has made us arrogant and insular in our power I believe, and strangely naive, it has made peope seem to think that the more noble ideas we espouse would as of themselves have produced the current favourable, pleasant, and stable lives we live, without any of the actual stuff underneath that ensure we have the ability to achieve these things.

[Galbally]

Also GMC to answer further about your point about perceived enemies. I would suggest that people within your own, and external to, your society who would seek to kill and maim your fellow citizens and reject completely all of the tenets of that society and see by any means possible to overthrow your society are indeed enemies. Also people who state baldly that (for example) that the U.K. is their enemy are by definition you "enemies" whether you find that tasteful or not. The only decision that you can make in that situation is what to do to either confront the issues that cause this situation, be they political, cultural, etc etc. This can entail various responses from the benign to the violent, depending upon the situation.

[gmc]

Galbally;693903 wrote: To answer the first part, I certainly don't want us to go back to the harsher more self-righteous moral codes that were used to reinforce the control of the wealthy few over the poor many in Europe in the past, thats not my point at all. Also in assessing history, I also agree that revisionism can be used in many ways, usually to reinforce a current political agenda by spinning past events or creating romantic nationalistic pictures of a golden age, that works on either a narrow right-wing agenda, or a so-called "progressive" left wing one. What you actually see in history are constant patterns of human behaviour repeating over various political and cultural scenarios, always dictated by power. That power runs the gamut from economic, intellectual, and always, back to military power, the power to establish a way of life by force, either within a grouping of people, or between one grouping and another.

What I would say is that if you look at western societies presently the fad is to decry our (especially American) societies and shallow, materialistic, self-absorbed societies where a mega rich few lord it over the many, and of course there is a large element of truth in this. However, what is also true is that people living in Western Europe and North America have more personal latitude in terms of economic, religious, and political choices than at any point in their history, and here I am talking about the vast bulk of the population, not the top 5 or 10 percent. If people make foolish choices about what to do with this latitude of action (or freedom if you prefer) then that more than anything is thier own issue. In general the major instrument of control in our societies now is the economic structure. Materially our societies have achieved very high levels of wealth, health, protection, security, technology, and access to information about the world, but it hasn't always translated into content societies, partly because life is hard, and the nature of people makes true contentment or complete security an illusory goal, also because as ever fear and greed are the 2 great human motivators, as is seen so clearly in western popular culture. Certainly over the past 4 centuries there has been enormous progress in our societies, based on their technical achievements in science, engineering, medicince, military technology, and information technology, but the underlying pattern of human nature hasn't changed one bit.

Your last question is interesting when discussing who I percieve as enemies, and your assertion that Al Queda do not have the ability to "bring down" western civilization. I disagree, and I think this hubristic idea that Western civilization is invunerable is misguided, we are not as omnipitent as many believe, and we are not the "culmination of history" as so many seem to believe. That western civilization and the modern world are one and the same and that the only thing that needs to be done now is to push on the progressive agenda, everywhere greeted by gratitude and flowers, thats as naive as the neocons thinking that they could push on into bagdad and be greeted with hurrahs by the locals. In truth the world contains serveral civilizations of which we are just one, and because of the past, the exploitation of others, and our power and wealth a pretty unpopular one. The sucess of western science and technology has made us arrogant and insular in our power I believe, and strangely naive, it has made peope seem to think that the more noble ideas we espouse would as of themselves have produced the current favourable, pleasant, and stable lives we live, without any of the actual stuff underneath that ensure we have the ability to achieve these things.


I think basically we agree with each other but are just putting things slightly differently. What you actually see in history are constant patterns of human behaviour repeating over various political and cultural scenarios, always dictated by power. That power runs the gamut from economic, intellectual, and always, back to military power, the power to establish a way of life by force, either within a grouping of people, or between one grouping and another.


Kind of a push me pull me to and fro with the arguments being rehashed time and again. Globalisation has much wrong with it but also much good as well-in a way it's economic imperialism instead of the old kind at the point of a gun, but what is different is the level of contact amongst people all over the world that govts can't control. That is something new that changes the ball game-to use a really crappy analogy but we live in interesting times.

