PDA

View Full Version : OT: Could Bush Have Been Right?



rogue
03-01-2005, 07:49 PM
I don't want to jump the gun but could Iraq have been the first in a line of dominos? I figured when I heard Daniel Shore say Bush might have been right that the idea might have legs. And if so does it make the sacrifice of our people worth it to the anti-war crowd.


The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He never said it only referred to here in the US.

David Jamieson
03-01-2005, 08:24 PM
Watched Lawrence of Arabia the other night. Terrific movie! Explains a lot about how many of these Arab nations actually came to be nations as opposed to bands of people wandering all over the place and building beautiful cities.

Anyone hear what former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has had to say about stuff lately? According to some sources, he thinks you yanks will try to muster support and launch an assault on Iran as early as this summer!

There is a big push right now to demonize Syria with the Lebanon thing and the Beirut people have bought into it hook line and sinker and are being turned back in droves.

there is a lot of orchestrating of chaos going on in that region of the world.

Frankly, many people don't care so long as there ain't bomb's going off in comfy good old western society. Dunno how long that will last though.

So, was Bush right? It really depends if you agree with the neo-con agenda. I don't so I can't says he was or is. In my eyes, the Bush admin is going about things all wrong and frankly a lot of his former people have bailed on him because of that hard line heavy partisan stuff that is going on in washington.

I am uncertain as to what events are in store for all of us here in the west because of the neo con agenda. For every terrorist they hunt down and kill, 2 more are born and raised up it seems. But then, I've never been an advocate of gunboat diplomacy. It is too risky.

the world certainly doesn't need to be as dangerous as it has become. I mean, just look at these forums as a small sampling of how people react when you contradict them or tell them their way of thinking is wrong.

It explodes into a sh it flinging fest that would shame a masturbating monkey at a zoo. Nobody likes being oppressed and told its for their own good, I know that for sure.

anyway...just saying

Mo Lung
03-01-2005, 09:05 PM
I don't want to jump the gun but could Iraq have been the first in a line of dominos? I figured when I heard Daniel Shore say Bush might have been right that the idea might have legs. And if so does it make the sacrifice of our people worth it to the anti-war crowd.
Right about what specifically?

wdl
03-01-2005, 10:00 PM
Anyone hear what former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has had to say about stuff lately? According to some sources, he thinks you yanks will try to muster support and launch an assault on Iran as early as this summer!


Once again Scott Ritter opened his loud mouth and is dead wrong. It'll be atleast next winter before that happens. He's got the agenda read wrong. When was the last time the US invaded a middle eastern country in the summer? :D

I don't really know much about Ritter, but when I've seen him interviewed here and there he strikes me as a very abrasive person, thus I don't like him. Secondly, I think he's just making waves because he wants to run for political office or something like that. Just like Judge Moore in Alabama. On principle I agree with Moore, however, I think he's using it to better himself politically. Big mistake, he'll get burned for it. Just like Ritter will eventually.

-Will

Ultimatewingchun
03-01-2005, 10:24 PM
Still too early to tell if Bush (and the neo-cons) were right...Iraq could still backfire into a mix of civil war and/or terrorist haven.

Hold your horses...

mickey
03-02-2005, 02:55 AM
rogue,

What are you talking about? Your wordsa remind me of Bush Sr's "Thousand Spots of Light." I am still trying to figure that one out.


mickey

kungfu cowboy
03-02-2005, 04:15 AM
Are you a-gettin'-it? Yes, Armageddon-it! Really gettin' it? Yes, Armageddon-it!!

David Jamieson
03-02-2005, 05:50 AM
Once again Scott Ritter opened his loud mouth and is dead wrong. It'll be atleast next winter before that happens. He's got the agenda read wrong. When was the last time the US invaded a middle eastern country in the summer? :D

I don't really know much about Ritter, but when I've seen him interviewed here and there he strikes me as a very abrasive person, thus I don't like him. Secondly, I think he's just making waves because he wants to run for political office or something like that. Just like Judge Moore in Alabama. On principle I agree with Moore, however, I think he's using it to better himself politically. Big mistake, he'll get burned for it. Just like Ritter will eventually.

-Will

Actually, Ritter was right when he went off the first time. There weren't any wmd's in iraq and as one of the CHief UN weapons inspectors from teh US side of things, mr. Rittersaid this again and again before the attack on Iraq. He was silenced by the way.

And yes he's abrasive, so what? Doesn't mean he can't do his job or didn't do his job and in fact he was highly effective by all accounts when he was doing his job as a weaons inspector in Iraq. He was a midnight raid come in unnannounced kind of guy and he ruffled a lot of feathers, but he thought, and I agree, that if he came in un announced he would have a better chance of finding out if they did indeed have anything in place or going on.

In the end, he said, after many harsh and abrasive searches across Iraq that they did not have any. As mr Ritter made this clear, it rubbed the Bush agenda the wrong way and he was silenced! I think they even brought out some trumped up charges against him to smear his character. It is amazing how people conveniently forget these players in the story.

Anyway, In the case of the middle east, we here are seeing a lot of obfuscation, we are getting fed quite a lot of manipulated perception as opposed to reality. For instance, has anyone noticed yet that the news coming out of Iraq has dropped to a trickle? And yet there is still ahuge standing army there, there are bombs going off everyday, the insurgency thing hasn't ended and there is chaos still. Is this an embarrassment for someone in teh Bush office? You bet it is.

So, again, I'm going with a hearty no. Bush wasn't right then and he's not right now. He's just spinning and spinning and unfortunately his legacy seems to be stalling on him.

Continue watching.

Merryprankster
03-02-2005, 07:10 AM
Rogue, in my opinion the "dominoes falling" is coincidence, perhaps spurred on by an unstable Iraq as a neighbor, with ruling powers worried about that instability, but in no way a product of the U.S. invasion in the sense of "a democratic revolution." It's an issue of regime survival, internally.

The Persian Gulf area has been working towards democratic style reform for about 15 years or so. It's a response to internal pressures created by falling GDP per capita. Previously, during the oil boom, the revenue flows were high in real terms, per person. This allowed the Gulf countries to essentially buy off dissenters. It's a very paternalistic, rentier type state.

However, the lack of ability to provide for the people means increased unrest and dissatisfaction with authoritarian governments. Oman and I think either Qatar or maybe UAE instituted a Parliament of sorts in the late 90's. Saudi Arabia recently held elections.

They HAD to to stay in power.

Case in point - guess what issue Iran's government received the most internal criticism for? The Bam earthquake. They were utterly unable to provide disaster relief. That's a serious problem for a soveriegn power, and points out the house of cards to an entire populace.


Lebanon is a totally different issue driven largely by ethnic/sectarian strife. The Syrian influence in Lebanese politics is long standing and entirely corrupt. Methinks the people just got tired of it. Further, while I don't think Syria had anything to do with the bombing, they were blamed for it and the Lebanese were ok with the arrangement provided it was on the down low. However, Syria conducting an attack (perceived, not in actuality) is beyond the pale and embarresses the Lebanese as a nation. It says "WE are in charge and you are not." And that's not something the Lebanese were going to take lying down.

Israel-Palestine also has zero to do with Iraq. Arafat's death finally allowed the process to move forward. He was the single greatest impediment to a solution and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. There is a REASON Abu Mazen has had to do a bunch of spring cleaning in the PA political and executive machinery. It was full of corrupt old Arafat cronies.

Ironically, IMO, the other major factor is Sharon having the PM spot. It's a sort of "Only Nixon can go to China," situation. However, I should be clear that Israel is a heavily divided nation on the issue. It's not the monolith that everybody seems to want to think. There is no "Israeli position," on the subject. The right wing faction though, is far more inclined to go along with Sharon than a left winger. And since Israel has a proportional representation system, any faction has disproportionate power - if a dissatisfied party leaves the government, that government cannot form a majority and must dissolve, spurring elections. So again, only Sharon could have done this. But Arafat's death was the key. I think that although things could slip backwards there, they're more likely to move forward. Momentum matters.

rogue
03-02-2005, 07:29 AM
Rogue, in my opinion the "dominoes falling" is coincidence, perhaps spurred on by an unstable Iraq as a neighbor, with ruling powers worried about that instability, but in no way a product of the U.S. invasion in the sense of "a democratic revolution." It's an issue of regime survival, internally. I don't think just coincidence. I think that the Iraqi elections, more than the Invasion of Iraq, may have influenced current events over there. As far as I can tell those were free and open elections with the Iraqi people stepping up to the plate. That has to mean something to those people in Lebanon and Palistine. And you are right It is an issue of regime survival, but it's going to be harder for the regimes to keep the status quo if Iraq proves succesful. I have to wonder if you would have the huddled Middle East masses heading to Iraq in the next decade if the other states don't change.

On a side note Syria has got to be feeling a little put upon.

ZIM
03-02-2005, 08:45 AM
I don't think just coincidence. I think that the Iraqi elections, more than the Invasion of Iraq, may have influenced current events over there. As far as I can tell those were free and open elections with the Iraqi people stepping up to the plate. That has to mean something to those people in Lebanon and Palistine. And you are right It is an issue of regime survival, but it's going to be harder for the regimes to keep the status quo if Iraq proves succesful. I have to wonder if you would have the huddled Middle East masses heading to Iraq in the next decade if the other states don't change.

On a side note Syria has got to be feeling a little put upon.Not just the Iraq elections though. They were bookended with the Palestinian elections and it set a fire, maybe.

# Iraq democratic elections.
# Elections in the Palestinian territories.
# Limited elections in Saudi Arabia.
# President Mubarak of Egypt announces Egypt will hold multiparty presidential elections.
# Lebanonís pro-Syrian government resigns as anti-Syrian, prodemocracy demonstrators fill the streets.

Here's a link MP will love (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CAT.ART.HTM) cause it involves this (http://www.deanesmay.com/files/deanesmay-ConflictHelix.GIF) and is actually on topic.

In the words of the author WRT to his version of 'Domino theory' [the Conflict Helix]:

It is a process of things being in equilibrium, an equilibrium that increasingly is out of balance with the underling reality, then a sudden breakdown in the equilibrium caused by some trigger, and a jump to new equilibrium better fitting reality. This also gets increasingly out of balance, breaks down, and another new equilibrium is created, and this over and over ad infinitum.

wdl
03-02-2005, 10:45 AM
Actually, Ritter was right when he went off the first time. There weren't any wmd's in iraq and as one of the CHief UN weapons inspectors from teh US side of things, mr. Rittersaid this again and again before the attack on Iraq. He was silenced by the way.


There were two reasons he was silenced, one WMDs, and two he said we were going to loose. He said we weren't even going to be able to take Baghdad in March of 03:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1338708,00.html

He's an idiot. He said we didn't have sufficient military forces in Iraq to take the city and that we'd leave the country with our tails between our legs. Anyone with any decent military knowledge knows that when you drive a division of heavy infantry into a city that doesn't have a heavy infantry, unless you do something STUPID your going to take the city. Retaining control of said city is another issue.

Ritter's been silenced because he hasn't stuck to his guns and been consistant. No one is going to believe him because that's one of many examples of him just spouting off at the mouth. The US media can't put him on the spotlight after he's made statements like that without looking like fools themselves. The foreign media, that too is another issue.

-Will

Merryprankster
03-02-2005, 12:56 PM
I think that the Iraqi elections, more than the Invasion of Iraq, may have influenced current events over there.

I disagree. I think you're looking at the culmination of several years of heavy pressure.

IF Iraq proves successful is the key - so we can't call it the first in a line of dominoes. I'll wait about a decade before passing judgment on the success of Iraq. It's too early to tell what impact it is going to have.

However, I remain adamant in my opinion that the current goings on have little to do with Iraq at all.

Merryprankster
03-02-2005, 12:59 PM
LOL at not being able to take Baghdad.

Idiot.

It's like people who say we couldn't invade and defeat Iran.

Oh yeah we could. We could whomp the whole middle east in one go. We couldn't keep control of it for ****, but we could bring it ALL down. Depending on our goals, this may or may not be a useful capability...but knocking them out is no issue.

Zim,

Actually, I am very suspicious of anything that attempts to quantify human behavior. I don't think those sorts of models are very useful.

Dig the graph at the end though; however, I think we are at a "new phase" in human history when perhaps the never ending cycle will manifest in very different ways than the past.

rogue
03-02-2005, 01:04 PM
You mean we'll have to keep this thread alive that long? ;)

Just wondering why you think Iraq has nothing to do with what's going on. I find it hard to believe that things would be going like they are in Lebanon if we were'nt sitting on one of Syria's borders.

Merryprankster
03-02-2005, 01:22 PM
For the reasons I outlined.

Lebanon has accepted Syrian involvement in their politics in exchange for stability and nominal independence. Their constitution is an interesting piece of work....

Anyway, it guarantees the presidency to the Maronites and they have a vested interest in getting Syria out of there. For one it would give them the presidency back in reality. Two, it would give them a bigger cut of the profits (Lebanon is a state run almost entirely by graft...)

The attack on the former PM is great to accomplish both those goals. He's an easy target, instead of the CURRENT PM, and he's an outspoken critic of Syria's involvement in Lebanon.

Kill him, and you unleash serious criticism of Syria, both internally and internationally, because it's really easy to pin the blame on them.

I personally believe the Maronites did it. I will grant that it is possible that the U.S. presence in Iraq factored into the equation, but using the presence of U.S. troops, which Syria feels threatened by, as a possible point of leverage in what is essentially an internal struggle, is far different than a fundamental, regional change.

wdl
03-02-2005, 01:27 PM
IF Iraq proves successful is the key - so we can't call it the first in a line of dominoes. I'll wait about a decade before passing judgment on the success of Iraq. It's too early to tell what impact it is going to have.


That's my position on the Iraq subject. Bush might want his legacy, but it's not going to be decided while he's in office. Only time will tell.

-Will

David Jamieson
03-02-2005, 03:23 PM
I'm not convinced Iraq has been won.

It's still under occupational rule more or less with a less than elected "democratic" government.

Merry, the only way the USA could defeat the entire middle eats is by killing them all with nuke strikes. lol.

Ritters commentary on whether or not the US could take Iraq was pretty close. The US is an occupational fore in Iraq. As far as I can see, there are still opposing forces with some firepower wasting people almost indiscriminatly and daily there.

Yes, the US has a powerful military, but it still doesn't have everything sewn up. It's a tightrope walk across a very high wire. I would not invest as much faith in it as you appear to have merry. That's some self confidence you got going on there dude. Are you certain? Of course not, you can't be, nothing is "certain".

Many arab nations are bumping hip and are defusing a lot of possible scenarios, and they are doing it their way, not according to the way the US wants it.

Lebanon is a one off, we'll see where it goes.

The saudis still couldn't hold a fair and democratic election if you put agun to their head, their society is not exactly about equal rights and women are "less than" men there, that fact alone preventrs any sort of fair and balanced government or secular authority that is required for fair and balanced government representing the entirety of the populace.

Egypt is playing hide and seek and that all remains to be seen.

Yep, the pot has been stirred, thousands have been killed and in the end? Well, it doesn't seem there is an end in sight yet. So to even put the question forward about Bush being right or wrong is premature. I'm going with wrong still just based on the loss of human life to a war started on lies.

jun_erh
03-02-2005, 03:25 PM
I disagree. there was never any question that our army could destroy iraqs. bush sr culd have done it, Clinton could have. the post war was where the problems were going to be. As Bush sr said we didn't want to be an occupier in a foreign nation.



bush ignored warnings about 9/11. He ignored warnings about Iraq. When we look back at his presidency we will see a pattern of incompetance and not much else.

red5angel
03-02-2005, 03:37 PM
It's still under occupational rule more or less with a less than elected "democratic" government.



can't teach an old dog new tricks I see.....

jun_erh
03-02-2005, 03:40 PM
Yeah, I don't really see how the election was un democratic. Catching saddam and having the election were two of the few bright spots in this whole mess. Mostly just day after day of "15 killed in car bomb" newspaper headlines which will undoubtedly continue for at least the next year. And there wasn't much "bounce" to either of those events.

red5angel
03-02-2005, 03:42 PM
kung lek insists it wasn't democratic because one faction decided not to vote (not everyone belonging in that faction mind you). he neglects to point out that they CHOSE to not vote in that election, which still makes it democratic.

joedoe
03-02-2005, 03:46 PM
I think the proof of the pudding will be after the foreign troops pull out. If the democracy in Iraq can stand on its own then it couldd be considered a success. Until then ...

Merryprankster
03-02-2005, 05:14 PM
kung lek insists it wasn't democratic because one faction decided not to vote (not everyone belonging in that faction mind you). he neglects to point out that they CHOSE to not vote in that election, which still makes it democratic.

What's really funny is how the UN is the "gold standard" for legitimacy, like when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq....

Except when its not, like when the UN says the elections are free and fair.

Which is it? Can't have it both ways if you view the UN as a sanctioning body for international action legitimacy.

wdl
03-02-2005, 05:38 PM
I'm not convinced Iraq has been won.

It's still under occupational rule more or less with a less than elected "democratic" government.

Ritters commentary on whether or not the US could take Iraq was pretty close. The US is an occupational fore in Iraq. As far as I can see, there are still opposing forces with some firepower wasting people almost indiscriminatly and daily there.



No one is convinced Iraq has been won yet. What Ritter was saying, he said BEFORE we got to Baghdad. He was saying that we wouldn't be able to take the city. He was saying that Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard was a match for the US Military. That they would stand and fight, and that the US would loose and be humilitated in that context. He was WRONG. You drive COLUMNs of M-1A1 tanks through a metropolitan area and your taking it by force. There's no two ways about it. When you don't have your own heavy infantry to counter that you LOSE.

The big hoopla over whether or not the US could take Baghdad was because of stupid armchair quarterbacks that bought the BS that the Pengaton feed them. They told them they were going into Baghdad with a light force such as the 101st Airborne. While that was part of it, the Pentagon isn't stupid either. You don't invade a country, spend billions of dollars and get people killed to loose. Remember the amphibious landing of the first gulf war that never happened? Same tactic. Ritter bought into it, spouted his mouth, accept he did it irrationally. He said the US military couldn't take iraq. What an idiot.

