[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 18 2006, 04:57 AM, said:

In any event are you saying the USA is mostly if not all to blame? It seems so but.....perhaps I misunderstand.

If you look at the history of the Middle East over the last century, you can see a number of clear themes:

The most significant of these deals with how Arab societies have struggled to respond to Turkish/British/French colonialism. I'm going to make a rather gross over-simplification, however, these societies have responded in one of two manners: Several societies have experimented with a Arab (or pan-Arab) Nationalism. The Baath party is best known example, however, Egypt under Nasser is the other prototypical example. Historically Arab nationalism has been highly secular. More traditionalist/religious elements of society have gravitated towards social movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. From our perspective, its useful to note a few key observations:

1. The world views of these two groups is high antithetical to one another. These social movements view each other as rivals and, in some cases, enemies. The so-called Hama massacre is an excellent example of how these tensions can escalate.

2. Neither of these two groups has a particularly good track record governing. As one side screws up, the political opposition gravitates to the other pole. For example, the main opposition to the secular nationalist Egyptian government is an offshoot of the (banned) Muslim Brotherhood. In an ideal world, I'd hope that people would reject either extreme and experiment with a “third way”. I'd love to see a genuine commit to social democratic ideals. Unfortunately, the center is being squeezed out.

3. The oligarchies in low population oil exporters like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have attempted legitimize their rule by positioning themselves as defenders of Islam. I consider the combination of large oil wealth and the highly traditionalist Wahhabist sect unfortunate. I think that the world would look very differently if Sufism were the dominant sect on the Arabian peninsula.

A second very important theme involves how the United States is viewed in the Arab World. Traditionally, the US was viewed in an extremely positive light. Unlike Britain and France, the United States didn't get involved in any colonial escapades in this part of the world. Even more significant, the US forced the British and French to back down during the 1956 Suez Crisis. This legacy of good will was drawn down over time, primarily as a result of

1. Arab belief that the US has abrogated its position as a neutral observer in the Arab / Israeli conflict
2. Arab belief that the US regularly sacrifices its own ideals surround democracy etc. in order to protect its national interest (Containment, oil, making Halliburton rich. The cause d'jour varies). For example, the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran and subsequent support for the Shah didn't go over well.
3. US intervention in Lebanon during the early 1980s probably marked the definitive transformation of the US from an interlocuteur to just another player.

As to your question whether the US is to “Blame” for the 9/11 attacks: I don't believe that the anything that the US has done in the region warranted the 9/11 attacks. In much the same manner, the 9/11 attacks didn't warrant the US attack on Iraq. Most of the world views these issues as separate and distinct.

With this said and done, during the 1980s, the United States viewed a militant crusading version of Islam as a weapon to be unleashed against the Soviet Union. The madrassa system in Pakistan and the Taliban are both direct outgrowths of CIA efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Equally significant, once the Soviet threat faded, the US government decided to ignore this part of the world. (The US made almost no effort to provide aid or stablize/rebuild the economy)

It can be / has been argued that the 9/11 attacks represent “Blowback” from these decisions.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on May 18 2006, 02:55 PM, said:

The Ultra Orthodox Jews are every bit as bad.  A pox on all their houses...

This is hardly flattering, and let's get one thing clear: there is no such thing as "ultra" orthodox. Either you are orthodox or you are not. If anything, you can blame all of us who are not orthodox Jews, but you can't call those who abide by the written word in the Torah for "ultra".

In Meah Shearim, the orthodox area of Jerusalem, you will find this sign (in Hebrew and English):

"Jewish Daughter. The Torah obligates you to dress with modesty. We do not tolerate people passing through our streets immodestly dressed".

Nothing ultra about that. They are right, we are wrong, whether we like it or not. I know that they do not recognise the State of Israel either. There can't be such a state before Messiah returns to Earth, according to their belief. Again, strictly speaking: they are right, we are wrong.

If this is also a practical approach in 2006 is a different ballgame. Most Jews don't think so.

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on May 18 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

let's get one thing clear: there is no such thing as "ultra" orthodox. Either you are orthodox or you are not.