I disagree, and I think this hubristic idea that Western civilization is invunerable is misguided, we are not as omnipitent as many believe, and we are not the "culmination of history" as so many seem to believe. That western civilization and the modern world are one and the same and that the only thing that needs to be done now is to push on the progressive agenda, everywhere greeted by gratitude and flowers, thats as naive as the neocons thinking that they could push on into bagdad and be greeted with hurrahs by the locals.


Western civilisation influences and is influenced by everything around it. I don't see it as some unchanging monolith that can have the walls kicked in and be Brought down. 2/3rds of the worlds population don't live under it anyway so it's part of the modern world we have created and been successful because it was always looking out the way. It's always changing 100 years ago we didn't have democracy as we now use the term. That we now see manifest destiny in a new form is slightly depressing but that most see straight through it and are prepared to stand up against it is not so depressing. As to how things will turn out I don't know but I tend to be optimistic.

posted by galbally

Also GMC to answer further about your point about perceived enemies. I would suggest that people within your own, and external to, your society who would seek to kill and maim your fellow citizens and reject completely all of the tenets of that society and see by any means possible to overthrow your society are indeed enemies. Also people who state baldly that (for example) that the U.K. is their enemy are by definition you "enemies" whether you find that tasteful or not. The only decision that you can make in that situation is what to do to either confront the issues that cause this situation, be they political, cultural, etc etc. This can entail various responses from the benign to the violent, depending upon the situation.


In that context I suppose they are enemies. I just don't find them particularly frightening or feel threatened-on the other hand I resent politicians who try and tell me I should be afraid and by the way give us more power and if you disagree you must support said enemies. They are more dangerous IMO. Incidentally I thought internment in northern Ireland was a daft idea and for much the same reason. What to do is a good question and i don't think there are simple answers but demonising everyone that looks like them is not much of a answer.

[Galbally]

gmc;693927 wrote: I think basically we agree with each other but are just putting things slightly differently.

Kind of a push me pull me to and fro with the arguments being rehashed time and again. Globalisation has much wrong with it but also much good as well-in a way it's economic imperialism instead of the old kind at the point of a gun, but what is different is the level of contact amongst people all over the world that govts can't control. That is something new that changes the ball game-to use a really crappy analogy but we live in interesting times.



Western civilisation influences and is influenced by everything around it. I don't see it as some unchanging monolith that can have the walls kicked in and be Brought down. 2/3rds of the worlds population don't live under it anyway so it's part of the modern world we have created and been successful because it was always looking out the way. It's always changing 100 years ago we didn't have democracy as we now use the term. That we now see manifest destiny in a new form is slightly depressing but that most see straight through it and are prepared to stand up against it is not so depressing. As to how things will turn out I don't know but I tend to be optimistic.

posted by galbally



In that context I suppose they are enemies. I just don't find them particularly frightening or feel threatened-on the other hand I resent politicians who try and tell me I should be afraid and by the way give us more power and if you disagree you must support said enemies. They are more dangerous IMO. Incidentally I thought internment in northern Ireland was a daft idea and for much the same reason. What to do is a good question and i don't think there are simple answers but demonising everyone that looks like them is not much of a answer.


I think that as you said, we probably have in general quite similar view, I certainly agree that that the western world is at once both a place, and also probably more importantly a state of mind, or set of ideals, which is why it is quite possible to adopt westerrn attitudes without necesarily being a white European, or for instance Islamic social atttitudes without being an arab. Also, that which is best about westerrn culture such as a general belief in tolerance and decency is not exclusive to any civilization, and also there are many examples with western history of utter intolerance, and barbarity in the name of some lofty principal. Although I am obviously western in all my attitudes and ideas, I certainly believe that our way of being in the world is not the only one, and that the world is large enough for its people to find some way of co-existing in some equitable manner, however, that is not as easy to attain as it is to discuss unfortunatly.