Taking a country over militarily isn't a problem maintaining control afterward like I said, is a different story. As far as the oposing forces still there go, they'll be there for awhile yet. Nothing can be done accept shoot at them when they are found then let the Iraqis run them out now that they are starting to get a police and military force back together. We won't know for awhile yet if it will be successful.

When US troops crossed into Iraq from Kuwait that was a 5-10 year commitment of manpower on the ground. I knew it, Bush knew it no matter what he's said otherwise, Rumsfield knew it, both parties of congress knew it, everyone knew. Now everybody is itch'n about it and wanting an exit strategry.

-Will

David Jamieson
03-02-2005, 06:52 PM
Some of you guys watch way to much Bill O'reilly (refering to abortion survivor red 5 mostly) lol.

Holy crap!

A faction "decided not to vote"? Are you fukking stupid or just pizzing around? I'm gonna go with you are stupid. That's the dumbest fukking thing I've read all day! yay! shiny nickle for you pinhead now go back to licking falwells nuts while he demands the nuking of the arabs.

man, one thing you got right red. You, as a dog, are incapable of learning any new tricks whatsoever. To borrow a page from your pamphlet of lines. STFU and come back when you got something worthwhile to say. lol.

ok, all you freakin neo-con ditto heads may go back to patting each other on the back and rim jopbbing each other now. I can't find a good reason to argue with some of you, you seem so retarded.

At least Merry tries! lol :p

rogue
03-02-2005, 07:43 PM
Is Tourettes contaigous? Can someone get it just by reading a post?

wdl
03-02-2005, 10:40 PM
ok, all you freakin neo-con ditto heads may go back to patting each other on the back and rim jopbbing each other now. I can't find a good reason to argue with some of you, you seem so retarded.


Well, to use the Team America analogy, you sir, are a poosey. You see, I'm a d|ck, your a poosey and Saddam's an @$$hole. :D

If we keep it in that context we might all agree. If you've not seen Team America, World Police watch it, then it'll enlighten to your role.

-Will

Merryprankster
03-03-2005, 06:10 AM
Actually KL, it's your continuing inability to tease out the separate parts of an argument that make you so difficult to reason with. I've met other, perfectly rational Canadians, so I'll assume it's either just you or something in the pipes at your house.

For instance IF you believe that the UN is THE sanctioning body for international legitimacy, then:

The Iraq war was illegal, BUT the elections were free and fair BY DEFINITION. This doesn't mean that you can't think the UN was WRONG, which is a different issue.

However, UNLESS you believe that member states are bound to UN decisions, regardless, effectively making them the final arbiter of appropriate action (and thus a higher authority than all state governments), then this undermines the argument that nations require UN approval before exercising their own hard power.

If they are a higher authority than all state government and can trump their individual decisions in all relevant matters, then they can, in fact, dictate state actions.

If they are not, and the state has discretion of sorts, then believing the UN got it WRONG means that you can hold the elections invalid and the Iraq war illegal. But, that means that since the UN got it wrong on the elections, you have to allow for the possibility that the UN also got it wrong on invading Iraq. And if the state does have discretion then they can act without UN approval when the UN gets it wrong. That is just the reverse of many of the Neo-Con arguments....both sides are simply using the UN as convenient.

It all depends on what you view as the role of the UN and the member states within it.

If you view UN approval as the garantor of moral legitimacy, then the invasion was wrong, but the elections were fine, and people/states are BOUND to UN decisions on the issue. Any other view is hypocritical.

If you view the UN approval as the garantor of legal legitimacy but wrong from time to time, then you can believe anything you like, but have to allow for pluralism in the system, each with their own very real, often valid arguments. You can use the UN as evidence to back your point up, but must argue from more basic legal, moral and philosophic principles, because the UN is not the gold standard after all. It's just another political institution, capable of the same mistakes, having the power it does by system structure, vice inherent superior decision-making capacity. This means that member states are BOUND to UN decisions, but only in the legal sense. The UN itself might be wrong

If you view the UN as a body that increases the legitimacy (or is irrelevant) and that individual states have power to make their own decisions, then you may take any view you like, once again, using the UN as evidence, but again, arguing from more basic legal, moral and philosophic principles.

But you can't take the first and have it both ways or you're a pathetic hypocrite. And you can't take the second and maintain the UN on a pedestal.

And unless you take the first, you can't sit around foaming at the mouth, sputtering "the UN said!!!!" till you're red in the face....but then you're bound by their decision....

Oooooo rough catch 22....

David Jamieson
03-03-2005, 06:12 AM
This little production always has the same players and always spirals into the ground like a bird with a broken wing.

funny thing is, the line always opens with "hey Bush is ok right?"

then, the same folks line up and say "yeah, death to islam" then they start ululating in the american way.

then i pop in and call them wads for being redneck blinder wearing neo con ditto heads.

then i get attacked and the whole thread becomes "pfft" which is generally what it was to begin with.

welcome to the crossfire of kfm. so many tuckers in one room is a bit weird. :eek:

rogue
03-03-2005, 06:24 AM
Dang, that was the best smackdown I've heard in a long time, and it was done without the use of even one 4 letter word! Give that man a Miller!


KL, you win the Sid Barret award for the week for seeing things that aren't there.

David Jamieson
03-03-2005, 06:48 AM
It's funny that all the things that Merry accuses me of saying I haven't actually said.

At those times when I do ask him to point out "where did I say that" He will simply no longer reply or dissapear for a couple of days til the thread drops.

He is very comfortable it seems making all these suppositions about what I say.
What I say is cut and dried. Try not reading between teh lines, because when I involve myself in these threads I am very careful to make certain that the verbiage I choose to use is directed at someone with a grade 8 level of reading comprehension or lower as a courtesy towards those who believe the lies and drivel they are fed in the same manner.

Now merry. what is it you "think" I believe and what have I actually said? Can you read? See how very different your supposition is from the facts? I don't mean to confuse you with facts, but that happens quite a bit with you...or so it seems.

...anyway, look out for the falling bird that this thread is...yet again! sweeeeet, like a ninja!

Merryprankster
03-03-2005, 07:01 AM
Rogue,

Can I have the Thomas Friedman or Bernard Lewis award instead. Both are more accessable, and Buckley really doesn't grasp the state of the world today.

He's an old Cold Warrior, and as much as I admire his dedication to principle and his command of rhetoric (in the classic, non-Kung Lekian sense), I question his relevance.

cam
03-03-2005, 07:33 AM
Could Bush have been right? Who knows, I guess if Iraq holds together after the U.S. pulls out(if they pull out) then Bush was right. By the looks of things the U.S. is there to stay, so democratic election or not, if your leader is a figurehead/puppet then there is no democracy.
So,
was Bush right?
On WMD.... No!
On Iraq being an imminent threat...No!
On Iraq being responsible for 911... No!!
On the Missile defence shield..... okay I know it has nothing to do with Iraq but have you ever heard of the Maginot line?

rogue
03-03-2005, 07:54 AM
No problem MP, here's the Bernard Lewis award for figuring out What Went Wrong with KL. :D

Merryprankster
03-03-2005, 08:43 AM
What do you mean figuring out? That's his problem from the beginning. He's completely incapable of sussing out the discrete issues that compose a problem and discussing them in isolation, then resumming them in light of that discussion to reach an analysis on any given situation. It's a serious impediment to the ability to hold a rational discussion because it makes his arguments agenda, vice evidence driven.

For instance take the ongoing disagreement we have on Al Qaida. His assertion is that the groups beefs are direct results of U.S. policy choices. Never mind that all available evidence, including the AQ CHARTER points to a twisted conceptualization of Islam declaring outright that the dar al harb (house of war/pain) is in constant conflict with the dar al Islam (house of peace) and it is the duty of every good Muslim to wage jihad on the dar al harb.

This is a cultural, vice political motivation. It pits one side against the other in a good and evil argument, not a wrong and right argument, which is quite different. The first is a fundamental moral distinction built on cultural differences "Islamic" (using the term loosely, because AQ is WARPED) culture which is good, vs everybody else, (which is inherently bad). This has NOTHING to do with policy choices!

The second argument of right and wrong is linked to the assessment of discrete actions and historical flow. For instance, the AQ and other like-minded thinking is that since Islam is the truth then the Islamic world should by all rights be at the pinnacle of the world. But it isn't. Working from this idea, it is easy to arrive at two logical explanations:

1. The first is that internally, the Islamic world is somehow fallen from the true path.

2. The second is that externally, the rest of the world must be conspiring to "keep the man down."


In a truly shocking development, these are precisely the two things AQ has declared. Islam must return to the rules of the 8th century Caliphate in order to reclaim its former grandeur AND, the rest of the world conspires against Islam.

The political argument of right and wrong is used to justify the two explanations in terms of both target choice and rationale. The regimes of the Islamic world have made choices that render them apostate (an AQ staple), thus the decline of the Islamic world. To explain the second in a completely rational act, AQ chose the West as its political enemy in the sense that it is the West's POLICY to keep the Islamic world down. As the most influential member of the dominent cultural paradigm the U.S. is a natural target.


Put simply, while you can get to the political argument from the cultural in a rational way, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get to the cultural from the political without a pre-existing bias. That is, in order to argue from the political, you have to assume that the idea of Western aggression against Islam is TRUE outright, instead of working with the available evidence, which reveals MANY different reasons for meddling western policies in the Islamic world. Not all were positive, and many did stunt Islamic growth. However, assuming your conclusion is true as a necessity for the truth of your argument is the classical fallacy of begging the question. Consequently, the cultural argument is more fundamental, the political one secondary AND derivative of the first. A double whammy.

Did you know that the treatise for the religious justification of terrorist acts used by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad contains no historical or political references to Western acts beyond the last Crusade? A significant anecdotal example. I think a political treatise would be a bit more up to date.

His dog won't hunt.

KL will now call me boring for presenting a logical argument with evidence, and blather something about Republican or Neo-Con talking points.

This is because, as we all know:

1. Evidence is immaterial to a decent argument or appropriately forming an opinion.

2. Any opinion not his is automatically the result of swallowing propaganda rather than independent thought.

mortal
03-03-2005, 08:47 AM
Merryprankster

That was a great post.

David Jamieson
03-03-2005, 08:57 AM
yeah guys, keep patting each other on the back :rolleyes:

lol, totally pathetic apologists for the idiocy committed by the Bush whitehouse.

relevancy?

Yes merry and rogue, posting political rants in a kungfu forum seeking support is really really relevant!

try your goofball antics in a real political forum, see how it goes then report back to us here in the land of who gives a sh.it what you think about the world.

ps. In regards to any point of relevancy of this dead horse beaten topic. Just read Cams post. It's the only one with the straight facts in it. as opposed to the rest.

when are you guys ever gonna post something relevant here. I don't think merry has posted anything here to do with his wrestling matches in a long time and has reserved all his commentaries for these kinds of things.

If'n ya think yer so smart merry, go play with the big boy spinners and pundits instead of coming here with your diatribes about the republican agendas. And rogue. You too buddy. I'd rather talk kungfu than bushie poo. BUt as long as you put this jive here, I will oppose you and ridicule your stupid neo con sentiments and whitewashes of the facts.

I would also point out that It is always the same people posting these pro bush threads and patriotic drivel. most of the thread starters of this fashion have already posted in this thread. the same circle of "a few". Man, are you guys recruiters for the neo cons or something? lol Think you would've gotten a lesson learned from Tucker getting booted after his little hissy fit with the fake news guy on crossfire and ultimately the downing of that show entirely in the face of the facts.

cam
03-03-2005, 09:06 AM
I've noticed a lot of Bernard Lewis's ideas being tossed about. This is all beyond my expertise though I do remember Noam Chomsky saying that B.L. was a " vulgar propagandist".

rogue
03-03-2005, 10:11 AM
Yes merry and rogue, posting political rants in a kungfu forum seeking support is really really relevant!
Hiya Kettle. Yeah I'd be eaten alive, but I think Zim, MP and a few others would do just fine.

Newb
03-03-2005, 10:16 AM
I don't want to jump the gun but could Iraq have been the first in a line of dominos? I figured when I heard Daniel Shore say Bush might have been right that the idea might have legs. And if so does it make the sacrifice of our people worth it to the anti-war crowd.

He never said it only referred to here in the US.



2 points. Both equally important:

1.) You will not get a true republic or have a democracy that means anything without security and infrastructure. The current plans of the Neo-Cons so far, involve minimal development, which should have started when we got on **** with a 'mission accomplished' sign. Iraq is NOT stable, it is falling into chaos further every day. Without actually solving this mess, you will not have a country that anyone would like to live in.

2.) The point of the Iraq war and the bill authorized by Congress was "Weapons of Mass Distruction". We weren't told we're going there to bring Democracy, we were told we're going there because they have weapons of Mass Distruction that they can launch at us by 45 minutes and there would be a mushroom cloud over Washington DC. Now it's obvious to everyone that we were more likely to be invaded from the moon than from Iraq.

ZIM
03-03-2005, 10:21 AM
In a truly shocking development, these are precisely the two things AQ has declared. Islam must return to the rules of the 8th century Caliphate in order to reclaim its former grandeur AND, the rest of the world conspires against Islam.

The political argument of right and wrong is used to justify the two explanations in terms of both target choice and rationale. The regimes of the Islamic world have made choices that render them apostate (an AQ staple), thus the decline of the Islamic world. To explain the second in a completely rational act, AQ chose the West as its political enemy in the sense that it is the West's POLICY to keep the Islamic world down. As the most influential member of the dominent cultural paradigm the U.S. is a natural target.
Hmmm. According to the above snipping, what you're implying [or I'm inferring, take your pick] is that the aggressive stance vs. the West & the rest of the non-Islamic world is something of a means towards an end, a rallying cry used to clean house in the Islamic lands.

Am I getting the right reading from this or did you mean something a little different? Just want to clarify it & not misunderstand.

David Jamieson
03-03-2005, 10:22 AM
Hiya Kettle. Yeah I'd be eaten alive, but I think Zim, MP and a few others would do just fine.

rogue, I don't think so. They can barely hold up against a shlub like me. All I have to do is indicate the facts that wash away their obfuscation, or attempted obfuscation. LOL

And, I would add, I don't start these stupid political threads. It is usually a member of the small group of bushies who claim not to be bushies when they are ridiculed for what they are saying. IE: those you have mentioned, occasionally yourself and a couple of others like midget boy and one or two who can't actually form sentences, are overly emotional about it and proceed to salivate all over the more articulate obfuscaters nuts in their posts of "that was the best thread ever" or "man you told him" or "you are stoopid KL" etc etc. LOL

what a fukking joke. But then, that's what these threads are and that's what the current administration of the american governemnt is, a fukking joke. :D

Merryprankster
03-03-2005, 12:40 PM
ZIM,

I meant something a little different.

It's not just an internal cleansing. It's a reckoning. They didn't sit down and go "Ok, what enemy do we pick to manipulate people into following us." Rather, they took stock of the Islamic world and asked a logical question "Why aren't we the pinnacle of the world, if we are the one true revelation? That is God's promise to us, but here we are."

Then, they looked around a bit and came to another logical conclusion, based on their paradigm of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam:

1. The dar al-harb was WITHIN the dar al-Islam and needs a good scrub to get it out (the takfiri - apostate).

2. The dar al-harb externally conspires to bring down the dar al-Islam, or we wouldn't be having this problem.

Now, if, working from their assumptions, you sit down and look outside yourself to see what the "dar al-harb," is, then the West and the United States are staring right back at you. The "ah-ha!" part that comes next is a pretty obvious conclusion - namely, the conspiracy of the West and the U.S. to keep you down.


But the message of culture war is very non-specific because "not you" is the enemy. If the Buddhist cultural paradigm were dominant, the thing staring back at them may have been a happy fat guy in a saffron robe... and their ah-ha moment would have been about the Buddhist conspiracy, etc, etc.

rogue
03-03-2005, 12:58 PM
AQ's short term goal is to establish an "Islamic" government in the "Islamic" world. For the record that means any past lands formerly ruled by Muslims and modern "Islamic" lands like Indonesia and parts of Southeast Asia (talk about your best of both worlds...).
I know that they are still PO'd about Andalusia and still consider it part of their world. I'm surprised that AQ hasn't gone after Spain more trying to "liberate" Muslim land.

MP, do you think UBL is still into the Jihad against the US like he used to be? While he hasn't been caught some of the wind has been taken out of his sails. I think he also has to get his deputy in Iraq from killing so many Muslims.

Merryprankster
03-03-2005, 01:15 PM
Rogue, I changed the response, because I think my current explanation makes more sense.

I have one answer to your questions.

Capability.

First, AQ has been seriously hindered. Their central hierarchy is broken and the main players pre-9/11 are in hiding or captured or dead. It will take time for them to re-establish any sort of command and control. Further, these new guys will lack the weight of the old ones. Afghanistan I played a huge role in introducing all of these fellows to each other. In the future, Bosnia muj, Chechnyan muj, Kashmiri Muj and Iraq Muj are all going to have their own little networks without the unifying experience of Afghanistan and the training there.

The lack of a hierarchy and unified experience is allowing two things. First, other groups and associated groups - all of which buy in to the jihad message, but have their own priorities, are starting to make their own decisions. Secondly, there is ideological fragmentation - the U.S. may no longer be the "primary" target. Several voices in AQ, for instance, argued that Israel should be the main target, but UBL and the Egyptian faction overruled them.

This should no way be interpreted as "global Islamic terrorism is less of a threat." Like the drug trade, networks are very hard to combat and it gets worse the more horizontal and spread out they become. For instance, in the drug war, we took down the Medellin and Cali cartels....which were immediately replaced by several smaller networks all working together to accomplish the same goal - make lots of money. Colombian cocaine market share never dropped.

So the network(s) will continue to function, gain adherents, etc.

As far as UBL personally, if he had the means and wasn't in a cave somewhere, he'd be attacking, no doubt. But you can't rely on loosely connected people who may not even owe fealty to you to carry out YOUR agenda.

