- This topic has 81 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Part of today’s IRA statement –
"The leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann (the IRA) has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. This will take effect from 4pm this afternoon. All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms. All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever."
Isn’t it ironic that at almost the same time as one terrorist organisation that has scourged these islands for the past 35 years decides to call it a day, another one comes along to take it’s place?
ACR1
I think it’s ironic that, on the week where Blair said he "wouldn’t give a single inch" to one group of "terrorists", we see the possible unilateral end of another group of "terrorists" as a result of our willingness to see the other side, recognise our wrongs and engage in discussion.
We never "surrendered" to the IRA or let them win, we just took away the reasons why the average Catholic in the street might support their paramilitary activities.
Steve
All very true Ian, and I’m pleased that they are finally coming around to the view that there is no global terrorist conspiracy. Just a lot of people who are outraged at the deaths of their fellow believers and are prepared to die to prove it.
Personally, I don’t think either of those demands is unreasonable.
At the moment, there doesn’t seem to be a genuine and peaceful path for either of those aims to be pursued.
So, apart from trying to get us to the table by inflicting misery on our doorstep, what are they to do?
George Galloway said something interesting just after the London bombings. He said (the muslim world) "know we don’t care about their suffering, we only care about our suffering and that’s why they want to hurt us".
And I’d agree.
However, we’ve now gotten ourselves into the position where we can’t take fast and meaningful action over these issues without looking like we’re conceding to the "terrorists".
And we can’t be seen to be conceding as it’ll encourage further attacks by either the same or other groups.
If only we had gone after the middle east "road map" rather than Iraq, we’d be draining away support for these groups rather than fuelling it.
Steve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>“Our message to you is clear, strong and final: there will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources and end support for infidel [Arab] rulers,â€ÂÂ
Wit
I’ve said previously on this thread:
"I should point out that I’m not suggesting talking with Bin Laden and his men."
From "withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources and end support for infidel [Arab] rulers", I read "cease to station your troops in the middle east and Afghanistan and stop propping up dictatorships and puppet governments in what are accepted as being Arab countries".
If we had done these things pre 9/11, who would have supported Al-Quaeda? A few loonies, that’s all.
It was the daily degradations that muslims saw on TV that made so many of them cheer the collapse of the twin towers, not christianity in Spain.
If we were seen to be taking away these degradations and treating muslims like they have the right to choose their own path rather than living under our thumbs, Bin Laden and his men might find less support and fewer places to hide.
Steve
Ian, Steve
From your postings, both of you have bought the line that what’s happening is "Muslims vs the West".  ÂÂÂ
It isn’t – as most Muslims in the Middle East and around the world are trying to get across.
They are deeply insulted by statements that there is " widespread tacit support/sympathy from Muslim communities around the world for the remaining hardliners".
Ian thinks that "the Iraqis – the insurgents aside – are a cowed people, formerly cowed by Saddam Hussain, and cowed now by the occupying US and UK armies"
Steve says that <br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>"cease to station your troops in the middle east and Afghanistan and stop propping up dictatorships and puppet governments in what are accepted as being Arab countries".
…..if we were seen to be taking away these degradations and treating muslims like they have the right to choose their own path rather than living under our thumbs, Bin Laden and his men might find less support and fewer places to hide<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
These are the kind of "frog in a bucket" views that delight the radicalists.
I’ll say it again – the issues for the ordinary peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan are not – and never have been – "muslim vs infidel", however much the radicalists (including the Taleban) love to put that overlay on them.
They are rather ethnic, tribal and nationalist issues, and the economic fallout from those issues.
Steve, I don’t know who you think accepts Afghanistan as an Arab country – Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkoman, Hazara, Aimaq, Baluchi and Nuristani yes: but the only Arabs are the Al Quaeda imports.
Iraq is mainly Arab – as to 75% – but you’ll also find 18% are Kurds, and the other 7% are made up of Assyrians, Turkoman, Armenians, Persians and a number of smaller ethnic groups (including currently maybe up to 250,000 Coalition troops).  ÂÂÂ
Ian seems to think the US/UK armies are operating a regime of terror on the Iraqi population of 25 million who are united in being cowed.  That seems a rather unique interpretation of the popular Iraqi support for trying to get a democracy going, getting your own army and police force going, getting your electricity and water back, your oil economy going, all the while having to battle the attacks coming at you from …..er, the US and UK army???  Or is it that the US/UK armies are forcing an unwilling 25 million folk at gunpoint into getting going their own government / army / police / electricity / water / economy, etc ??
<br>The reality is that there is a very big reason why, since 1967, any Arab group or regime that has wished to give itself a "revolutionary" or "progressive" image has had to present itself as opposed to the West in general and the US in particular.