That isn't true. Orthodox is merely a term that refers to Jews who closely adhere to the traditions and laws of Judaism. Ultra Orthodox, which really is nothing more than a commonly used slang term (and one which is definitely disliked by those it refers to), means Haredi Jews, a branch that essentially is so strictly theologically conservative that they reject non-Orthodox denominations. It also can be used to refer to Hasidic Jews, which is a movement that originated from Haredi.

What Richard said was certainly not flattering and perhaps not politely worded either, but I think it is a fair viewpoint, at least in the way he meant it.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on May 18 2006, 09:33 PM, said:

In Meah Shearim, the orthodox area of Jerusalem, you will find this sign (in Hebrew and English):

"Jewish Daughter. The Torah obligates you to dress with modesty. We do not tolerate people passing through our streets immodestly dressed".

Funny that you should bring up those street signs...

I have a fair number of friend who are Jewish. At least four of them are Orthodox. While them themselves dress modestly, they gon't go arround stoning those people who don't. It seems reasonable to differentiate between these different subsets . Using the expression ultra-orthodox is a commonly accepted way to do so. (BTW, I am aware that the expression ultra Orthodox is a pejorative, however I'm using the expression as an insult. I'm also aware that the expression doesn't map directly onto any one branch of Judaism which seems like a plus when you're slandering people. I like to think that I am criticizing behaviour rather than identity)

While we're on the subject: I travel in a lot of odd little parts of the world and I've run into a lot of different cultural taboos. I always make an effort to follow the appropriate norms. I wear long sleeves and long pants in a lot Moslem world. I take my shoes off when I enter a mosque and cover my head when I go into a synagogue. I try not to point the soles of my feet at people in several parts of Asia. I beltch in Japan after a good meal and try not to do so in the US. None of this is related to anything that I actually believe. However, its the polite thing to do and I try not to go out looking for trouble.

However, the fact that I am willing to respect random third party cultural norms doesn't mean that I support the imposition of these norms by force. According to my own subjective morality, causing physical harm to another person should be avoided whenever possible. I place a high priority on this principle.

Returning to the original point of the thread:

I don't think that its unreasonable to condemn Islamic extremists who are physically threatening Ali for criticizing their religion. At the same time, I also recognize that Ali's continued presence in an apartment building constitutes a physcial threat to her neighbors.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on May 18 2006, 08:31 PM, said:

(BTW, I am aware that the expression ultra Orthodox is a pejorative, however I'm using the expression as an insult. I'm also aware that the express doesn't map directly onto any one branch of Judaism which seems like a plus when you're slandering people. I like to think that I am criticizing behaviour rather than identity)

Totally unacceptable to write a thing like this in my opinion. You slander and insult them deliberately, and they have no chance to respond. I am offended on their behalf!

Roland

[mike777]

"I don't think that its unreasonable to condemn Islamic extremists who are physically threatening Ali for criticizing their religion. At the same time, I also recognize that Ali's continued presence in an apartment building constitutes a physcial threat to her neighbors."


Let's put this into a USA perspective, A member of the black caucus (USA Congress) also originally from Africa speaks often and loudly against the KKK. The KKK puts her on the execution list. Her neighbors say hey my Human Rights are being violated so make her move now before my kids get blown up. Do you honestly think if a Member of the USA Congress is on a kill/bomb/murder list from extremists a judge would make her move? Would you not find that shocking and an act of appeasment?!

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on May 18 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

Totally unacceptable to write a thing like this in my opinion. You slander and insult them deliberately, and they have no chance to respond. I am offended on their behalf!

Roland

Voltaire is famously quoted as saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Please understand what you are defending: You are (effectively) claiming that people have the right to stone anyone who they believe to be dressing the wrong way.

Feel offended all you want. If you honestly believe that this type of behaviour is acceptable or deserves a defense then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on May 18 2006, 09:05 PM, said:

Feel offended all you want. If you honestly beleive that this type of behaviour is acceptable or serves defense then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

Of course I don't approve of stoning anybody, that applies to the inhabitants of the Meah Shearim too. They must obviously follow the laws of the country they live in, and they are also duly punished if they do violate the laws of Israel.

However, I disapprove with your wording. You should not slander or insult any group - just like you now try to insult me by writing:

... then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

It's derogatory and not acceptable in my opinion.