AQ is less of a threat, but the phenomenon is not. This is precisely why I detest non-systemic solutions and modes of thought. They are unable to solve this type of thing. We need to ask "what's the system?" Rather than "Where are the *******s?" "What's the system," leads you to ways to combat and dismantle the bad guys. "Where are they?" gets you to a point target...one or two guys.

WinterPalm
03-03-2005, 02:25 PM
I suppose that if Bush has been wrong about everything up until this point, there would follow a logic that at this point we are still being fed lies. Let's face it, the US is in a very sad shape and the extreme use of religion and Imams... oops, I mean pastors to rile up the voters and bring in the numbers, things are on shaky grounds and Bush is pushign too hard into quite a few arenas that he could never understand and of which something is being created, right now, that will play out in the future and may be very good.

I will wholeheartedly welcome the death of the left. It's just about time to kill off the right as well...

rogue
03-03-2005, 02:34 PM
Let's face it, the US is in a very sad shape
Uh, OK Lawrance Kudlow.




Tin Foil Hat Time:
So smaller networks with different goals may spread the joy so to speak. Russia has it's problem, and I'm going to guess that France and Spain will get their own too. I'd think sooner or later the networks will cross paths. Also more networks could lead to more infighting between them over money and AO. Maybe.


I played a huge role in introducing all of these fellows to each other. So you're the one! I just cut and pasted that from your post. :D

Christopher M
03-03-2005, 02:47 PM
OT: Could Bush Have Been Right?

No, he's a Republican. Therefore, ipso facto, he was wrong.

Merryprankster
03-03-2005, 03:32 PM
France already got/is getting theirs. Difference is, they're better at combating it than we are.

Check this out:

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/articles/fellows/shapiro20030301.pdf

wdl
03-03-2005, 09:00 PM
No, he's a Republican. Therefore, ipso facto, he was wrong.

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. Reducing his altitude, he spotted a woman on the ground below and asked for help. "Excuse me," he said when she was within earshot. "Can you help me? I don't know where I am and I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago."

The woman looked up at him and said. "Sure. You are in a hot air balloon, about thirty feet above the ground. Your location is between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

Hearing this, the man in the balloon became irritated. Looking down at her he asked, "Are you a Republican?"

"Yes," she replied. "How did you know?"

"Well," he snapped, "the information you've given me is probably technically correct, but I haven't the foggiest idea of what to do with it. I'm still lost, my friend is still waiting for me, and frankly you haven't been any help at all."

"Are you a Democrat?" the woman asked.

"Yes" he said. "How did you know?"

"Easy," she answered. "You don't know where you are, and you don't know where you're going. You've risen to your present position on a large quantity of hot air, you've made promises you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. Moreover, you're in the same position as when we met, but you've found a way to blame your predicament on me."


-Will

rogue
03-03-2005, 09:12 PM
Thanks for the paper MP. All I can say is wow. Interesting use of the judiciary but people here would have a cow if we even did some of what France is doing. The outcry if we rounded up the ELF and radical anti-abortion people even for 4 days would be something.
I agree with the article that terrorism will always be with us even if it goes dorment. You'd have thought more would have been done after the 1993 attack in NYC and that would have been our wake up call. Instead we looked at the terrorists as unsuccessful and that we won.
I'm too tired right now but I'm going to read that again tomorrow. Once again thanks for sharing it.

wdl
03-03-2005, 09:16 PM
The outcry if we rounded up the ELF and radical anti-abortion people even for 4 days would be something.

Oh those ELF people. They Pizz me off. Granted I drive a Honda Accord, not an SUV, I'm not exactly a target, but still, if they keyed ANY vehicle I owned, that's ground for a beat down. Random anarchy stuff like that just rubs me raw. GAWD I hate those people. There's no call for stuff like that.

-Will

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 05:28 AM
I'm just waitin for the aarp and the swift boat twits to get to their slugfest.

That oughta be interesting.

America, if nothing else it makes for both amusing and bemusing television for Canadians. :D

Merryprankster
03-04-2005, 06:22 AM
Rogue,

I was more interested in the rapidity with which they developed their capability.

You know what's funny? Here in the U.S., we get wrapped around the axle about the idea of "domestic intelligence."

Yet, we have an agency, the FBI, that can conduct investigations AND indict you. They have both powers.

To me, that's far more structurally powerful than mere intelligence surveillance. I really think a British Style MI-6 would be a good thing and a decent compromise. MI-6 has the power to conduct INTELLIGENCE collection and analysis domestically, but it CANNOT indict. It has to convince an LE organization to indict. And the burden of proof for law enforcement is much higher than intel analysis.

Law Enforcement is what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Analysis is what you think - more in the realm of preponderance of evidence.

rogue
03-04-2005, 07:09 AM
Merry, Now that I'm awake I'll read it again. Interesting point about the feebs. I have heard that field agents tend to go after the cases that stand a better chance of success in court rather than chasing rumours. Chasing intel without the worry of having to build a case could help. I think there would be one hell of a cat fight from the ACLU to the FBI over starting an MI-6 type group. I know the people and skills are out there so getting it staffed wouldn't be a problem.

I think the French had the head start because they've been dealing with terrorists for quite a while. Even with santuary there were people there who knew what the terrorists were capable of. Here, outside of a few people, terrorists were characters in Chuck Norris and Arnie movies.

Merryprankster
03-04-2005, 08:28 AM
Yeah, the FBI doesn't do intelligence. They don't collect. They have a very different perspective on what is important and what isn't precisely because if it doesn't help them in court, they don't care.

But the FBI is doing domestic surveillance NOW AND they have the power to arrest.

An MI-6, FWIW, I don't see being part of the FBI or the DOJ. It's not an LE job.

rogue
03-04-2005, 08:40 AM
Right, it'd be an intelligence job that would then pass it on to the local or federal LE. Kind of like the NSA, if such a thing existed.

I just read these and I think it shows the problem you are talking about. Also the mindset that we caught the bad guys so everything is OK.

http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp

http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/TGroups_jttf.asp

Newb
03-04-2005, 09:40 AM
I'm just waitin for the aarp and the swift boat twits to get to their slugfest.

That oughta be interesting.

America, if nothing else it makes for both amusing and bemusing television for Canadians. :D

They already started. The company that funded the lying "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" is running ads that state the AARP is Anti-Troop (with a picture of a US Troop and a X through it) and Pro Gay marriage. Why did they do this? Becauset he AARP came out against social security privization. What *******s these neo-cons are. Manipulating our feeble and easily warped population with such distorted lies.

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 10:02 AM
Just remember that as an american citizen, all this talk of surveillance and everything indicates that you are the enemy.

I think the better idea would be to police your police and police your politicians who are commiting graft up the yin yang and fleecing your tax dollars like there's no tomorrow.

You will be pressed down so far it will be hard for any gras roots operation to take place and ultimately may lead to civil war. wasn't so long ago this happened and there ain't nothing new under the sun horatio. People in teh 1860's weren't that much different from how they are now and the division is certainly there.

It seems the globalization movement has as part of its plan and machinery a motion towards leashing and controlling private citizens.

Don't believe it? look around. How come you have protesters pens in election time? How come you have people who are supposedly journalists who are actually hirees of the government, particularly the executive branch?

How come everything is a conspiracy when someone cries foul on something and demands a transparent and third party investigation? How come transparency and third party investigations are more or less not allowed.

The weird thing is that this is not just the USA I am describing, It's the UK, most of Europe, Canada, Russia and of course the so called Commie countries have been doing this all along.

The world is total new level suckage at this point in my life. I think we should trash the lot and have a majour rethink on the power structures and how they work. I'm tired of having my life run by corporate interests and millionaire buddies.

yikes!

Newb
03-04-2005, 11:23 AM
If Bush have been right then the following should also be right:

- Be stupid.
- Smoke marijuana.
- Run away from military service.
- Lie to his people.
- Give order to torture human being.
- Make the poor poorer and rich richer.
- Take social security away from people under 55 years old.
- Invade other country.
- Drop bombs and missiles on cities.
- Kill innocent women and children.


Don't forget using completely doctored up and false pretenses of 'weapons of mass distruction' to illegally invade a nation that has never attacked us.

TaiChiBob
03-04-2005, 11:33 AM
Greetings..


AQ is less of a threat, but the phenomenon is not. This is precisely why I detest non-systemic solutions and modes of thought. They are unable to solve this type of thing. We need to ask "what's the system?" Rather than "Where are the *******s?" "What's the system," leads you to ways to combat and dismantle the bad guys. "Where are they?" gets you to a point target...one or two guys.

This is the issue..

Be well

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 01:41 PM
hmmm, do bad guys know they are bad guys?

I mean besides the obvious badguys.

But when it comes to fundamentalists, which fundamentalist is the bad guy?

Frankly, I don't see much of a difference in modus operandi be it bush and his boys or ALQ and theirs. They both strongly believe they are doing the right thing.

who benefits and who loses is a much more interesting question.

TaiChiBob
03-04-2005, 01:49 PM
Greetings..

Good/bad.. benefit/loss.. simply a matter of perspective.. depends on one's expectations and point of view.. each believes the other to be wrong..

Be well..

Shaolinlueb
03-04-2005, 03:02 PM
being the bad guy is much funner then being the good guy.

MonkeySlap Too
03-04-2005, 04:17 PM
It also doesn't require one to be bound by the rules of grammer. :D

Merryprankster
03-04-2005, 04:22 PM
KL,

Moral equivalency arguments are stupid. There is absolutely no way to compare AQ and the Bush administration in terms of morality on this issue.

AQ actively attempts to kill innocent non-combatants.

Bush, the administration and the military as a whole do not target civilians. While innocent people do die in wars, there is a huge difference: intent.

By your own admission, each side is doing what they think is right.

People trying to make moral equivalency arguments (like you), always ignore intent (like you) because it's the giant turd on the table. It negates the equivalency argument.

Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter folks. Why? Because we make a moral distinction between intending to kill innocent people and doing so unintentionally. We make this distinction even if the person guilty of manslaughter INTENDED to cause harm, but not death.

That's how important intent is. And that's why moral equivalency arguments always collapse.

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 05:10 PM
KL,

Moral equivalency arguments are stupid. There is absolutely no way to compare AQ and the Bush administration in terms of morality on this issue.

AQ actively attempts to kill innocent non-combatants.

Bush, the administration and the military as a whole do not target civilians. While innocent people do die in wars, there is a huge difference: intent.

By your own admission, each side is doing what they think is right.

People trying to make moral equivalency arguments (like you), always ignore intent (like you) because it's the giant turd on the table. It negates the equivalency argument.

Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter folks. Why? Because we make a moral distinction between intending to kill innocent people and doing so unintentionally. We make this distinction even if the person guilty of manslaughter INTENDED to cause harm, but not death.

That's how important intent is. And that's why moral equivalency arguments always collapse.

Merry-

Looking at some of the arguments you make, moral equivalency is as valid as any of it.

The Coallition forces (Ok, Us and British Forces under orders) actively kill people, combatatants and non combatants alike on a daily basis. Don't tell me they are holy rangers. How many civ dead in Iraq in Bushies war? How many dead in america because of AlQ? Moral equivalency is relevant dude.

alq could be looked at as desperate men taking desperate measures to make their cause known.

Your argument is what wouldn't hold up if you tried it in that region of the world.

It seems that unlike you, I am more than capable of putting the shoe on the other foot and at least trying to look at things from another angle.

You are a sultan of republican spin in this. You have half a country down there who in some way shape or form are saying the same thing as me.

By the way, what is up with US troops firing on the Italian Journalists? What was the intent there. What was the intent of the abu ghraib flap? The wooha shooting of the downed combatant? and the stories pile up to how many times the damage against the Iraqi people, who by the way, in case you haven't noticed had nothing to do with 911, had no wmds and are not AlQ.

You have a lot of chutzpa talking moral equivalency, I'll give you that. It is convenient to make some shadowy half myth outfit your enemy and focus of fear. I am glad I don't live in your perception of the world, it reeks of evil intention.

Ultimately, it is your argument that is weak in my eyes, but , I've been saying that all along.

ZIM
03-04-2005, 06:28 PM
KL,

This was the flaw in your post. ;)


the Iraqi people, who by the way, in case you haven't noticed had nothing to do with 911, had no wmds and are not AlQ. Doesn't matter. We [the US] still had cause to attack [that cause being an attempted assassination on a former President].
The most mileage you could get from this angle is that the UK/Aussies/rest of the Coalition should have been excluded. Tenuous, though, since many of the same nations were part of the original Coalition that established the no-fly zones that were repeatedly violated, had intelligence agents killed by the Iraqi gov't, established the UN Resolutions, etc.
But at least I'd accept the argument on its surface.

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 07:01 PM
This was the flaw in your post. ;)

Doesn't matter. We [the US] still had cause to attack [that cause being an attempted assassination on a former President].
The most mileage you could get from this angle is that the UK/Aussies/rest of the Coalition should have been excluded. Tenuous, though, since many of the same nations were part of the original Coalition that established the no-fly zones that were repeatedly violated, had intelligence agents killed by the Iraqi gov't, established the UN Resolutions, etc.
But at least I'd accept the argument on its surface.

lol, more obfuscation. Now it's the attempted assassination and not the wmds ready to go in 45 mins?

man, you guys are scrambling like a hollywood sycophant with this nonsense.

Seeing as we are already interesting times, I guess I can't wish that upon you.

The flaws in your posts are your apparent undying support for the maniac you're calling a president down there. And your unfounded fear of arab peoples and your attacks on their religion as if yours is better.

Truth of the matter is the US has much dirtier hands than a lot of arab countries/peoples/organizations when it comes to manipulation, starting wars, killing innocents for dollars etc etc etc et fukking c.

rogue
03-04-2005, 07:33 PM
You are a sultan of republican spin in this.
That is really very funny. It's stupid and shows you've never really read what MP says, but still very funny.

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 07:41 PM
*tick*

I do read what Merry says Rogue.
Are you reading the same thing? Maybe we are just understanding it differently?

As in you agree with it and find it sound, I disagree with it and find it whacked.

Merryprankster
03-04-2005, 07:53 PM
KL doesn't read it because he has to work through all that boring "evidence," which hurts his head.

Also the bits where you have to tease out seperate issues. That seems to cause problems too.

Like, it's possible to believe that the war in Iraq was wrong, but that elections are a good thing.

But no, that's impossible for him.

Of course, Bush went in for Oil, even though it doesn't make any sense, so what do you expect?

The funniest part of all of this rogue is that I voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry. The problem is that KL is so blinded by his own hatred of Bush that he can't comprehend anything.

Or maybe that's just one of his traits overall.

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 08:00 PM
Again with the petty attacks on me. Sweet, just makes my point all the stronger really. Because your talking points are all avoiding the real questions and issues consistently! Just like republicans who defend illegal and unjustified wars and pre-emptive strikes on non threats! You know, like Iraq!

In fact you'll mince and prance off into far off places and far away from the conversation at hand in order to...avoid answering the questions? I dunno.

And then, you'll make assumptions, and then some more assumptions and next week there will be another post about how great Bush is or how good the americans are for going into Iraq and how it was all justified now that something seems to have gone right for once even though YOU SHOULDN"T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I will on the other hand be here to remond you of that fact every now and again when your patriotic bloating and gloating gets to heady for me to the point where I am sickened by your wal-mart war machine recruiter antics.

Keep it coming Cheney-bots, I got lots of sanity bullets and reason bombs left to ride out this tiny little battle.

Merryprankster
03-04-2005, 08:05 PM
Hey, you brought the attacks on yourself.

I am slow to truly anger, and have only a few triggers, but hold grudges deeply.

rogue
03-04-2005, 09:19 PM
I do read what Merry says Rogue.
If so then you would know that he and I won't be hanging out and singing Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue at the next Toby Keith concert because...

The funniest part of all of this rogue is that I voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry.
See KL, you can have different views but still have a conversation. That way you can even find some common ground and maybe as in my case learn something. I don't always agree with MP, or even always like what he says, but the man has done his research and I have to at least consider what he's saying. It's called respect.


Keep it coming Cheney-bots, I got lots of sanity bullets and reason bombs left to ride out this tiny little battle. What does that mean? I know people who work for Cheney and they are quite smart. And believe it or not nobody is battling you, we were discussing a approach for countering terrorism. Which could be considered self defense and a proper subject for a martial arts forum. If you have something to add please do but stop being a nudge.

ZIM
03-04-2005, 09:27 PM
lol, more obfuscation. Now it's the attempted assassination and not the wmds ready to go in 45 mins?

man, you guys are scrambling like a hollywood sycophant with this nonsense.

Seeing as we are already interesting times, I guess I can't wish that upon you.

The flaws in your posts are your apparent undying support for the maniac you're calling a president down there. And your unfounded fear of arab peoples and your attacks on their religion as if yours is better.

Truth of the matter is the US has much dirtier hands than a lot of arab countries/peoples/organizations when it comes to manipulation, starting wars, killing innocents for dollars etc etc etc et fukking c.
The declaration for war, at the time it was written up, contained around 27 grievances, only one of which involved WMDs. Assassination attempts on leaders have always been a cause for war and this is internationally recognized. That Clinton chose not to pursue it is his failing but it hardly alters the fact.

Look at it this way [which should prove easy for you]:
Chirac comes to the US. Karl Rove has him killed. France does nothing.
Zapatero comes to DC and is found beheaded in a hotel. The FBI is implicated. Spain does nothing.
The Canadian PM visits NYC and is "suicided". Canada does nothing.

At which point was there a cause for war to be declared? By whom and why?

wdl
03-04-2005, 09:41 PM
lol, more obfuscation. Now it's the attempted assassination and not the wmds ready to go in 45 mins?


The biggest one on top of my list wasn't WMDs before we went in. It was the fact that idea of hijacking planes with box cutters came out of Iraq. Bin Laden wanted to take down the WTC and failed the first time. He had operatives in Iraq being trained at Salman Pak that's been established. There it's been proven and you can verify it for yourself with many news accounts that Saddam had an airliner and was training people how to hijack one with box cutters, razors, pens, aka any small handy object. I'm not saying that the ones he trained actually did it, but it doesn't take too much to put two and two together and think like Bin Laden did:

"Easy hijacking with box cutter, fully fueled airliner, 550MPH air speed, HOLY JIHAD I CAN DO IT!"