[Galbally]

Its actually interesting that Bin Laden ascribes exactly to that principal of harking back to some romanticized past, in his case the rule of the first 4 "good" Caliphs of Islam, during the first phase of the expansion of islam in the 7th and 8th centuries. A time which is seen by some muslim intellectuals as the golden age before the "fall" into the worldy and cynical reign of muslim leaders following that period. Which is why many Muslim intellectuals believe that the problems that beset the Islamic lands can be met by retreating into a purer or percievedly more innocent, heroic type of society. To me that seems as fatuous as British people trying to re-establish the goodly rule of king arthur and camelot, and just as illusory, nevertheless that does seem to be in some way a motivating intellectual factor, as well as the more obvious real-world ones.

It seems that religion never seems to lose its power as a unifying idea that outlives most others, and the monotheistic ones seem especially good bases for developing worldy political structures. Being fairly irreligious myself, the attraction escapes me, however.

[gmc]

posted by galbally

It seems that religion never seems to lose its power as a unifying idea that outlives most others, and the monotheistic ones seem especially good bases for developing worldy political structures. Being fairly irreligious myself, the attraction escapes me, however.


Dunno about that. Democracy and republics are pretty ancient concepts and probably pre-date monotheism. Then again a ruler being able to claim god chose me and shut up all the dissenters must have had tremendous appeal. Our concept of individual freedom is inherent in our nature and owes bugger all to religion, least of all hierarchical monotheistic ones IMO.

True story-my wife-a teacher-has just had a muslin girl join a 5th year class she was teaching. On being asked her religion replied "muslim" as you would expect. clarification being sought she was asked-in all seriousness- "are you a catholic Moslem or a protestant Moslem " Happily most of the questioners classmates thought this hilarious else you'd have to worry about the state of our education system.

[spot]

RedGlitter;692986 wrote: How do you see Osama as having been the US's punching bag? How do you see America as destroying whole countries whenever the mood strikes?I don't at all - it was the Middle East I compared to a punchbag, not any of the local freedom fighters / guerrillas / terrorists (we might like to define those terms some day before we use them as propaganda).

As for America destroying whole countries whenever the mood strikes, it's a reference to the "bomb them back into the Stone Age" mentality that's been so evident this decade. It's usually applied to Iran which is, fortunately, far too big to deal with that way. It's what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq, if you insist on the obvious examples.

Anyway, may I inject a little more material into this thread? This is from the Iranian Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei's Tehran Friday prayer sermons yesterday. It's a BBC Monitoring summary and I would normally link to it but it's not on their website yet, so I'll be extreme and quote the relevant part of the report. Khamenei is, surely, an uncontroversial figure in a discussion like this. His influence in Iran is a backlash against American involvement in Iranian domestic politics, and that backlash is the reason Iran is no longer a secular republic. Nobody can blame what he has to say on anything but interventionist self-seeking American foreign policy.

BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political "Iranian leader says signs of US failure in region evident"

At 0812 gmt, Iranian TV news channel began to broadcast live Tehran's Friday prayer sermons led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamene'i. The Ayatollah dedicated his first sermon to religious matters [...] TV shows President Ahmadinezhad, Guardian Council Secretary Ayatollah Jannati and Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Hashemi-Shahrudi and other senior officials sitting among worshippers. The video also shows a worshipper showing a picture of Lebanese Hezbollah Leader Hasan Nasrallah.

During the second sermon, [...] he said that the Islamic Revolution in Iran inspired other Muslim countries to seek their Islamic identity. He continued that the West was therefore instigated to provoke Iraqi former president, Saddam Husayn, to stage a war against Iran. He said that Iraq's attack strengthened Iranian people's will. He said that as a result Iran today is stronger than ever.

He also said that Iran was under the severest sanctions during the war with Iraq and therefore it is not afraid of any sanctions now. He said that sanctions have in fact strengthened Iran. He said that the US policies are failing in the region and the apparent signs of US failure can be seen.

He said that after the 11 September event, the objective of the US by attacking countries of the Middle East region was to make Israel the capital of the Middle East. He said that all US policies failed in Lebanon. He said that the powerful military machine of Israel failed against a party in Lebanon after 33 days of constant bombing of Lebanon. He said that not only Lebanese Hezbollah was not disarmed, but rather it became more powerful.

