OT: Could Bush Have Been Right?

[jun_erh]

thank you for growing pot for us. Now don't go and get uppitty. hahah Canada

[ZIM]

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]

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.

[SimonM]

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]

Smoke another one rogue.

[TaiChiBob]

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]

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? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 article is also quite interesting.

[Merryprankster]

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]

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]

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 ! 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!? ) 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!!! 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 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! 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.