Saddam had alot more to do with 9/11, you just have to connect the dots. What I said above has all been proven and it out in the open knowledge.

-Will

rogue
03-04-2005, 09:58 PM
The declaration for war, at the time it was written up, contained around 27 grievances, only one of which involved WMDs. Thomas, remember facts don't count.
Seems like the U.N. is better at stealing, whoring and raping kids than anything else.


you just have to connect the dots. Problem with connecting dots Will is that you can come up with different pictures depending upon what you are looking for. We had a sidebar about Laurie Mylroie's book The War Against America and she presented facts, connected the dots and seems to have come up with the wrong answer. Some of the dots just don't have anything to do with the real picture.

wdl
03-04-2005, 11:14 PM
Some of the dots just don't have anything to do with the real picture.

I've not seen or read her book. If there's a thread still send me a PM with the link please and I'll go read it.

Yeah, your right, the dots have to be kept in perspective and each dot's context analyzed. There are alot of dots in Iraq that involve ALQ, some of them can be connected most can't(to ALQ's credit, they aren't stupid, in that regard atleast). The case of the airliner and the hijacking training is probably the one with the most evidence to cite. There's no direct evidence that any of the ones on the planes on 9/11 were actually there. Lots of evidence points to members of ALQ training there and taking the knowledge home with them. From there you have to connecte the dots to the airplanes actually being hijacked. Atleast, publically, there hasn't been evidence released.

I'm all for the tribunals down at Gitmo. I think it will get alot more evidence out in the open that the administration has kept secret. As I said earlier in the thread, my opinion on Iraq is that it will take about 10 years to know fully if it's going to be successful and if, "Bush was right". That being said, look at what happened in previous wars such as Vietnam. We are only now starting to find out some of the details of what really went on over there. In the past two years thousands of WW2 documents were finally declassified. It will be YEARS before the world really and truely knows what's happened in Iraq.

-Will

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 11:33 PM
zim is playing hypotheticals again. yeesh, where was that coming from?

wdl is saying Iraq had something to do with 911. Ok, now that is just ridiculous and you would think you would know that...unless of course you're watching some secret news channel that none of the rest of us know about. According to the commision, the gov itself, the fbi and the cia, teh guys on the planes were saudis not iraqis.

27 greivances sure, ok, but lemme tell ya, Powell was waving a vial of powder, showing blurry sat photos (i don't know why the tech is way better than that) and shouting about yellow cake and nukes and wmds.

they attempted to get another resolution, they attempted to get everyone on side with their lie and the rest of teh world refused for the most part.

people do know what happened and is happening in Iraq, a great deal of us feel that the USA and the UK acted in an aggressive and illegal fashion. Unfortunately, most of the world has passively let the USA build up it's own wmd and now it is this pretty much uncontrollable monster.

But that is changing too. Anyway, You guys are dreaming with the sh.it your making up and dumping here like little turds. Absolute nonsense. NOt even worth arguing with. You are merely trying to justify a crime against humanity and call it liberty freedom deluxo.

you are buying into serious disinformation, just like your president. and on top of it you are trying to spread it here. Here of all places! why here?

FatherDog
03-04-2005, 11:36 PM
Okay, KL, calling Merry a republican spin doctor has to rank among the stupidest things you've said to date, and that's saying something.

Merry's been quite critical of the Bush administration, and the neo-cons in general. But because he disagrees with some of the ridiculous stuff you've postulated about them, you immediately assume he must be a republican supporter. I suspect that this is because you, like so many other people, treat politics as something akin to sports, and assume that anyone who finds fault with your team is rooting against you.

Frankly, my politics are further to the left than yours (and probably anyone else on this board, with the possible exception of Chang Style Novice) and way further to the left than Merry's, but I can easily see that you're simply wrong on most of the things you're saying here. You're not addressing MP's points; you're just yelling unrelated things at him.

Merry:
I concur that AQ's leadership has the destruction of the West in general and the US in particular as a stated goal, and that this would not change regardless of whether or not the US maintained an interventionist policy in the middle east. What I think your analysis is missing, however, is that the views of the AQ leadership aren't necessarily the motivating factor behind the majority of their membership. Isn't it entirely possible (and even likely) that the US interventions in the middle east breed widespread resentment that contributes to people sympathizing with and providing aid and enlistment in AQ?

Basically, you seem to have been arguing that the US interfering less in the middle east would have no effect on AQ because the leadership is not motivated by the US' interference in middle eastern politics, but by their hatred of the West and desire for an Islamic caliphate to dominate the world. While I agree that the latter is true, wouldn't you say that the motivating factor for a good amount of AQ's support is the former, and that lack of the former might well reduce AQ to a fringe organization with a very small and thus ineffective membership?

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 11:39 PM
must be something in the water down there???

everyone is lining up to call me stupid, but then puttin forth the most dumb ass sh.it i have read to date.

what a pack of ditto heads.

whatever, keep patting yoursleves on the backs guys, it really does nothing but make you look even more foolish with each lie you tell and retell.

your president is a liar, you are perpetuating lies.

people are dying and for what? what was that? come again?

freaking zombies is what you are. be that, things will change and you will still not understand.

wdl
03-04-2005, 11:39 PM
Isn't it entirely possible (and even likely) that the US interventions in the middle east breed widespread resentment that contributes to people sympathizing with and providing aid and enlistment in AQ?


This is quite true. But how do you combat a group that's still PO'd about the Shores of Tripoli and the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s? They are still holding a grudge and are motivated by things that happened 200 years ago.


-Will

David Jamieson
03-04-2005, 11:41 PM
and lets not forget where ALQ began, it's an american invention. an experiment gone awry. deal with that.

Your country is expansionist and warmonging. deal with that.

the USA has contributed to more death, starvation and strife and I would put them up there as thinly veiled regarding real intention. No different than the British or the spanish laying out blankets covered in small pox to kill of the original americans, just spun up nicely in politics and jibba jabba.

you guys got some tiny little heads.

try to think of things that happened more than 2 weeks ago please.

ah why bother, this is just a fukkin sausage fest. You guys will probably never understand the damage your country is doing around the world. Your attitudes and beligerence i an extension of your environment.

remember this, live by the sword and you will die by it. that axiom is true and you bet that Bush's action will indeed bring forth several more generations of terrorist who will attempt to kill people that are american in anyway they can. Thanks Mr. Bush!

wdl
03-05-2005, 12:10 AM
Your country is expansionist and warmonging. deal with that.


Being in a state of expansion is better than being in a state of decline. :D

ALQ as a group might have started in Afghanistan as a result of cold war intervention by the US, but the US didn't create their mindset. They only took advantage of it and used it against the Soviet Union. The mindset they operate out of has been around for centuries.

-Will

Christopher M
03-05-2005, 02:17 AM
The Canadian PM visits NYC and is "suicided". Canada does nothing.

Nothing!? We'd send a thank you bouquet and gift basket!

unkokusai
03-05-2005, 04:29 AM
Your country is expansionist and warmonging. deal with that.!


And your...I guess you could call it a country...is weak and irrelevant. Oh, and any economic and military security you enjoy is entirely thanks to your superior neighbor. You know this, which is why you resentful inbreeds spend so much time worrying about us.

dezhen2001
03-05-2005, 05:57 AM
Being in a state of expansion is better than being in a state of decline. :D

ALQ as a group might have started in Afghanistan as a result of cold war intervention by the US, but the US didn't create their mindset. They only took advantage of it and used it against the Soviet Union. The mindset they operate out of has been around for centuries.

-Will
The mindset they operate out of is something that was created a few centuries ago by the combining forces of the ibn Saud family and the fundementalist Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab. When even his own father and brother write rebuttals against his religious thought (as traditionally qualified scholars in their own right), then you really should wonder how "mainstream" and representative of the generic Islamic thought he and his school is. If you want to talk about it we can, especially interesting is the influence the British and other European countries had in supporting their movement against the power of the original Ottoman Caliphate (which was still in control at that time).

Sadly because of oil money and the lack of organization in the Muslim community worldwide, the Wahabbi school and its ofshoots the Salafiyya (which tend to come more from the Wahabbi created Ikhwan movement in Saudi and have a more violent and extreme mindset) are gaining presence, especially in the cut-off-from-tradition Western muslim populace. This has caused the rise of such groups as Hizb ut-Tahrir and others even more extreme such as al-Muhajiroun who are gaining in popularity in Europe and even here in Australia. The lack of education most Muslims in the west have is staggering, and its no surprise to me at all that many fall prey to such an approach - simply because of their lack of knowledge of traditional scholarship and works.

Its a shame you guys have no working relationship with the muslim community like i do (being Muslim and living in a majority Turkish/Lebanese immigrant community here in Sydney), because if you did then you would be able to clearly see that those who have "sympathy" towards such people has nothing to do with religious ideology, but more to do with global politics and the attitude the US has towards the rest of the world - at least as they percieve it. In fact, most of the Muslims i have met - young and old, from all over the middle east originally, knowledgeable and your average village idiot - were all disgusted by all the nasty events that have happened in Iraq, especially the kidnappings and roadside bombings and civillian deaths caused by "mujihadeen" etc.

Not only that, but trying to develop an identity in which you have no choice but to be "western" but still want to be fully "muslim" is something that all 2nd generation immigrant kids have to face, and its not easy. It can lead to a lot of angst especially as the current intellectual leadership of the Muslim communities here in the west are severely lacking and are mainly based on the "home country" mindset. There are a number of intellectuals working on it though - but when you bar one of the most important from coming to the US to teach at University on nothing but heresay - then i wonder what the US expects everyone, especially muslims to do?

Christopher M
03-05-2005, 06:40 AM
Of course, Bush went in for Oil, even though it doesn't make any sense, so what do you expect?

Making sense is just an invention of the bourgeois to oppress the working classes.

ZIM
03-05-2005, 07:30 AM
zim is playing hypotheticals again. yeesh, where was that coming from?
Geez, and I gave you such a nice clean way to get out of looking like a fool.

Here's the answer to my [trick] question: At no time is war required, but it is always an option that any one of the countries could declare. After the 3 deaths, the responding body can be either the individual countries acting in concert or a larger body, such as the EU. War is still not required, but is reserved as an option. Why should be self-evident.

Since you weren't even able to come up with an answer a schoolchild could, I have to conclude that you're so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that you're not even able to read or understand general questions, let alone specific ones. Talking to you is hence a waste of time.

But it does bring up an uncomfortable reality: If any of us here are "Cheney-bots" it is you. You react mechanically to every instance of the topic. It hardly matters that its in a negative vein- you're every bit as 'robotic' as any other knee-jerker.

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 08:28 AM
sure zim :rolleyes:

whatever you say. again you drop down to some low level and take a shot because I called you on a hypothetical that had nothing to do with the argument.

why not talk about Kirstie allies new fat actress show as a way to destroy the supersize me film credibility instead and then wander off into some other tangent?

Dogboy, When Merry is pressed to speak his mind, he will continually speak someone elses and also wander off when challenged on a position, He has been far less than critical of teh Bush administration and if you bothered to read a lot of his stuff you would see that for the most part he seems instead to fully support teh Bush agenda and also equally seems to have a hard on for teh arab world.

almost to a level of hatefulness, but because he can be clever with words, it may not be as obvious to someone such as yourself.

anyway, I notice none of you have responded to the simple thread of this thread wherein I agree with Cams position early on because it is "the correct"

Q: Could Bush have been right?
A: NO - followed by factual reasons IBID: cam's post previously inter alia

the rest of the supporting stuff is nonsense, especialy in regards to the things like wdls attempts to tie Iraq to 911. But this is as typical as the swiftboat vets for misinformation saying that the AARP is standing for all the things it clearly does not stand for because it conflicts with teh neo con agenda they uphold.

Will America ever get to have truth again? Probably not during this administration.
Bush can't even face an open press. He can't face an open question period and he can barely speak the english language. Peopl here like to say I hate the man, I don't, I just point out he is not fitting to serve in teh ofice of president of teh United States. he has neither the mental capacity or fundamental skills to do so. He is wholly unqualified and as much as people like to attack the people who point these things out, they are unable to rebut them with facts.

the facts regarding his incompetence stands.

You may choose to "believe" what you like I suppose, that does seem to be a trend down there these days. How convenient.

Mr Punch
03-05-2005, 08:35 AM
This 'man' is such an ignorant knee-jerk he is one of the reasons I gave up writing on political threads... so at least you can thank him for that!!! :D

And that's coming from a real rabid left-wing extremist! :D



BTW, Bush was wrong, and still is. I have the facts to back it up, but my typing's too slow (the other main reason I don't take part in these threads!). ;)

cam
03-05-2005, 08:36 AM
Connect the dots?
Lets see, on 911 four jet-liners take off, they travel for a short time before going wildly off-course, no explanation... why they even turn their transponders off and what is done, nothing.
I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why the airforce didn't scramble planes immediately, after all it's not like this happens everyday.
I can think of 3 scenarios
1. A total failure of the American armed survices
2. Total incompetence
3. It was allowed to happen
I find all those scenario disturbing, but can someone please explain to me how the U.S. could be caught so completely off-guard! And why no-one is saying anything about it?

rogue
03-05-2005, 08:41 AM
Here you go cam, a nice new tin foil hat in your size.

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 08:42 AM
FD,

You have to go further than U.S. politics (this also applies to dezhen's post, which was excellent, and IMO largely on the mark and I'll get to it in a minute).

I agree that Western policies in the ME are not always viewed favorably, often with good reason...but not always.

However,

While I agree that the latter is true, wouldn't you say that the motivating factor for a good amount of AQ's support is the former, and that lack of the former might well reduce AQ to a fringe organization with a very small and thus ineffective membership?

I disagree with the above statement because the motivating factor is not Western policy related. Man this is complicated. I'd have to write a small novel.

Let me give you a quick outline as best I can. These are generalizations. Inasmuch as I am talking about Millions of people, individual miles may vary...It's like the "ugly American." Not all are that way, but there is truth in the statement. We can be quite boorish in our behavior around the world....

In general, the ME is in decline, and has been for a good long time. This was not the result of western policy towards the region, but the product of internal rot and stagnation in the Ottoman Empire, which manifested in a variety of ways that I don't really want to go into. It's similar to "Reagan won the Cold War!" Um no....Reagan was president when the USSR began its implosion. The spending might have helped a touch, but he hardly forced the USSR to topple.

There is a real sense of lost grandeur and lost respect. Islam is not just a religion. It is a way to structure society. It is a way of governance. Ideally, the state governs in accordance with Islamic law (which does not translate either to a theocracy, or to the AQ vision of the world, or an autocratic state BTW, unless you are an Iranian Ayatollah or buy in to the AQ message, or are trying to justify a repressive regime, like the KSA).

Thomas Friedman once called humiliation the single most underrated force in human history. I'm inclined to agree. As a collective society, the ME has a sense of cultural humiliation - a once great empire of artisans, intellectuals and warriors now relegated to a secondary status. Culturally, the ME is insecure. Think about your experiences with insecure people. They LOOK for insults. They LOOK for perceived slights. And they usually find what they are looking for, regardless of actual intent or context. They are extremely sensitive towards social status. They are extremely sensitive to protocol and formality - and they do not excuse lack of such things as cultural difference. It's the kind of stuff that derails business meetings and political agreements.

Anecdotal story from a Foreign Service Officer I know - in a meeting with four VIP Iraqis, a U.S. General wore a flannel shirt, jeans and work boots. He had three or four armed guards with him. He sat at the head of the table and rolled his sleeves up. In the U.S. this is a guy who is one of you and ready to get down to business - a no nonsense fellow.

Each of the Iraqis left with the message that this was a guy who had no power to do anything. First, a representative with power would never dress like that. Secondly, the presence of armed guards indicated he was scared for his life and didn't control anything. Third, they were all offended that they'd had to meet with somebody who obviously didn't have the same status to control things they did.

Yeah, a lack of cultural understanding on the General's part, but the Iraqis were also looking for insults.

Couple this sense of Islamic humiliation with a total lack of opportunity, and you have a volatile mixture. The ME countries have mostly adopted policies that have caused economic stagnation and decrease job availability to their own people. Things aren't getting better, they're getting worse as GDP drops per capita.

People start looking around for answers. Well, these same people aren't educated in models of the world. The concept of the humanities is a small one. Fewer books are translated into Arabic each year than any other language on the planet.... and most of these are technical manuals and engineering texts, not treatises on economics, global political theory, etc. There is a general lack of knowledge about the rest of the world, or demand for such knowledge.

However, lacking such context, there is a readily available explanation. Internally, the Islamic world has been declining because they have strayed from the path of righteousness. We see this here in the United States with Pat Robertson and others who argue the United States is in decline because it strays from the path of god. But we have a host of secular counterarguments because of humanities educated people. (I would also note that the argument is phrased differently by our fundamentalists because we have a concept, validated by the Bible of separation of Church and State - we can go into that later if you like).

There are few such counterarguments in the ME - the ones that DO have them are typically moderate Muslim reformists, and quite frankly, they aren't that well known or popular amongst the populace (which isn't surprising, since most ME people don't have the requisite background in the humanities to grasp the argument effectively - doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't have the knowledge)

Externally, the Islamic world is in decline because the world conspires against them. This fits several things. First, it capitalizes on the sense of cultural insecurity. Secondly, it fits the message, reinforced in many Mosques, that the Islamic world is Allah's chosen place, to which great things will be given. If they AREN'T getting great things, then some force must be responsible. 'Them' against 'us' satisfies the requirement nicely. Thirdly, and this is a general human trait, it projects the problem, meaning "it's not your fault." That's a hell of a lot easier to swallow than the message that you might be at least partially to blame.

In fact, many ME regimes have ENCOURAGED this message in moderation, because it takes attention off of their inability to "deliver the goods" of governance. The radical Islamists get to spread their message of "returning to Allah," - as long as they don't implicate the host regime as un-Islamic - and blame the non-Islamic world for their own decline. Very useful for taking the internal pressure off the failings of your own regime.