Roland

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 18 2006, 10:57 PM, said:

Let's put this into a USA perspective...

Lets move away from your silly little hypothetical. There is ample case law in the United States that assert's that local communities have the right to regulate private behaviour in light of a potential threat.

Sex offender "zoning" statutes are the most obvious examples. Any number of local communities claim the right to regulate where individuals may/may not live based on the possibility that said individual's presence in a community could potentially endanger local citizens...

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on May 18 2006, 11:12 PM, said:

However, I disapprove with your wording. You should not slander or insult any group - just like you now try to insult me by writing:

... then I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

It's derogatory and not acceptable in my opinion.

Roland

If you want to argue about wording, then you might want to learn how to quote correctly. What I actually said was

"If you honestly believe that this type of behaviour is acceptable or deserves a defense then I don't give a rat's ass what you think"

(edited by rain)

In this case, the statement "I don't give a rat's ass what you think" is only true if you believe that "this type of behaviour is acceptable".

(edited by rain)

[bid_em_up]

This thread still here?

Amazin

[jdonn]

Whatever, these threads are waaaay more interesting when people are allowed to express their true feelings, even to the point of verbal confrontation. The water cooler was absolutely soporific between the poker thread that was randomly removed for no real reason and this thread.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on May 18 2006, 09:53 PM, said:

Whatever, these threads are waaaay more interesting when people are allowed to express their true feelings, even to the point of verbal confrontation.

Absolutely. Heaven knows that Richard and I don't agree on much - bridge related as well as not bridge related. However, there should be a limit as to how much you are allowed to humiliate people, also verbally.

You can agree or disagree, but if you disagree you must always aim at doing this in a civilised manner. When you stand up and say that you deliberately slander and insult groups or individuals, I think that you overstep that line. I can't know why certain parts of Richard's last post have been deleted, but they can hardly have been complimentary.

Threads and posts in the forums have been deleted or locked for much less than this.

Roland

[Elianna]

About stoning people in Meah Sharim, I should point out that most of the leaders of the Hassidic community were against this, and felt that it was wrong to do so (even though they felt that it was inappropriate for people to dress in a purposely inflammatory way in their neighborhoods). I seem to recall that this happening was a big scandal in Israel at the time (was it five years ago that this hit the news, I forget?), and police were escorting people.

I work at an orthodox school, and am quickly learning the differences between the different "levels", if you will. At my school we have a big mix: The school is supposed to be orthodox, most of the students are sephardic, with some being orthodox, and others not. We also have a few ashkenazi girls, and while some are orthodox, most are lubavitch (which means that they follow the teachings of the lubavitcher rabbi). Most of the jewish teachers are either orthodox, or lubavitch.

The one contradiction I have to what Roland said about Hassidic jews is that they place as much value on the Oral Tradition of the bible (as opposed to just the Torah), and even more so on interpretations made by rabbis (usually from 2000 years ago, but some from more recently, like the Lubavitchers).

And sorry about my spelling, I'm kinda transliterating as I go.

[mikeh]

This thread seems to be covering a lot of ground in addition to reactions to the situation in the Netherlands. I can't resist joining in.

Firstly, I believe it to be very dangerous to criticize the actions of others based on media reports. My own experience with media coverage of matters in which I have been involved has shown me that most reporters lack the background necessary to both understand the real issues, and evidence, and to explain it in language comprehensible to their readers. Add to this the effect of editorial intervention, often truncating otherwise intelligible reporting and throw into the mix, for foreign audiences, cultural and linguistic problems, and it would be remarkable if any of us gained sufficient knowledge of the truth to enable us to express a relevant opinion.

So, while I am saddened by the news of what happened in the Netherlands, that sadness is tempered by the realization that what was reported almost certainly lacked full context, full detail, and a proper explanation of WHY the court made the order it apparently made.

Secondly, the thread has expanded to take on some of the most intractable issues of our day: relating to the war in Iraq (misleadingly claimed, by those responsible for it, to be part of the 'war on terror') and fanatical religion, whether Christian, Judaism, or Islam.