He said that the USA has failed in Iraq and this is a common knowledge. He said that the USA expected to install a puppet government in Iraq, but the democratically-elected government of Iraq is far from American administration's expectations. He said: "Today, we are observing the signs of the defeat of America in the region. These are important issues that our youth and thinkers must bear in mind and reflect upon. In other words, the great debate which pits the proponents of those who are for popular spirituality against those who are for materialism is a great and new debate. And in the humanities and psychological curriculum of nations must be pondered upon."

He said that the USA is hated by most people in the Islamic world today and the polls reveal the fact. He said that the American officials may one day be taken to international courts to be answerable for their war crimes in Iraq. He said that there are great problems in Iraq caused by US invasion and the Americans one day similar to Hitler and other war criminals have to be answerable for what they have done. He said: "Today the Islamic community is questioning the Americans. The Americans are being impeached. Today America is condemned in the public opinion of the Islamic nation, the Islamic community. You can see various public opinion polls being conducted in various parts of the world of Islam. They all indicate how America is being detested and condemned. I am certain that one day the current American president and officials would be tried in a fair international court for the tragedies they have created in Iraq." He asked the Iranian people to be proud of the right path that they have chosen. He said that the path chosen by people is a divine path. He called on people not to forget the last Friday of the month of Ramadan which marks the Al-Qods day.

[Galbally]

Its interesting isn't it? Its very hard to know in the long run what the strategy of the Iranian government is in the current situation. What is certain is that the debacle that has been the invasion of Iraq has created far more problems for American interests in the region than it has managed to solve, in fact I can't see any that is has solved, apart from removing Saddam, who was nowhere near as much of a "problem" as the Bush administration and the British government tried to portray. If the Americans had been more cynical following 2001, surely a better policy in pursuing what they perceived as their best interests would have been to rehabilitate Saddam (sounds crazy? not at all, Saddam was a secularist and a pragmatist, he could easily have been turned back into a "enemy of our enemies" type of ally, just as Syria can still be), and then used along with the Egyptians and the Saudis to attack Al Queda within the middle east via local proxies, also having Saddam on board would have given his neighbours pause for thought about there own security and not left them as free to counter american policy.

Now in saying that, I am not saying that American and others policies in the middle east are morally "right" or even right in a real-politic kinda way. I am just thinking of alternate ways of pressing that agenda of securing the status quo and the regions energy supplies. To me it seems that both the strategies and tactics being used in the region by the U.S. are completely wrong. Using massive military force against an old, virtually powerless enemy that was not involved in the current conflict, inflecting massive suffering and bitterness among locals and re-inforcing the propaganda of al queda, destroying moral at home, and ignoring ground level realities that are contributing to the growth of movements such as the taliban and al queda who are re-emerging in Afganistan due to neglect of the situation, it just seems so wasteful and counterproductive to me.

[Nomad]

spot;692522 wrote: Given that Osama Bin Laden has issued his first video address to the People of America since 2004 I thought I'd read the transcript. He argues that the People of America have a choice in determining the future course of their society. Either they can persevere with the indistinguishable consequences of future Democrat and Republican administrations or they can reject the identical two-party pretence of freedom and democracy and convert to Islam, thereby bringing in a genuine change to the values of governance.



Here's the transcript of the video. I find it hard to disagree with any of his comments, if one sets aside his ascription of Allah's grace to the events of September 11th 2001. Can anyone see a paragraph or two they'd like to take issue with?




I wont read what he has to say. Even if he has valid political ideations he invalidated his right to offer up advice long long ago. His methods are unsound.

By the same token I lump George Bush into the identical garbage pile.

[RedGlitter]

Nomad;698768 wrote: I wont read what he has to say. Even if he has valid political ideations he invalidated his right to offer up advice long long ago. His methods are unsound.

By the same token I lump George Bush into the identical garbage pile.


Extraordinarily well said. Simple. Meaningful. And true.