Of course, it's an uneasy truce. When the local radicals start denouncing the regime as apostate, the crackdown begins. UBL was expelled from KSA for declaring the House of Saud apostate....Egypt beat the **** out of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad for challenging the regime, etc.

Anyway, this message "finds what it's looking for." Every action, every policy involving the ME, or a company or trade or anything is an attempt to keep them down. It's a sulf-fulfilling framework that leads to preposterous conclusions about policy, motive, intent and global system structure based on...well, just about anything. For instance, a popular opinion in the ME is that the tidal wave and earthquake in Indonesia was a result of U.S.-Isreali joint nuclear testing in the Pacific, because no earthquake or tidal wave that big could ever have happened naturally. The U.S. and Israel did it as part of a conspiracy to kill Muslims. A popular debate.... But in the world of policy and public mood, perception is reality.

Where was I going with this....oh yeah.

IMO, the biggest "western harm" done to the ME has nothing to do with any specific policy, and certainly not with any actual (recent) intent to exploit the ME. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the globalization process as well as general western pressure to adopt reforms coupled with old world Imperialism in the region. Namely, there is a lack of development in Islamic Jurisprudence. There is a strong cultural bias in the ME against "non-Islamic" models and systems - you can't institute them in an Islamic system. How do you justify a system built on secular humanism (Man's Law) within the context of a society that doesn't recognize the concept as valid? You can't push that type of reform and expect a positive result

Old world colonialism (and the Ottoman Empire, which relegated the religious adviser to a secondary role over time) stunted the growth of Islamic Jurisprudence. It kept it from growing into a system that can handle the demands placed on a modern government. There has been real progress in Islamic Banking law, which has shown remarkable flexibility and resilience in the global market. Great Islamic template for future reform in the region.

Underscoring the old idea that change must come from within....

Dezhen is of course correct that most of the Islamic world is appalled by terrorist acts, and none of my writing should be construed as an indictment of Islam or Muslims. I was attempting to outline what I perceive as driving forces.

[cont]

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 08:43 AM
Sadly because of oil money and the lack of organization in the Muslim community worldwide, the Wahabbi school and its ofshoots the Salafiyya (which tend to come more from the Wahabbi created Ikhwan movement in Saudi and have a more violent and extreme mindset) are gaining presence, especially in the cut-off-from-tradition Western muslim populace. This has caused the rise of such groups as Hizb ut-Tahrir and others even more extreme such as al-Muhajiroun who are gaining in popularity in Europe and even here in Australia. The lack of education most Muslims in the west have is staggering, and its no surprise to me at all that many fall prey to such an approach - simply because of their lack of knowledge of traditional scholarship and works.

This, by the way is SPOT ON. "Traditional" Islamic scholars dismiss the AQ mindset outright. In fact, there is a group of Yemeni preachers going into the terrorist prisons who are talking the terrorists out of their ideas. They've got around 400 converts in three months or something like that.

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 08:49 AM
And why no-one is saying anything about it?

Ummm. They are. There was and is vibrant public debate on the subject.

We have....

A Department of Homeland Security
A National Intelligence Director
A Fusion Center for Terrorism
A new Transnational Issues Director (Terrorism)

All of which are to try and keep this from happening.


I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why the airforce didn't scramble planes immediately, after all it's not like this happens everyday.

There's this really cheap document called the 9/11 commission report. I'm not going to fat finger something in that you can read on your own. It addresses what happened with that in the first 30 pages or so. Since you're obviously literate, I suggest parting with about 11 bucks and purchasing a copy.

But what I really suspect is that you have an agenda, and therefore, no amount of evidence will be enough. Faith denies proof, so I've discovered.

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 08:50 AM
The 911 flap has never been allowed a public and third party investigation.

There are so many suspicious points about it is is indeed very disturbing to think about on so many levels that people are simply afraid to ask. the fear is that they may be presented with the truth of the matter which may be so shocking it would rock the foundations of the 'free' world.

Remember, just because people call other people silly conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat people doen't mean there isn't a conspiracy going on. LOL

There's enough conspiring going on in anyone's government in any country to rattle anyones brains.

But again, in regards to 911, the Bush admin has been dodegy and far less than transparent and forthcoming about the big questions that are posed by millions of people in teh USA, around the world and so on.

are some of these folks crackpots? sure they are. But there are many very intelligent people as well who put forth the questions only to be drowned in obfuscation and outright lies from their own government who are supposed to be duly elected to serve them.

I understand the need for secrecy in matters of national security, but the threat in re: the wtc and the magical pentagon crash are passed.

People like to say large groups of people couldn't possibly keep a secret. People who say that are ... well, I guess they aren't aware of a lot of things in the real world.

By one example alone that statement can be crushed. IE: D-Day Best kept secret by several countries and hundreds of thousands of men. I would say it is quite possible for large organizations to easily withold truth and keep majour secrets from coming out.

There are so many holes in the 911 event that have yet to be answered with any certainty at all. Go to memoryhole.org and get the official commision report on the matter. Holy waste of paper batman.

As was recently heard and will likely be heard again soon, "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore".

Anyone debunk Moores little film yet? I thought not. :rolleyes:

rogue
03-05-2005, 08:54 AM
As a right wing nut job I concur with MPs summary.


The 911 flap has never been allowed a public and third party investigation.
And a brand new double thickness tin foil hat for KL too.

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 09:00 AM
As a right wing nut job I concur with MPs summary

Birds of a feather.

Show me the 3rd party stuff please? :rolleyes:

SimonM
03-05-2005, 09:04 AM
This 'man' is such an ignorant knee-jerk he is one of the reasons I gave up writing on political threads... so at least you can thank him for that!!! :D

And that's coming from a real rabid left-wing extremist! :D

;)

Ditto and I'm not just a socialist, I'm also a Canadian. Egad! I just posted on a **** political thread! Thank the gods for OT!

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 09:11 AM
To paraphrase Richard Clarke, an outspoken administration critic...

Conspiracy theorists ask us to believe two mutually exclusive claims.

1. The 'gubmint' is so cohesive, competent and capable, that they can plan and execute a major operation in complete secrecy, while fabricating a cover story, without making mistakes in the process that spill the whole thing.

2. The 'gubmint' is too stupid to keep it a secret.


Pick one.

dezhen2001
03-05-2005, 09:25 AM
You have to go further than U.S. politics (this also applies to dezhen's post, which was excellent, and IMO largely on the mark and I'll get to it in a minute).

I agree that Western policies in the ME are not always viewed favorably, often with good reason...but not always.

Sorry didnt wanna quote all of your posts above. I'mm not a politican nor particularly savvy when it comes to politics, so please excuse my generalizations before :) But i was referring more to the generic mindset that people have (at least as i have experienced), as opposed to specialist views experts in the area have.

I agree with a heap of what you say, but i disagree when you say:


Namely, there is a lack of development in Islamic Jurisprudence. There is a strong cultural bias in the ME against "non-Islamic" models and systems - you can't institute them in an Islamic system. How do you justify a system built on secular humanism (Man's Law) within the context of a society that doesn't recognize the concept as valid? You can't push that type of reform and expect a positive result.

This is actually a really heavy issue and complex area, something that i dont think you or anyone else here is a specialist in, so i think its prudent to not generalize about such things. I am not either unfortunately (though i am getting there slowly), or else i would be able to answer more succinctly than i currently am :p

Suffice to say there always has been a distinction between what is classified as "Shariah" (divine law, that is applied as-is) and "Fiqh" which is the constructed law developed by scholars over the last 1400 years. This is one thing that anyone who studies Islamic Law will learn at the beginning before progressing further in to the principles of law etc. "Shariah" has been used as a catch-all term to denote Islamic law in totality, whereas it actually has a very specific jurisprudential application in practise. This is the difference between the everyday person and the juristic class.

Islamic Jurisprudence has plenty of tools available for use to develop a productive legal system that fulfils modern needs - its a case of having the caliber of scholars/intellectuals who can do this. There are many good people now coming out of the likes of Malaysia, and even places like Nigeria to name a few who are up on this. You guys also have plenty of intellectuals in the US who are really doing pioneering and important work - if Mr. Pipes doesnt get them arrested or put them on his jihadwatch thing then its all good.

Without getting in to the nasty geeky details of it, throughout history some of the best scholars have stated that Islamic law exists to provide for the public interest, and protect 5 key rights: life, religion, intellect, property, and family, as well as others which include dignity and honor. This is for anyone in the "islamc state", not just Muslims. Even those scholars that the extremists like to often quote to justify their opinion have worked on this immensely, so their thoughts are based on selective quoting.

You are right that there seems to be a "bias" against other modes of government. But this is only natural. Muslims believe Islam was sent to help bring justice for the whole of mankind - so anything less than that will simply not do. But it gets complex as soon as you start talking about "Humanist law", because Muslims generally believe that mankind has some type of moral essence too that you have/experience without even knowing about any religion.

Of course, then you get in to the whole issue of what an "islamic" system of government actually entails and so on, which is hotly debated, but i dont think any Muslim of whatever persuasion would deny that they believe Islam has the means of providing the most just and fair system for mankind. This is a kind of "emotional" attatchment that everyone has - which is why you would still get people supporting for example the Taliban for their attempt at creating an Islamic State - even if they feel disgusted at their actions within it. Or more "close to home" many support whats happening in Iraq now simply because they believe that the US and others unjustly invaded their country, and are not giving the Iraqi people what they want. I mean heck dude - Sunni and Shia all working together, supporting each other under a common cause - im sure its y'alls biggest nightmare and is something almost unprecedented in Islamic history! So i guess we have the US to thank for that eh? :p

It really is a difficult situation, because these types of extremists, as well as the various regimes like to play on the emotions of the everyday people to get what they want. This is why Sadr could make his cause seem to be a jihad against oppression and rally so much support, when in realisty he like others were just scumbags playing the islam card.

This is especially prevalent in regards to Muslims speaking out or standing against the various factions and groups who are doing the bad things. The Msulim community is in such disarray that most seem to believe that speaking out against another Muslim is some type of wrong thing - especially to non-Muslims. Whereas actually this directly contravenes one of the major teachings of Islamic law itself, which is to stand for justice, and speak out for justice - even against your own selves.

This is not forgetting of coure, that ever since the 4th Caliph (Ali) was killed, religion has been seperate from the State. This is what made Joseph Schacht and others classify Islamic law as "Jurists law", because the scholars made the law and expected the state to impliment them in some way - there was no real consultation between the two. The Ummayads were pretty much tribal and areligious, and the Abbassids led one of the harshest religious inquisitions in history, to name but a few examples. Who would have thought that within 30yrs of Muhammads death, religion and state were seperate? ;) Unfortunately popular thought doesnt realise this, and most people still think in utopiac terms.

Again, the prevalence of the what i call "Salafi" mindset (either folks following that school, or just sympathetic to their ideals) is a lot to do with the crappy state of the countries that they come from, the defeatist mindset and the general lack of education in most things - but especially in Islam itself. Also the communities in the West tend not to be in the best of conditions - whos fault? I dont know but its something we all have to help sort. Anyone who is faced with such surroundings cant really do anything but have such a mindset, unless they are extremely lucky. Anyone who comes from a community ghetto with severe unemployment, poverty and other things i am sure will be able to share the mindset to some degree. I mean heck, there are plenty examples i can share about police profiling of the lebanese community here, especially males.

Anyway, enough rambling, dont wanna bore y'all... whats with this word limit anyway? :)

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 09:26 AM
merry-

it is not so much the "gubmint" as it is the powers that be that are not elected.

IE: the warhawks in the Pentagon.

nice attempt to deflect though. :p

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 09:46 AM
dezhen

Well, I didn't want to get in to the Fiqh and Sharia distinctions. I was trying to speak in generalities. Otherwise, it gets quite messy.

But Fiqh undeniably has its roots in Sharia. That's where you go to get it, using individual reason to extrapolate from Islamic principles.

However, the western system is not built on those principles, hence the resistance. When I speak of humanist law, I am talking about law that does not derive from religion.

I can get to democracy, for instance, without Christianity or any other religion. Pushing such a system on the Islamic world, which makes no categorical distinction between "humanist law" and "God's law" is a rough road. Democracy must be justified within the Islamic context.

So I'm not disagreeing that there is a set of law (Fiqh) that is undeniably derived, using human reason. But I think you'll have to agree that Fiqh and jurisprudence that comes out of the individual reasoning process is Islamic in the sense that it is undeniably derived from Islamic principles.

Fiqh must be justified within the context of Islam. Western law has the concept of secular humanistic law, which does not need such justification.

And no, I'm not an expert either, but mildly versed, as you. If I've got that wrong, let me know.

dezhen2001
03-05-2005, 09:58 AM
IMO, the biggest "western harm" done to the ME has nothing to do with any specific policy, and certainly not with any actual (recent) intent to exploit the ME. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the globalization process as well as general western pressure to adopt reforms coupled with old world Imperialism in the region. Namely, there is a lack of development in Islamic Jurisprudence. There is a strong cultural bias in the ME against "non-Islamic" models and systems - you can't institute them in an Islamic system. How do you justify a system built on secular humanism (Man's Law) within the context of a society that doesn't recognize the concept as valid? You can't push that type of reform and expect a positive result

Old world colonialism (and the Ottoman Empire, which relegated the religious adviser to a secondary role over time) stunted the growth of Islamic Jurisprudence. It kept it from growing into a system that can handle the demands placed on a modern government. There has been real progress in Islamic Banking law, which has shown remarkable flexibility and resilience in the global market. Great Islamic template for future reform in the region.
Just to some back to this because re-reading it there is a heap of things i wish i could write about. But its 3.50am and its also far too boring.

The old-world colonialism you speak of is a double-sided coin. You are of course correct that by that time the Ottoman empire itself was in decline and "behind the times", but during that period of history there were many important contributions to Islamic scholarship. Some of which are being studied more deeply now to see how these intellectuals developed solutions in theology and law to the problems they faced. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Shah Wali Allah of Delhi and many others are all towering figures from the last 2 centuries of thought. Even the likes of Mawdudi and other controversial figures all had a role to play and are important to be studied. Also not forgetting Abdul ghaffar Khan (http://www.progressive.org/0901/pal0202.html) who was one of the most important colleagues Ghandi had, and successfully managed to get something like 200 000 Afghan Pashtun tribes-people to non-violently protest the occupation of India by Britain. Try getting any pashtun to do that today and you can see how much work needs to be re-done! :p

Even in the Ottoman empire itself, there was the creation of the Mejelle (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9839541129/ref=nosim/edazzlenet-20/002-1710294-7204830?dev-t=08FC0AFA9SSP0BEHY8G2) which was a synthesis of traditional islamic and european law, combining many of the various schools of Law together with the european aspect too.

Not everything was static and down the crapper. It just depends on where and how you look.

cam
03-05-2005, 10:06 AM
Faith denies Proof. I agree with that statement, if you are talking about the existence/non-existence of god.
If you are talking about the investigation of an actual event then yes I want lots of proof. That's my agenda, what's yours?

dezhen2001
03-05-2005, 10:18 AM
But Fiqh undeniably has its roots in Sharia. That's where you go to get it, using individual reason to extrapolate from Islamic principles.
To some extent you are correct, but not in others. In Islamic law there are 4 main sources of law, and many secondary sources. The 4 main being Quran and Sunnah - these are basically "as is" and it gets complicated but basically there are around only 500 verses in Quran (out of over 6000) that have specific legal provision. With the Sunnah as well, specific rulings that are not contextually specific and hence "eternal" are also very few. Mostly they espouse specific examples of a historical and sociologically specific situation that later generations can study to draw principles and examples from. Of course, this is if you are not a literalist who thinks we should all live like we did in 625AD :)

Then we come to the other 2 - Qiyas (analogy) and Ijma (consensus). These are based on man, and not "divine". Analogy is of course based on the texts of Quran and Sunnah but its also similar to the western legal concept of ratio legis or ratio descendi, insomuch as an exsiting rule is studied to see the foundational causes of its inception, and by analogy these are applied to new cases if the causes are found to match. In the Quran, for example, it tells us that a type of alcohol made from grapes is forbidden. By analogy, so is any type of alcohol and any intoxicant, because the reason is that it causes us to loose our mental faculty and hence become negligent of our duties and obligations (for want of a better description) towards God and also to other people.


However, the western system is not built on those principles, hence the resistance. When I speak of humanist law, I am talking about law that does not derive from religion.
Of course, but Western Law still has a set of presuppositions and foundational doctrines that anything else is built upon. The UN charter is a good example of this - Islam also has its own equivalent but just not so neatly drawn up as that. From what little exposure i have had to the western legal tradition, many things are the same as Islamic law - just different doctrines as the foundation :)

Ultimately no matter if we say we are following God, or a specific charter, it is man who is the arbitrator - who uses intellect and reason to apply and if need be, to create new rulings based on the changes in time and circumstance. Islamic law is no different to this - yes there are a few things that are "eternal" (mainly relating to worship), but many things actually are not. Islamic law actually makes a distinction between 2 areas - that of worship, and that of the social domain.


I can get to democracy, for instance, without Christianity or any other religion. Pushing such a system on the Islamic world, which makes no categorical distinction between "humanist law" and "God's law" is a rough road. Democracy must be justified within the Islamic context.
This is the crux of the argument then isnt it? Is democracy compatible with Islam? there are many works being done on both sides of this right now. For me, the reason i initially became Muslim was because of the egalitarian and moral/ethical nature i found when studying Quran. Of course people can say its not the case, but as far as i have studied it is, and i am happy for it to be so. Can any type of "islamic" system be democratic in nature? Well it depends on what you envisage both "islamic state" and "democracy" to be. Consultation between advisors, every person having a "voice" and many other things already exist even within the classical construct of a "Caliphate", and have done since the time of Muhammad. It was he who said "The Jews (in medina) are one Ummah with the believers (ie. Muslims)" when creating the treaty of medina, and one example is that 8 verses of Quran were revealed to absolve a Jewish member of the community from a false charge raised against him by a Muslim who was actually the guilty party. Again, it depends on where you look and how you interpret things.