Wow.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see several Americans parroting the propaganda of their government. This propaganda comes in several flavours, but the ones on display here include a claim that the invasion of Iraq was justified by the events of 9/11. The US government has formally admitted that the Iraqi regime had NO involvement in 9/11 and was not a supporter of those responsible. However, leaders of that same government have actively and passively encouraged precisely the opposite impression to take hold of the america public: some time ago, I read of a poll that found that the majority of americans still believe in that linkage.

The second 'flavour' detected in some of the posts here is that the invasion of Iraq is part of some war to spread freedom.

There are very, very few non-us observers who seem to buy that story... at least according to the various international media to which I have been exposed... altho my sampling is not as broad as I would prefer.

As a Canadian who has a number of American friends, who visits often, and who receives many US channels on televison and whose favourite radio station is an American NPR station, I probably have as much opportunity to balance internal US views of the world with non-US views as anyone here.

It seems to me that many Americans have been the victim of the patriotism scam. All societies indoctrinate their young in patriotic behaviour, but few western democracies do it as intensively as the US... with the pledge of allegiance a daily ritual in the schools, impressing the minds of schoolchildren at their most vulnerable age.

The US, under the control of a carefully chosen (by a small group of wealthy, secretive individuals) President, then launched an invasion of a sovereign county, whose government had committed no hostile acts aimed against the US. A country and a regime which had, 20 years earlier, been lauded and funded by another republican US government.

And when some of the many millions of intelligent, educated citizens of the US dared to ask questions, the government responded with appeals to patriotism! Criticize the breaking of international law by the USA, and you are a traitor: you are giving aid and encouragement to enemies of the USA! Vote for Bush, because a vote for Kerry is a betrayal of our brave fighting men and women!

The US government, in its repeated references to the war on terror, the fight for freedom, and the need to support the armed forces reminds me, time and time again, of the words of Samuel Johnson: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Edit: I had a brain fart and had the quote erroneously attributed to the worng source (and century)

And that is sad, because, in many ways, the USA represents, in potential and in fact, some of the best (and the worst) of human possibility. Some of their institutions of democracy put the rest of the world to shame.

At the same time, there are powerful religious forces in the US that are seeking to destroy the tolerance on which democracies must be founded. In no other western democracy, for example, do we find major political leaders (including Bush and the probable republican candidate to run in 2008) publicly endorsing the teaching of creationism in school as an alternative to natural selection-based evolution. [Note: they call their variant of creationism, intelligent design].

I could go on at length. but will not. BTW, I want to stress that, on the whole, the world is, imho, far better for having the US as a major power than not.... I truly dislike and, to some degree, fear the current US regime and some of the political forces at play in the country, and the US exhibits the same arrogance and tendency to bully that all superpowers have throughout history... take a look at the record of Great Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, as one example.

And, as individuals, I treasure the friendships I have made with a number of Americans...

[macaw]

A famous quote comes to mind, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Apparently not a lot has changed since 1775

[pbleighton]

"The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq."

Utter nonsense.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"Totally unacceptable to write a thing like this in my opinion. You slander and insult them deliberately, and they have no chance to respond. I am offended on their behalf!"

Are you also offended on behalf of Muslims, based on the viciously bigoted and ignorant nonsense spewed in this and other threads by certain posters, or is your sense of propriety selective?

Peter

[Robert]

Hi Everyone

"Nonsense." The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq.

Battle of Tours(Oct. 10, 732 A.D.) "A Muslim Army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa..."
Attacked the Franks(modern day France) from Spain.

America and the British Empire were not around to take the blame for the Muslim conquest of numerous nations and the attack against what is now modern day France.

Regards,
Robert

[hrothgar]

Robert, on May 19 2006, 05:42 AM, said:

Hi Everyone

"Nonsense." The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq.

Battle of Tours(Oct. 10, 732 A.D.) "A Muslim Army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa..."
Attacked the Franks(modern day France) from Spain.

America and the British Empire were not around to take the blame for the Muslim conquest of numerous nations and the attack against what is now modern day France.

And the Roman's sacked Carthage...
And before that the Macedonians attacked Persia
And don't forget about Assyrians or, god forbid, the SEA PEOPLE

We're talking about the 21st century, not who killed who 14 centuries ago...