I think you'll have to agree that Fiqh and jurisprudence that comes out of the individual reasoning process is Islamic in the sense that it is undeniably derived from Islamic principles.
What are Islamic principles? :D


Fiqh must be justified within the context of Islam. Western law has the concept of secular humanistic law, which does not need such justification.
Surely it has some method of weights and balance to stop people being allowed to run rampage and make "law" whatever they like? In Islam this is why we have the Quran and Sunnah, as well as specialists in the legal sciences who can argue against you using the same initial sources if they think you are wrong, making stuff up or are talking total **** :D

How do you think that Yemeni scholar could argue against those extremists otherwise?

No worries, this is interesting stuff :)
If you want to read more about how the islamic legal process works, Usul al Fiqh (http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SH_Usul/default.htm) by Abdul Hannan is a good place to start, it covers a lot. Its a bit heavy going, so something like this (http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm) may be a bit better. Some of it differs from what i have been taught/studied (primarily when talking about the "hadd" crimes) but its pretty good nonetheless.

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 01:26 PM
dezhen,

I'm not arguing that one set of principles is more valid than the other, and I certainly agree with you that the western legal tradition has principles to work from, reason by analogy, etc. The processes involved in determining rulings are more or less identical.

My point is, that those principles are not by necessity religious in the west. The foundations are in many cases secular. It is this aspect of the system which creates resistance to importation, wholesale because it claims lineage from man's own opinion and reason without reliance on the divine.

By contrast, the "root" of Islamic jurisprudence is "Islamic principles." I do agree with the :D because "What does that mean?" is the crux of the argument, even (and ESPECIALLY) within Islam itself. That is always the crux of the western jurisprudence process as well.

Thanks for Qiyas and Ijma. For some reason I couldn't remember those terms. As you yourself noted Qiyas derives from the religious principles (whatever those may be, depending on the POV of the person). I also disagree that they derive from man. They are processes carried out by man, but the ultimate legitimacy of any decision deriving from their use lies in WHY they are carried out.

Ijma certainly means consensus, but the process of ijtihad IS to try and uncover Allah's will/ruling on a particular issue where there may be no specific guidance, using all available means - the Koran, the sayings of the prophet, Qiyas and Ijma. That is my understanding, at least. The point again being that ijtihad works to uncover the truth of Allah's will and law on a particular topic.

What I'm trying to get at is that I think you and I are actually in (mostly) violent agreement, just that I am not expressing myself very clearly.

I agree that both Islamic Jurisprudence and Western Jurisprudence rely on virtually identical processes. I agree that the western legal tradition relies on a set of principles in the same way that Islamic jurisprudence relies on a set of principles. However, where I believe they are different is that the western tradition incorporates and derives a great deal of its ummm... tradition :D from non-divine principles (in fact, you can get to all of them without the divine).

But, within the process of Islamic jurisprudence it is impossible to escape the divine, as you are trying to determine Allah's will on a matter. Although you are certainly using personal reason and consensus, analogy, and a host of other techniques, the purpose of that pursuit is to reach understanding of Allah's will. Because of that, I disagree with you in that you cannot claim that this is "man-made."

Now, I fall into the category of people that believes there is nothing inherently self-limiting about this. The principle of Ijma, for certain, is a strong indicator that the say of the majority carries weight. It is not a far step to reach a democracy justified in Islamic jurisprudence. But trying to import western democracy wholesale, when it is clearly a very heavily secular phenomenon, is something that is going to encounter a lot of resistance because it is not justified as a result of Allah's will. (I'm not sure it can be, but it is more the fact OF that is pertinent here, and I am not an Islamic legal scholar.)

Now, if you disagree and believe that Ijma and Qiyas are "man made" law, then we are at an impasse and we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. But I was never intending to say "What's written in the Koran and the Sunnah is it, and all else is forbidden!!!!" Nor was it to say "that is the common understanding in the Islamic world," either.

Once again, I apologize for the dearth of history in my postings originally. I was trying to sum up for the sake of space and time. Not all was static and in decline as you have noted. The Ottoman Empire was desperately trying to reform its military, its education system and a host of other things, in the middle and end of the 19th century. The intellectuals were contributing to that effort, within their own scholarly Islamic tradition. Further, they were all doing this successfully. In general, however I was trying to convey the historical fact that things were in NEED of reform.

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 01:33 PM
If you are talking about the investigation of an actual event then yes I want lots of proof. That's my agenda, what's yours?

No, it's clearly not what you want. If you wanted to determine what was going on, you would compile all the available evidence, including 'the gubmint did it' websites and the 9/11 reports etc. and decide what you think happened.

cam
03-05-2005, 02:53 PM
I wasn't aware of your psychic abilities MP, please tell me more.
There is lots of evidence , sadly I'll be long dead before it comes out.

A lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. **** Cheney :)

dezhen2001
03-05-2005, 03:19 PM
MP: no problems, just showing the flip-side on this issue :)


My point is, that those principles are not by necessity religious in the west. The foundations are in many cases secular. It is this aspect of the system which creates resistance to importation, wholesale because it claims lineage from man's own opinion and reason without reliance on the divine.
Oh, i have no doubt that they are probably completely non-religious, and never said they were. Like you and i both mentioned for example - the Ottomans started to reform their education system, and legal system - who do you think said that it could be so while still being "islamic"? Who do you think is saying things now and that they are still "islamic"? The scholars of law. The "religious" aspect is a set of guiding principles relating to such things as justice, modesty and so on. One of the scholars i study from basically said that we should have the attitude of "anything good belongs to me", as in, if there is anything out there that is not against islamic principles, then its method is useful and we should use it to develop ourselves - especially if we are in the west.

yet especially within the middle east it goes back to the stigmatized mindset we both mentioned before. No one will even think of this because they feel marginalised - even the scholars of law who supposedly are spending their whole life studying the sources to make solutions for their community. If you cant get out of this mindset - then like any immigrant community, you stick to what you know and try to preserve what you have, often completely ignoring anything else that falls outside its bounds.


Thanks for Qiyas and Ijma. For some reason I couldn't remember those terms. As you yourself noted Qiyas derives from the religious principles (whatever those may be, depending on the POV of the person). I also disagree that they derive from man. They are processes carried out by man, but the ultimate legitimacy of any decision deriving from their use lies in WHY they are carried out.
Its pretty much just semantics. If man has to use logic and reasoning to develop a response to an issue not covered in either of the 2 Sources, then it cannot be said to be infallable. No jurist would say that, and i find it quite scary that you would inflate these processes towards the divine :D To me, any ruling using these are created by man, even though based on a type of "divine precedent". There have been issues where some scholars have performed Qiyas and when seeking the cause ('ilal) in the Sources, they have found numerous possible options - so which one? Again, this shows that it is a process of man cannot be infallable and all-knowing. Scholars have argued over many things throughout history, which to some may sound chaotic - but to me its good because it means they dont have inflated heads and think they know it all :p


Ijma certainly means consensus, but the process of ijtihad IS to try and uncover Allah's will/ruling on a particular issue where there may be no specific guidance, using all available means - the Koran, the sayings of the prophet, Qiyas and Ijma. That is my understanding, at least. The point again being that ijtihad works to uncover the truth of Allah's will and law on a particular topic.
hmmm... your definition is slightly incorrect, at least according to my studies/teaching. Ijtihad is defined as exerting effort to infer rules relating to new problems when they are not directly available in the Sources. Qiya and Ijma fall in to this category. There is not really any "Allah's will" involved in it, as its classified as temporal and a type of speculation. Again, if you remember the Shariah/Fiqh divide, then this falls within the Fiqh category. I dont know if you have learned the difference between Qat'i/Nass and Zanni but it is important to bear in mind.


What I'm trying to get at is that I think you and I are actually in (mostly) violent agreement, just that I am not expressing myself very clearly.
The main thing i am trying to show, is that both systems are based on a legal process, created and developed by man, and have many similarities. Yes, Islam has a specific religious grounding and "secular humanism" does not - but even then there will be much cross-over between the 2, as Islamis Law has many aspects which are based on human nature.


However, where I believe they are different is that the western tradition incorporates and derives a great deal of its ummm... tradition :D from non-divine principles (in fact, you can get to all of them without the divine).
Thats cool. I mean heck, some scholars have stated that you can study Islamic Law without being Muslim and be able to infer rulings. Some even said that you can find all the basic principles and foundational doctrines without even having any scripture - that they correspond to reason. Of course, not all the details but the generality yes.


But, within the process of Islamic jurisprudence it is impossible to escape the divine, as you are trying to determine Allah's will on a matter. Although you are certainly using personal reason and consensus, analogy, and a host of other techniques, the purpose of that pursuit is to reach understanding of Allah's will. Because of that, I disagree with you in that you cannot claim that this is "man-made."
its your right to disagree with me. There were many discussions on this in history - the Zahiri school for example (now extinct) basically held that whatever is clear and unambiguous (Qat'i/Nass) in the Quran and Sunnah constitutes Shariah. They rejected the use of Qiyas, ijma or any other tool saying that Islamic law only covered what was clear. Modern scholars like the late Muhammad Asad also believed this, stating that only what was clear is Shariah, the rest is temporal and man-made. To some extent i agree with this opinion.


The principle of Ijma, for certain, is a strong indicator that the say of the majority carries weight. It is not a far step to reach a democracy justified in Islamic jurisprudence. But trying to import western democracy wholesale, when it is clearly a very heavily secular phenomenon, is something that is going to encounter a lot of resistance because it is not justified as a result of Allah's will. (I'm not sure it can be, but it is more the fact OF that is pertinent here, and I am not an Islamic legal scholar.)
This is the crux of the issue - why import western style democracy at all instead of letting folks develop their own solutions to their own problems? This is what many of the current Muslim scholars, even those who are "pro-modernity" and all that other jazz are asking.


I was never intending to say "What's written in the Koran and the Sunnah is it, and all else is forbidden!!!!" Nor was it to say "that is the common understanding in the Islamic world," either.
Actually one of the most foundational legal maxims is "Everything is deemed permissable until proven forbidden" - basically the opposite :p

Anyway, interesting discussion :)

FatherDog
03-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Dogboy, When Merry is pressed to speak his mind, he will continually speak someone elses and also wander off when challenged on a position, He has been far less than critical of teh Bush administration and if you bothered to read a lot of his stuff you would see that for the most part he seems instead to fully support teh Bush agenda and also equally seems to have a hard on for teh arab world.

If that's the impression you've gotten from Merry's posts, you seriously need to brush up on your reading comprehension.


Anyway, thanks to both MP and dezh for making this a pretty informative thread.

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 04:00 PM
dogboy-

brush up on your own sh.it man. as soon as you get your tongue out of other peoples butt crack.

Man I am getting tired of some of the jive that goes on here. these threads wouldn't last a second if i was still modding here. :mad:

Merryprankster
03-05-2005, 04:36 PM
dezhen, I guess I just don't see a flip side. It looks to me like we're saying the same things, with the exception of the ijtihad bit...

I completely agree both western and Islamic jurisprudence use similar (identical really) processes.

The distinction about how you interpret ijtihad then is probably important. Some may interpret one way and some another which will have a direct impact on what's legal or not in their opinions.

BTW, I'm not suggesting the process isn't fallible (or pushing it towards the divine). I was suggesting that IF ijtihad is the seeking of Allah's will on a particular issue, then the legitimacy is, in fact, derived from the divine.

However, IF the definition of ijtihad for a particular group is not seeking Allah's will, and is a "man-made" thing, then the legitimacy is NOT from the divine.

What your posts have done, of course (and usefully) is clarify what I said in the beginning - that generalizations do not apply across the board. There is significant disagreement within the Muslim community over lots of stuff, as you have made quite clear, and which is certainly the case - again, my generalizations were made for simplicity's sake.


This is the crux of the issue - why import western style democracy at all instead of letting folks develop their own solutions to their own problems? This is what many of the current Muslim scholars, even those who are "pro-modernity" and all that other jazz are asking.

They don't have to, nor should they if it's unacceptable. I'm not suggesting that that is a solution. I was merely pointing out that the answer the question "why don't they just do 'x' like we have" is somewhat silly once you get into the meat of the issue.

While this has been very interesting, I'm trying to identify if there is an "issue" we are working our way through using the process of debate or if we are just having a discussion, because I agree with you on all counts.

I did learn that there are different interpretations of what ijtihad is, and I believe that will have a direct impact on how you perceive "where law comes from," which will also have a direct impact on what you perceive as acceptable or not within an Islamic context.

Good to know. I thought it was a commonly accepted definition. It appears it is not.




There is lots of evidence , sadly I'll be long dead before it comes out.

Thanks for proving you have an agenda! Have a nice day.


KL, the problem is that I don't actually read your posts because you're on my ignore list. I only respond to the snippets of garbage other people quote. I also have a pretty good idea of what you would say, so sometimes I just respond to what I'm pretty sure you're saying. Based on your responses and the responses of other people on the board, it looks like I guess right alot.

I also "wander off," because I have things to do from time to time. Shocking. Alternately, I no longer find it amusing to be on the board at that time. Sometimes, I'm not on here for several days or weeks. Amazing, isn't it?

cam
03-05-2005, 04:58 PM
What agenda? Hello this is a Kung Fu forum, that's my agenda.
I am not here to talk with right or left wing sycophants but as I live in Canada I do have an interest in the insanity that goes on down there. Good luck!

ZIM
03-05-2005, 05:35 PM
Anyway, thanks to both MP and dezh for making this a pretty informative thread.
Agreed.

For Dezhen-

I'm unclear on one aspect:
These legal scholars of whom you speak- are they considered to be clerics or wholly secular in their standing? What I mean is, must they be clerics in order to be jurists or are they an independent class?

rogue
03-05-2005, 06:37 PM
Ditto about MP and Dawood. I'm just sitting back reading the exchange.

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 07:10 PM
I'm on ignore lists because people can't handle the truth.

Myself? I ignore no one but am quick to ridicule those who put forth some of the crap that gets put forth here.

for instance, most of the guys who write all this crap about Bush almost never, and I mean this, almost never post anything at all about Kungfu.

So, once again, I'm looking at Cam and going, "hey, finally, someone who ain't talking sh.it"

I'm purty tired of bush rhetoric,. american flag waving in re: Iraq and all that other poop that don't belong here. I really don't know why guys keep posting it here. I'm guessing it's cause they are lightweights as far as political arguing goes and simply don't have the cajones to post it in the appropriate forums that you would never see a kungfu post in.

I think it behooves the mods to now sift through these turds, and clean out the ******* threads about politics.

Thanks and good night Mrs Robinson.

dezhen2001
03-05-2005, 07:21 PM
The distinction about how you interpret ijtihad then is probably important. Some may interpret one way and some another which will have a direct impact on what's legal or not in their opinions.
Well see, this is one important thing when talking about Islam. Not only are there Sunni and Shia, but there are different schools of law/jurisprudence within each major sect. Each differs in the weight given to certain interpretive methodologies


BTW, I'm not suggesting the process isn't fallible (or pushing it towards the divine). I was suggesting that IF ijtihad is the seeking of Allah's will on a particular issue, then the legitimacy is, in fact, derived from the divine.
No problem - a misunderstanding on my part :) The legitimacy of any ruling is based on it being derived in some way from the Sources, but not the same as saying it is divine. In history many people were making rulings based on their whim and some mystics were saying things like "i saw this in a dream" or "the Prophet told me in a dream" and so on - so the whole legal methodology was developed, so as to take out the more personal and hence un-provable/un-critiqueable aspect. This is why anyone who wants to become a jurist has to study many subjects, a major one being classical arabic, grammar, etymology and morphology of the language and other things more specific to Islamic law.

As i said a misunderstanding, but anyway i hope it was useful :)


They don't have to, nor should they if it's unacceptable. I'm not suggesting that that is a solution. I was merely pointing out that the answer the question "why don't they just do 'x' like we have" is somewhat silly once you get into the meat of the issue.
Im glad to hear it, and hope everyone can work towards a realistic and amicable solution.


I'm trying to identify if there is an "issue" we are working our way through using the process of debate or if we are just having a discussion, because I agree with you on all counts.
I dont think it was a debate - more i thought that it may be useful to share a more "insiders" perspective relating to this issue. Like i said initially, i disagree with your comment about Islamic jurisprudence lacking, as someone who has studied specifically the principles of law for a few years now i feel exactly the opposite.


I did learn that there are different interpretations of what ijtihad is, and I believe that will have a direct impact on how you perceive "where law comes from," which will also have a direct impact on what you perceive as acceptable or not within an Islamic context.
Again, this is why consulation and a type of consensus is important when talking about rulings and other legislative methods.


Good to know. I thought it was a commonly accepted definition. It appears it is not.
it gets much more complex once you start talking about specifics. Anything which is not a mere application of some type of precedent is a type of Ijtihad. Specifically its relating to providing answers to new problems based on existing materials. So Qiyas according to one of the most important jurists (Imam Shafii) is basically singular/personal Ijtihad, while Ijma is collective Ijtihad. But there are also many other aspects included within this such as "public interest", "custom", "neccessity", "culture", "juristic preference", "presumption of continuity", "blocking the means" and many other tools which form the corpus of islamic jurisprudence. Different schools of law put different weight on all of these, and some exclude various aspects mentioned above completely. Sunni Law (which i study) is very different to Shi'i law because of the difference in theology. Something Iraq also needs to take in to account when doing any type of legislation.

Zim: Its quite a confusing scenario because "technically" there is no priest class in islam. Any adult male can lead a congregation in prayer, perform a marriage ceremony, do a funeral and all these other things. But yes, most of the legal jurists were also practising Muslims too. The confusing aspect is that even though they were practising, they had various different political and theological beliefs. Some in history for example were purely Aristotlean in their philosophy and theology, minimising the revelatory aspect of islam completely. others were the complete opposite and engaged in spirituality a lot. The principles of law can be studied by anyone really - anyone can learn arabic and learn the interprative process etc. But quite simply its only really Muslims who would bother to do such things as its quite a hard subject to study (as is any type of law).

One of my favourite scholars from the middle ages ibn Rushd (Averroes) said that islamic law is based on logical principles so much so that even a non-Muslim could study it and understand how to form and apply rulings. From my experience of "islamic studies" subjects at Universty i can see its so.

But try telling that to the majority of Muslims today :p

rogue
03-05-2005, 07:34 PM
I'm on ignore lists because people can't handle the truth. Don't worry KL you'll never be on my ignore list. After all if it weren't for you I'd believe I was the dumbest person walking the Earth.

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 07:36 PM
I'm not on your ignore list rogue because you're too dumb to use the technology to put me there. :D

tit for tat

nyah

rogue
03-05-2005, 07:37 PM
Well, there is that. :D :D

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 07:50 PM
After you've killed red 5 in your upcoming death match, i'll show you how to ignore me. :p

By the way, I happen to know that his coat hanger scar on his forehead is his weakspot. That and he wears the kilt so he can crap and run backwards at the same time. :D

Mr Punch
03-05-2005, 08:36 PM
LOL at Rogue sitting back and thanking people for cleaning up the thread and making it a reasonable discussion. "Thread starter: Rogue; Thread title: Could Bush Have Been Right?" .

You old troll you! :p

LOL at Kung Lek talking **** again, getting owned, making an arse out the whole of the left wing, strengthening the few weak points in Merry's arguments, AND THEN calling for the thread to be deleted cos he's no longer moderate/unbiased enough to be a mod thus get rid of his lack of intelligent debate himself! :p :p

David Jamieson
03-05-2005, 08:57 PM
Uh, I don't see where I "got owned" in this thread Mat.

In fact, this thread, like all other political threads drifted all of the place as usual, the q was asked, teh answer given, the typicals pipe in with their rhetoric which eventually splinters off into tin foil hat accusations, back patters who don't have enough brains to make sure their bums are thoroughly wiped and some conversation regarding Islamic law and how it fits/conflicts with the western idea od democracy.

Not to mention the name calling and finally a few last shots and muteness from the rest.

Seems like another day on post 911 kfm to me.

And, just for consistency, When I was a mod here, before I chose to no longer be one, any thread that was in any way shape or form touching on this type of material was baleted with extreme prejudice.

There really isn't much moderation here otherwise as can be seen by not only this thread, but a great many others. I think personally it's just that the mods don't care anymore about the content of the forum which should in my opinion be as close to exclusively about Kungfu as possible. I mean, why on earth would I think that on the Kungfu Magazine forum?

:rolleyes:

dezhen2001
03-05-2005, 09:01 PM
I guess if this was just called "General" or something like that without the kung fu in the title it would be a bit better right?

Most of the other forums i visit tend to have a general/random section for anythign not related to the main focus of the site itself.

FatherDog
03-05-2005, 11:28 PM
Uh, I don't see where I "got owned" in this thread Mat.

Yeah, you never seem to.



And, just for consistency, When I was a mod here, before I chose to no longer be one, any thread that was in any way shape or form touching on this type of material was baleted with extreme prejudice.


Except for the ones that weren't.

David Jamieson
03-06-2005, 07:14 AM
no dogboy, my rule of thumb was to delete all political posts as soon as I saw em.

But, why should I even argue with you, you're just a vindictive little troll. :p

go raise someone else ire mr. poopyhead. :D

Mr Punch
03-06-2005, 07:31 AM
no dogboy, my rule of thumb was to delete all political posts as soon as I saw em.No. You didn't.

I don't agree with everything that Merry says, but I don't have time to get into an argument with two-finger-typing... as they are long and complicated discussions. However, he presents clear cases and you answer with hysterical nonsense, personal attacks and accusations. This means you are owned EVERY TIME!

You just keep making an ass of yourself, go on, keep making leftwingnuts look stupid, and keep tarring all rightwingnuts with the same brush and validating their position at the same time.

That's me over and out of this one.

rogue
03-06-2005, 08:46 AM
No troll this time Matt, that's why the title, "Could Bush Have Been Right?"
As long as political threads don't overrun the forum I think one or two are OK. This one has been pretty good thanks to most of the posters.

David Jamieson
03-06-2005, 09:24 AM
Jesus Matt, I could envision the redness in your face, the anger of your tone and the spittle flecking out of your lips as you typed that in a haze of delirious hatred.

Man, some people get carried away. I'm sorry, but once again, I pretty much disagree with a lot of Merry's (and others) position for very simple reasons that essentially amount to the counter side of his view.

Not everything, but quite a lot of it. And here I am, continuing to do so. So, it's not a question of "being owned" which by the way is juvenile in scope and is just a blunt and temporary call of the pubescent male, or akin to the mindedness of it.

I believe that Bush is dead wrong in his foreign policy. I believe that the USA and Britain should not be in the middle east region at all with military strongholds to press down those who actually live there and have done so for myriad generations.

It is not hard to understand that opposition really is it? I mean, all you gotta do is think of it in terms of your own country and how you would view an outsider coming in and bombing you, then telling you what to do.

I believe that war is a final act of stupidity when it is pre-emptive as the Iraq attack was. A great majority of people are against the warring nature that rears it's head through american politics. Even it's own soldiers who step forward now and again and sometimes in great numbers to question the political masters who have sent them to their deaths on murky reasoning.

What I can say with confidence is that there is no transparent stream of information to the public that will allow us to draw a sound conclusion and in the absence of information what are we to do but speculate on either side.

Some people take the dull glazed over position a la Britney Spears of "we should all trust our president" some take the middle path and wait for info (these people wait a long long time) and some take the opposing path because of the loss of life factor, the displacement factor, the interference factor etc etc.

I don't believe in isolationism, I believe that everyone can do buisness with each other, but I believe a lot of american foreign policy is played out at the tip of a j-dam warhead all too often and I believe that the Bush administration runs on a 'might makes right' structure and they are incredibly hypocritical with their positions on everything from religious law (in god we trust, god bless america, one nation under god etc etc etc) to weapons of mass destruction which they are known to continue to produce today and to have one of the singular largest stockpiles on the planet.

so, what is gettiong owned again?
Please enlighten me.
Oh but wait, you've left in frustration because your conviction is weak. Something that mine is not.

Thanks for playing though.

jun_erh
03-06-2005, 10:16 AM
kung lek- Canada is a thin strip of population on the US border. It is a testament to our strength that you can mess around with socialism and bellyache about our "arrogence". If you didn't have us to protect you you would have been nazi or communified in ww2. SO basically, everything you say is a tribute to us.

David Jamieson
03-06-2005, 10:42 AM
what ever jun_erh

Canada is canada by it's own strengths and philosophies. the UNited States has never had a hand in teh shaping of our nation. What we have in my opinion is head and shoulders better than what is going on in the USA.

Not saying the USA is bad, just that it has way more social problems than Canada does and nowadays, way less freedoms than a Canadian has.

We love our country up here. We think it is probably the best place in teh world to be and you won't catch a Canadian wearing an american flag so s/he can travel without being beleagured in foreign countries.

jun_erh
03-06-2005, 11:06 AM
thank you for growing pot for us. Now don't go and get uppitty. hahah Canada

ZIM
03-06-2005, 11:13 AM
Since its inception, MoveOn.org has championed the cause of People Power, harnessing the mighty force of millions of ordinary Americans.... Through our organization and fundraising efforts, we have inspired countless millions of everday Americans to work together to change the world. And now this prairie fire of activist People Power, first kindled by MoveOn, is spreading across the globe.

Case in point: witness the street protests that took place in Lebanon this week. No doubt inspired by the election year example of MoveOn and other vital progressive organizations in America and Europe, thousands of young Lebanese people marched through the streets of their cities. The parallels to our 2004 anti-war actions were almost eerie: here was a spontaneous march of courageous young people saying NO to violence, and demanding things. Also, many of them were carrying signs. If you squint your eyes just right, and mentally PhotoShop in a jpeg of Madison Square Garden and a few "No Blood For Oil" banners, you can almost see the MoveOn protest at the GOP National Convention.

See? It wasn't GWB at all, nosiree....

rogue
03-06-2005, 11:16 AM
the UNited States has never had a hand in teh shaping of our nation. If it wasn't for us you'd be speaking Spanish. :D

SimonM
03-06-2005, 11:18 AM
thank you for growing pot for us.

**** straight, if it wern't for us you guys would still be smoking that Mexican Brick stuff. ;)

cam
03-06-2005, 11:26 AM
Smoke another one rogue.

TaiChiBob
03-06-2005, 11:33 AM
Greetings..

Interesting thread, initially.. had potential, initially.. Then, it became the usual name-calling, troll-thrashing, BS.. then, it became a primer on Islamic law and culture.. many excellent points were made, rebutted, ridiculed, revised, regurgatated and overlooked..

Could Bush have been right?.. he "could" have been, but wasn't..

Consider Bush's recent policy toward Syria in Lebanon.. "Git out, now".. His arrogant opportunistic bullying will continue to fuel resentment toward a US that once stood practically for the opposite demeanor of Mr. Bush's policies.. (there's reason for the previous choice of words)..

The US's unilateral use of premptive force and expected use of force to enforce its opinion of world policy will likely contribute to the perspective of the US as the domineering World Power. The message, as i have heard it foreign intellectuals with informed cultural perspectives.. is that much of the world hears, "the US is your friend, we are here to help you become all you can be.. we want you to succeed and prosper as an independent nation.. as long as you do it the American way"... and, before someone challenges the notion of "unilateral", i would like to remind people of the coersion and deal-making it took to get the rag-tag "coalition" we are currently watching retreat as our occupation of Iraq comes apart.. sure, it was great to have "election theater" to showcase GWB's success.. now, if we could just keep the "elected" people alive that would be helpful..

To get back on topic, even-though i greatly appreciate the enlightening ME education, GWB's appropriateness is not dependent on an in-depth knowledge of ME history.. it is much more dependent on a knowledge of human nature.. and, it is human nature to topple the "King-of-the-Mountain".. Alliances, coalitions, and other such distributions of power and responsibility add legitimacy to the perceptions of authority.. but, even a benevolent dictator or occupier will suffer from Supremacy Syndrome..

Be Well..

PS: Quite some ways back in the thread, "Intent" was discussed briefly.. with the "intent to kill innocents" left as a deal breaker.. not so, it is the intent to insure the survivability of one's beliefs that motivates the now applicable question of intent regarding "how" one insures that survivabliity... the intensity and fervor with which one intends survivability of beliefs supercedes the method of survivability.. and, i suggest that if the US was on the losing end, its methods might look much more similar to the ones it currently demonizes...

David Jamieson
03-06-2005, 11:33 AM
uh, rogue, there is a growing majority in your country that does speak spanish now and there has always been the spanish faction in the US.

Canada on the other hand is way to cold for prety much any spaniard. In fact, all my buds who are of spanish decent be they peurto rican, mexican, argentinian, or othewise...well, them folks just prefer the warmer countries. It's in their blood I guess, but they don't care much for it up here in the north.

Consider this, byy the same token, if it weren't for us you'd be speaking french. Which is Ironic that many right wing americans hate the french but fail to notice that there wouldn't be an USA without France. I mean, have you ever wondered why thereare so many places called LaFayette? :D Giveya three guesses and the first 2 don't count, if you get it wrong, you must be returned to remedial history lessons. LOL

Merryprankster
03-06-2005, 12:31 PM
Like i said initially, i disagree with your comment about Islamic jurisprudence lacking, as someone who has studied specifically the principles of law for a few years now i feel exactly the opposite.

dezhen, in that case, this is our disagreement. In general, I believe that Islamic jurisprudence is stunted. It has not been afforded the opportunity to handle the stresses of modern day states within an Islamic context to determine what is and isn't legal and acceptable.

This is not to say that many progressive thinkers and Islamic jurisprudence experts haven't come to "reform" type conclusions, along the moderate reform lines you mentioned.

However, their voice in the ME is often not heard in the din. More of the learned will have to adopt similar reformist stances and interpretations before the internal debate becomes truly vibrant.

dezhen2001
03-06-2005, 01:31 PM
Like i initially said before, thats fine and you are entitled to your opinion. For those of us who are working from within the traditional islamic legal pardigram though, it is not the case. :)

The islamic banking things coming out of the likes of Malaysia - as well as the work done on futures/shares and other stuff is classed as "innovative" but they are directly from the islamic legal tradition applied in our modern time.

Of course, in some way we also feel it is "stunted". Simply because of the situation in the middle east with repressive governments, the effect colonization (and the new governments) have had on the method of learning traditional jurisprudence (such as the fact that the institutions now are dependant on government sponsorship as oppose to historically being un-partisan and based on donations/earnings, so more free from bias) and many other things. They have all had an effect on the ability to produce jurists who can converse within the islamic tradition and apply it to solve new problems.

"Modernists" may be seen as "reformers" but this is an aspect of Islamic history. Why did Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab do what he did? He felt that things had gone wrong and needed to be sorted - specifically that people were going astray from the purity of the real faith and dilluting it with idolatrous practises. Why did his ancestor (juristically) ibn Taymiyya come on to the scene? Same reason - though this time more to do with the never-ending debates between the philosophers and traditionalists that took away from the clarity of Muhamamds moral message. Its a fact of Islamic history and actually quite important - that in every new generation there will be a "mujadid" - a reviver or reformer for their own time. Its happened always, and is how any system of law or philosophy, or theology progresses over time.

Also just because someone has nicer interpretations doesnt mean they are "reforming" anything - which tends to subtlely mean that they are "modernizing" a barabaric and out-dated religion. It has always been the case that there are varying opinions across schools of law - this again is based on the interprative process and the situation at the time.

For example - according to a position in my legal school (the Hanafi school), its allowed for me to use interest in a non-Muslim country. This is because it may be a fact of life for the economy or even a neccessity to survive, but i am only allowed to use it in a good way, and not do anything underhand or illicit with it. This is based on the priciple of "public interest" (maslaha), "neccessity" (darura), "custom" ('urf) and many other things.(sorry for including the arabic terms - i am doing so incase you have interest in understanding them further :)) Other legal schools, and some other opinions within my own school hold the exact opposite. So it is clear that depending on the situation, there are many different possible solutions - the skill is to find out and know what we can do. By the way, that opinion is attributed to Abu Hanifa himself, some time in the 800's so is hardly reforming anything.

anyway just sharing some thoughts :)

Merryprankster
03-06-2005, 03:06 PM
Of course, in some way we also feel it is "stunted". Simply because of the situation in the middle east with repressive governments, the effect colonization (and the new governments) have had on the method of learning traditional jurisprudence (such as the fact that the institutions now are dependant on government sponsorship as oppose to historically being un-partisan and based on donations/earnings, so more free from bias) and many other things. They have all had an effect on the ability to produce jurists who can converse within the islamic tradition and apply it to solve new problems.

Dezhen, this is my point. Not that the TRADITION of Islamic jurisprudence is stunted, but that there are factors that have stunted "the ability to produce jurists who can converse within the Islamic tradition and apply it to solve new problems."

So when I say it's "stunted" I don't mean that the process is stunted or incapable, or that new analytical methods need development for Islamic Jurisprudence to handle the challenges of the world. I say it is stunted in the sense that you note - the effects of colonial and current governments.

If you prefer another word, then we are arguing over word-choice, not meaning.


Also just because someone has nicer interpretations doesnt mean they are "reforming" anything - which tends to subtlely mean that they are "modernizing" a barabaric and out-dated religion.

Only true if the person is looking for a slight, and I never suggested that anything about Islam needed reform, but rather the governments of the ME. And AFAIK, the majority of the "moderate" and "modernist" reformers are pointing to bodies of Islamic law extending back hundreds of years, as justification for their POLITICAL reforms, in addition to supporting the application of the Islamic jurisprudence process to new problems. I was in no way suggesting that the reform necessary is religious in nature, but again, political.

FWIW, the banking law reforms I was discussing happened in KSA, not Malaysia.

Once again, I don't see any points of disagreement unless there is something "new" which hasn't yet happened in our conversation - I see only that I was perhaps not making myself clear....I feel very strongly that we are going round in circles.

rogue
03-06-2005, 03:12 PM
Consider Bush's recent policy toward Syria in Lebanon.. "Git out, now".. His arrogant opportunistic bullying will continue to fuel resentment toward a US that once stood practically for the opposite demeanor of Mr. Bush's policies.. (there's reason for the previous choice of words).. And a goodly portion of the Lebanese people agree with his Git out, now policy. So if a state like Syria thinks we're not being nice so be it as long as the Lebanese agree.

dezhen2001
03-06-2005, 03:48 PM
Merryprankster: I apologize for my lack of brain cells for that post, it was a long day. I think it was just a misunderstanding :)

This Time (http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901021216-397477,00.html) article is also quite interesting.

Merryprankster
03-06-2005, 05:57 PM
dezhen,

I want you to know that I have found your posts revealing and insightful. I hope that you detect no hostility in my writings towards Muslims, Islam or the Middle East in general. At worst, perhaps a Western bias - of which I can never be wholly rid, no matter how hard I try to approch things "tabula rasa." I do hold hostility towards killers and authoritarian governments, no matter their creed or justification....as you have noted, the driving factors tend to be human and similar from place to place and group to group. The justifications and goals change with the culture.

I believe that we are all united by a fervent desire to make the world a better place. In both of OUR cases, I think we see the problems and solutions in the ME in similar ways. What you bring to the table is something I can never have - a foot in both worlds, offerring a unique perspective on the perceptions each group has of the other. I believe that in the long run this will make you an excellent analyst of the relationship this creates.

For what its worth, I believe that we are at the beginning of the end of the Salafist mindset (familiar with that term and those groups as well, part of the terrorism study after all!!!!). That message carries no "after." It has no vision of the future. After the establishment of "the caliphate," or the "Islamic state," what then? What does that mean, "the caliphate?" How does this work? What comes "after?" How do you get from A to B?

I call it "Underpants Gnomes Planning;" a South Park reference. In their version it was:

Collect Underpants, ?????, Profit!!!

The Salafist version is:

Establish Caliphate, ?????, Perfect world!!!!

Some levity for a weighty subject....

Thank you for your comments and time.

rogue
03-06-2005, 06:38 PM
Just for sh1ts and giggles what if there are a couple of democratic states or benevolent kingdoms in the ME? And what if they formed a kind of European Union. Would you have Caliphate Lite?

Mr Punch
03-06-2005, 07:11 PM
Jesus Matt, I could envision the redness in your face, the anger of your tone and the spittle flecking out of your lips as you typed that in a haze of delirious hatred.LOL :D ! Really? Is that how you see me? As usual, a lot of imagination and no evidence!


Man, some people get carried away.Yep they do, so calm down, and have another herb tea.


I'm sorry, but once again, I pretty much disagree with a lot of Merry's (and others) position for very simple reasons that essentially amount to the counter side of his view.

Not everything, but quite a lot of it. And here I am, continuing to do so. So, it's not a question of "being owned" which by the way is juvenile in scope and is just a blunt and temporary call of the pubescent male, or akin to the mindedness of it.Yeah, I quite agree getting owned is a puerile concept. But sometimes it's useful as a device to get people to respond. Since your response to the logic in Merry's posts has usually been to accuse him of being all kinds of things and to insult everyone else on the board, I guessed that addressing you in a serious manner would not work.

I disagree with some of what Merry says... but here's where I depart from what I can only refer to as your knee-jerk reaction. You are now stating that view presents 'the counter side of his view'. Well, that is suggesting that there is a counter side, therefore that his view is one entity. This is because you have put Merry into a box of your preconceptions, assumptions and possibly misconceptions. Well, here's some more news for you: Merry's views are not a coherent whole. While each of his views may be coherent and although the subjects being discussed here are connected, they are - as with any discussion of sociological, political or historical phenomena - disparate. This is because there is precious little coherence in human behaviour and action.

In language you understand, just because Merry says he doesn't think oil was a reason for going into Iraq, it doesn't mean he supports Bush (just because Bush's admin obviously doesn't want anyone to believe oil was a factor). And just because I am now presenting an argument using one of Merry's arguments, does not mean that I support Merry and therefore Bush!

The fact that he has researched his answers and come to various conclusions, and the fact that you respond to his arguments by saying he is taking a spoonfed opinion (despite not even giving us any idea as to where he may have got those particular and quite distinct spoonfeedings) and saying that anyone who mentions Merry in a sentence without denouncing his opinion is a 'Cheney-bot' or 'dittohead' (and since we're on the subject of juvenile perspectives... see what I mean!? :p ) tends to make a mockery of your 'argument', hence the you being owned thing.


I believe that Bush is dead wrong in his foreign policy.WE KNOW!!!:D But all the ranting about it isn't going to convince anyone that you're right. In fact, maybe the opposite.


I believe that the USA and Britain should not be in the middle east region at all with military strongholds to press down those who actually live there and have done so for myriad generations.More rhetorical bull****. I believe they shouldn't have gone in, but that is irrelevant. Now I believe the US and UK admins and military should come up with as quick and clean exit strategy as possible, to hand over to the Iraqi admin ASA(relatively safely or at least with the optimum degree of autonomy)P. I would hope that most people would support this.

Your sentence 'to press down...' is based on what? I'm sure that's the avowed intent of some of the military top brass, especially those extremist Christians, and I'm sure they have far more power than I would like to see them having. But do you seriously think that was the reason, or even one reason they went in...? Can you see that on a mission brief? LOL :D And WTF has 'myriad generations' got to do with the price of eggs? Are you trying to bring the history of conflict in the region into the argument? If so, please read Dez and Merry's very lucid discussion, in lieu of actually having to read up on any history yourself.

OK, so I'm being picky about the wording in one of your posts, but generally mate, they're all like this!


It is not hard to understand that opposition really is it?No. And if you'd been 'listening' you would know that...


I mean, all you gotta do is...have one of the singular largest stockpiles on the planet.I and as you said many others agree with you about a lot of this.


Oh but wait, you've left in frustration because your conviction is weak. Something that mine is not.NO, I left because, as I believe I stated, I type with two fingers, I'm a very busy man (including commuting I work over ten hours for five days of the week, 6 hours for another, and I try to train everyday), so it's not often I take the time to type about kungfu or politics, because they're both time consuming, which is why the majority of my posts are crap jokes and banter.

I also left because in order to get to the meat of the discussion, I have to sidetrack the whole ****ing thread to take my supposed political allies to task about their BS posts.

So there you go again, accusing somebody of something with no evidence. My conviction is such that it has not changed since I last posted on political threads.

BTW, I'm not in the slightest bit angry. Any anger you detect is in your head! :D There's another smiley for you! I've gotten angry at two things on KFM: BL and then Wolfen accusing me of having said something which I didn't.

Mr Punch
03-06-2005, 07:16 PM
Apologies Rogue, I was only joking.

I didn't think you were trolling (any more than usual! :p )

Mr Punch
03-06-2005, 07:19 PM
See Kungy, though I think your crap debating technique is relevant to this subject, I don't have time to address the original question.

Apologies to everyone else for a slight derailment.

FWIW (probably not a great deal! :( :) ) IF I have time, I'll come back later and join in.

rogue
03-06-2005, 07:55 PM
Apologies Rogue, I was only joking.

I didn't think you were trolling (any more than usual! :p )
No problems Mat. I don't think I've trolled once this thread. Most of what I've said or asked has been serious. No matter how stupidly I may have put it. :cool:

Merryprankster
03-06-2005, 08:23 PM
In language you understand, just because Merry says he doesn't think oil was a reason for going into Iraq, it doesn't mean he supports Bush (just because Bush's admin obviously doesn't want anyone to believe oil was a factor). And just because I am now presenting an argument using one of Merry's arguments, does not mean that I support Merry and therefore Bush!

I'm afraid you'll get nowhere with this Mat. I've tried repeatedly to explain the concept of reductionism, using "Grok like fire" language to KL, but it's sort of like ****ing up a tree.

Like thinking the idea that a nation has the right to exercise its power in the manner it sees fit, without getting trumped by the UN, is quite separate from whether or not the war in Iraq was justified and legal. You can believe the first, for instance, and still find fault with the war.

But KL prefers the apoplectic fit method of argumentation. I believe you'll find it right next to the building blocks, near the napping mats, by the kid who eats paste.




Merry's views are not a coherent whole.

My views are a coherent whole, thank you very much! :P That whole, strangely, is not the neo-con whole, which I think you are trying to get at (and I appreciate).

Merryprankster
03-06-2005, 08:27 PM
Just for sh1ts and giggles what if there are a couple of democratic states or benevolent kingdoms in the ME? And what if they formed a kind of European Union. Would you have Caliphate Lite?

The historical Caliphate or the Salafist/AQ version?

rogue
03-06-2005, 08:55 PM
Historical. I'm an optimist.

cam
03-06-2005, 09:48 PM
Troll time :)
Someone suggested that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of oil though they didn't know why. How about China?
As China continues to grow their dependency on foreign oil grows as well. Who will control the flow of oil? Whose interests are best served if a majority of the world's oil reserves are controlled by a few multinationals?

Christopher M
03-06-2005, 10:10 PM
Like thinking the idea that a nation has the right to exercise its power in the manner it sees fit, without getting trumped by the UN, is quite separate from whether or not the war in Iraq was justified and legal.

To an unprincipled person, the only meaning a principle has is its ability to communicate support or opposition for a belief someone already holds.

dezhen2001
03-07-2005, 12:30 AM
Just for sh1ts and giggles what if there are a couple of democratic states or benevolent kingdoms in the ME? And what if they formed a kind of European Union. Would you have Caliphate Lite?
Now it gets interesting, and sadly a bit boring :( Off the top of my head (after a brain-killing day at work) there are a few things i can think of. Its pretty heavy, and forgive my incoherence if i dont make sense, and the rambling...

Lets make clear that there are a few very different things that you would need to talk about here:

1) The actual Islamic Legal principles of government
2) The historical application of those principles.
3) How the legal tradition defines the scope of these principles
4) Ability/Need to change

Now, without writing pages and pages, first of all its clear that the understanding and hence application of principles is dependant on the historical social reality at the time. So what scholars today may understand as "islamic government" is not neccessarily the same thing as the Ummayad dynasty scholars (around 700AD) saw as "islamic".

There are a few really important issues that have happened in the last few centuries which are basically unprecedented before this time. This is where the "ijtihad" comes in, and is needed.

1) The establishment of nation states based on citizenship - not based on tribe, creed, ethnicity or race.

This is completely unprecedented (almost - which i will come to later) as it *technically* guarantees anyone who is a citizen of that country equal status before the law.

2) The universal declaration of human rights

Again something unprecedented, which again *technically* guarantees the protection and establishment of certain key rights that all human beings should have.

To start with, these are quite biggies, and for a "Muslim" perspective (meaning my own :)) there is lots to think about.

Firstly: There is a historical precedent within the Islamic tradition that shows different religious and tribal groups can live together in one coherent community. This is the treaty of Medina. Now, forgetting all the historical horror stories folks like to talk about when mentioning Jiyza and all these other things a moment, the Medinan community for a number of years did actually include Muslims, a few Jewish tribes, as well as a few Pagain tribes (who didnt convert to Islam until after Muhammad died, i think). Everyone basically followed their own code of Laws, unless a specific situation was brought to the Head of State - which was of course Muhammad. Even in those cases (which are documented) he used the Jewish law to punish adultery and other things.

Now its complex because this is where the historical expression vs. universal principle aspect comes in to play. We have to remember that at that time, not only were various religions present - but tribes of people were known by their religion. Not only that, but Arabia at that time was basically in a constant state of warfare based on clan battles, honor and all this other stuff.

We have the example of past scholars who have worked on this area and set out basic examples of how a government should run, from the medieval period up until recently. One main key points is "Shura" which is a type of consultation. In Muhammads time it was based on a type of tribal leaders council, and was modified to suit the needs of the community, usually including (but not always) the most experienced and wisest Muslims around Medina. How we can apply this today is something that there are many differing views on. Many people envisage some type of electoral representative council, which even includes the representation of religious minorities. Historically there are instances, even in Muhammads time when the needs of a minority community were given full attention, and some were appointed in to the equivalent of a "government" office, especially in later history.

Also who qualifies for leadership? This is where the history between the Sunni and Shia comes in, as well as other minority sects. The early "orthodoxy" upheld that basically only amember of Muhammads clan could be leader (ie: Quarysh, which Muhammads Hashemite clan was only a sub-group), whereas the Shia held it should be hereditary. On the other hand we have another group called the Khairji (some say the fore-runner to the Salafi's, but not entirely true), who said anyone (male) who was of the correct skill level and ability could lead the Islamic State. Historically both these other opinions were crushed, but they are interesting to note. Historically also, it is clear why they were crushed, as the society was still based on clan structure and the Ummayads was basically a type of Arab Imperialism, so accomodating different "clans" who were different religions is not exactly the way to go about consolidating your power base.

The consequences for modern times gets quite interesting, because not only are most of the Muslims on the planet not Arab, the actual descendants of Quarysh is pretty much negligible. On top of that, we are also dealing with distinct soverign states, so it gets complicated.

Now, im not a scholar (though can sure talk smack like one), but this raises another few key issues - which are all being debated right now between groups who are theoretically trying to figure out how islamic governance can work today.

A couple are:

1) Pan "islamic" Nationalism (excuse the pun) - does any Islamic "state" accept and comply with the current UN borders and so on?

2) Does any Islamic State comply with and accept the UN charter for human rights, and other related things?

As you can imagine, the decisions and outcomes have extreme consequences and could be quite scary for those of us who dont exist in this theoretical Islamic State (including all of us western muslims, and those of "muslim" countries too).

Thats before getting in to the well known catchphrases of dar al-harb (abode of war) and dar al-islam (abode of islam/peace) and how they relate to this situation. Most people think they know all about them and stuf, but its actually a really complex area of jurisprudence that there are many different opinions on, and its not as "clear cut" as many non-Muslims, and others including the "Salafi" groups make it to be. Especially considering that there is no dar al-islam technically in existence today, with any legislative authority.

Anyway, this is getting boring. A few other areas that really need to be developed and discussed before even thinking of anything else is to do with such things as:

1) Contractural obligations - are treaties with outher "muslim" and non-muslim countries going to be honored? What about trade and other things?

2) How to create an Islamic State in the first place - is it Islamically legitimate to overthrow a despotic ruler to create an islamic state? (this is not as clear cut as it sounds)

3) How the governmental system will work - courts, judges and so on.

many, many things - and this is just from the "islamic" side - let alone the international community which would of course have to be worked with at some stage.

Unfortunately for us Muslims - an "islamic state" is much more than simply "establishing the Hudud; commanding the good anf forbidding the evil" as so many slogans say. It is also a juristic and legal issue - not to be confused with a purely emotion-driven issue, which is based on a utopia and not reality.

Perhaps the most important question that needs to be asked first though is simply this: "What is the state of obligation in establishing an Islamic State in these times? Particularly for western Muslims who were born and raised in the west?".

its also not as easy to answer as it seems. It again comes down to the compatability of democracy - or democratic principles - with islam, and how thyey both relate to the contextual situation in the modern world. :)

MP: Also keep your eye out on Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun if you want to read some scary things.

(Sorry for boring y'all :( - but you did want to play devil's advocate)

Mr Punch
03-07-2005, 01:23 AM
My views are a coherent whole, thank you very much! :P That whole, strangely, is not the neo-con whole, which I think you are trying to get at (and I appreciate).

No that's not what I was getting at. Anyone with two brain cells they can rub together without causing a fire could tell your're not a neocon. :D

I was using coherent not in the sense of logically developed argument but in the sense of a ****genous, indivisible mass. Therefore someone cannot provide "a counterpoint" to your "view" because maybe your view is not one set of ideals you've subscribed to (and this is the case with most people) so unless he refutes/disagrees with every single one of your opinions on everything, he is not providing a counterpoint. Of course it is feasible that he disagrees with every point, and also that he is unread about some of your points, therefore the kneejerk thing comes into play.


You can believe the first, for instance, and still find fault with the war.Precisely. Thus subscribing to one view about one thing and one view about another.

As opposed to rattling on about how we shouldn't have been in Iraq (a point to which I partially subscribe) when the question is about whether there was a domino effect in the ME and whether it's the one Bush was predicting.

Mr Punch
03-07-2005, 01:25 AM
(Sorry for boring y'all :( - but you did want to play devil's advocate)You don't have to apologize for writing long posts mate! Thank you for educating those of us without first-hand access or experience of Moslem history or philosophy... must be a thankless task!

I'll go back and read them all at some point! :o

rogue
03-07-2005, 06:34 AM
(Sorry for boring y'all - but you did want to play devil's advocate)
Not boring at all Dawood. I figured that there would be some issues and that's why I used the horrble term "Caliphate Lite". It's almost a caliphate but without some parts.

dezhen2001
03-07-2005, 11:54 AM
It all depends on what you define the term "caliphate" as - if its the same as the historical construct, then i really dont think that it is possible any time in the near future. Why should people be forced to regress to such a state when even flawed application of democracy gives better rights? Just because of some mistaken notion of spirituality or religious obligation?

Know what i mean?

An interesting thing is that one fo the scholars that i follow from Malaysia actually wrote a short book against the establishment of an "islamic state" in Kelentan, Malaysia which was initially what this state wanted to try and do. He basically creamed them, showing how their "Hudud bill" and other bills they had suggested were not well thought out and did not apply islamic law correctly for this time.

Who would have thought it - a qualified Muslim scholar fighting against the imposition of "Shariah" ;)

Merryprankster
03-07-2005, 01:50 PM
rogue,

I agree with dezhen, on the caliphate thing. I was asking what YOU wanted because I was sort of being difficult. :D

I also agree with dezhen on everything else he posted. How the Salafists define things is not the end all, be all.

Dezhen, you make a nice point of rounding out (providing the meat) of the argument I engaged in on the "underpants gnomes" part. You've outlined the implimentation difficulties.

dezhen2001
03-07-2005, 02:39 PM
you make a nice point of rounding out (providing the meat) of the argument I engaged in on the "underpants gnomes" part.
Guess it gives me an excuse to watch South Park - for "educational" purposes :D

One of the most important things to keep in mind in any endeavour - Islamic or not is the simple fact that a jurist can only give an adequate answer, if he/she has the adequate resources and understanding of the problem. This is the main problem right now, even if the tools are there, and its why communication and understanding (as well as mutual respect) are important, in my humble opinion.

My main concern is to try to get specialists (scholars, whatever you want to call them) out of the reactionary mindset that makes things appear black and white. The situation in Iraq is slightly different because its a Shia majority - and their Islamic Jurisprudence is slightly different than the Sunni version i study - especially to do with Ijtihad and the idea of an Imam as leader. So its interesting for me to see how it all will play out.

Merryprankster
03-07-2005, 05:14 PM
It will be interesting to see what pans out.

Familiar with both groups you mentioned. I know somebody who is trying to get Al Muhajiroun on the State Dept. Terrorism list.

rogue
03-07-2005, 08:20 PM
I agree with dezhen, on the caliphate thing. I was asking what YOU wanted because I was sort of being difficult.
Oh, now I'm angry. And to think that I bought you a ticket to see Toby Keith. :mad:
If you tease someone and they're too simple minded to know it is it still a tease? ;)

It will be interesting to see how it all works out. If an alternative to the what the bad guys are selling takes what will the bad guys do? The Palestinians are trying to get Hammas to take a seat at the table. But I'm watching to see what Hezbollah and their backers do in Lebanon.

dezhen2001
03-07-2005, 11:15 PM
I know somebody who is trying to get Al Muhajiroun on the State Dept. Terrorism list.
Interesting... the problem being that although they may support and basically condone certain things done by others - its vastly different from calling the shots yourself or advising your people to engage in such things. One is a freedom of speech (the right to say and express whatever you want), the other is aiding and assisting (or indeed promoting/performing) a criminal activity.

I have had experience with both the groups mentioned, and didnt like either. I found their approaches incredibly terrible, totalitarean and intellectually bankrupt - selective of the interpretive methods and possibilities they used and other things. I guess thats why i get called a "modernist liberali" by most folks and not anything else... but i do have a beard if that counts? :D (ok, only a goatee but its still traditionally valid anyway)