It has nothing to do with religion.   What its to do with is the deeply hurt pride, something that resulted across the Arab world from the exposure of the hollowness of Arab nationalist claims in the deeply ignominious defeat suffered by the Arab armies – and most particularly all of those that failed to show up – in 1967 against Israel. ÂÂÂ
Iraq for example sent only a token force because its crack troops had to stay at home to guard Saddam against a coup – and that story was widely repeated in the region.  ÂÂÂ
It gave the lie to the mantra of "all Arab brothers" – something that was always mainly lip service, but which had never previously been so humiliatingly shown to be such.  It was only at that time that the US became widely identified with Israel – the US was and remains the face-saving scapegoat.
<br>Steve, you may see an Arab world of  "dictatorships and puppet governments" propped up by the US. ÂÂÂ
In my experience the peoples of the Arab world don’t think that way for one second.  They know the volatility of their world and the way that – irrespective of what the US or anyone else may want – it is their own national, tribal, ethnic make-ups that establish (and dis-establish) the rulers of their respective states.   ÂÂÂ
Don’t confuse the rhetoric with the underlying reality – the locals certainly don’t.
Eyes wide open, ears tight shut.
best regards
wit<br>
Grasshopper
"Condescending..patronising.. snippy…high-handed …more-knowledgeable-than-thou attitude"
If that’s how you find my posting, then there’s not much I can do about it, other than to say it was responding to some very strongly-expressed opinions and conclusions which to me did not seem to be very well informed, on the basis of my own experience of the region and its nationals over the last 20 years.
Do I think I’m better informed than those opinions?  On this, actually yes I think I am, from personal experience rather than just book-smarts.
Am I trying to stop those opinions being expressed ?  No – I’m trying to put them right, just as they (and you) are trying to put me right.
Am I as a result more condescending / patronising / snippy than anyone else ?  I hope not – I don’t think I’ve ever played the man rather than the ball on here, including on this topic, but show me which bit if you think otherwise, and I’ll look again and happily apologise if I can see it.
On the substance of the intervention in Iraq, we’re at one that its all about oil – nobody but the indigenous folk will have any interest in the Middle East after the oil has gone, other than as regards the shipping routes passing by.
Since its all about oil, its also about who has their eyes set on that oil, and through what means. ÂÂÂ
My reading is that the great unspoken element in the long game (and they are very good at playing it) is China, and that they have three things to play with – their (increasing) military manpower, their material wealth, and their distribution of nuclear capability.   In this context its interesting that Iran and North Korea were the other two named in the Axis of Evil.
I don’t buy the "spread democracy for its own sake" line.
I think what the US has done in going into Iraq is to basically set it up to re-run what happened when the British first put Iraq together in 1920 from the Ottoman provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul.
I think this is their chess-game response to how they read the long game with China and the medium game with Iran.
best regards
wit <br>
Ian
Do you accept that there are some things about which you know more than me, and others about which I know more than you ?
If so, do you accept that on some things your opinion will be better informed than mine, and that on others mine will be better informed ?
If so, why couldn’t an appreciation of how folk think in a particular part of the world not be one of those things?   ÂÂÂ
And why is following that through condescending ?  ÂÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>I continue to agree with the sentiments expressed by steve in his last posting, which pretty much mirror those of Jason Burke of The Observer on Newsnight last night. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<br>You mean this Jason Burke?:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Why I believe this war is right
Jason Burke, who has reported from many world conflict zones, argues that the Iraqi people deserve to be saved
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/sto … 61,00.html
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<br>The problem with your "legitimate beefs, illegitimate means" approach is this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>It is a mistake to call terrorists “Islamistsâ€ÂÂ
while most arabs are muslim not all muslims are arabs
and the agendas some refer to are arab and not muslim
<br>
Firstly I want to say that I wasn’t in any way offended by Wit’s post last night.
He expressed his opinions very forcefully and maybe exhibited some frustration with some other posters, but who’s not done that?
To use his metaphor, he was entitled to go for the ball and the fact there was likely to be contact as a result is just part of the game.
Anyway…. back to the debate..
Wit
I don’t believe I’ve bought into the idea of "Muslims vs the West".
My big picture view is that the West is interested in the long and short-term prosperity, security and freedom of the West.
And, with the resources to go after and get whatever we want, we’ve pursued those ends.
The consequence to non-Westeners has been a total irrelevance to us.
If it means supporting a horrible dictator (whether in the middle east or in Latin America), so be it.
If it means doing things which, had they been carried out by a country that’s not party of the "elite", would have been declared illegal, that’s the way it goes. We’ve created immunity for ourselves.
Now, it may be that muslims around the world are indifferent to our conduct (or the conduct of governments we call our allies) in other muslim lands.
Maybe, because of tribal divisions, a muslim in one part of the world is unlikely to identify or particularly empathise with a muslim elsewhere.
(which is what I think you’re saying)
However, from my discussions with muslims here in Europe, it does appear that many European muslims do identify with muslims under attack in different parts of the world.
For example, Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine and, recently, Iraq.
Many of them see the difference between the rights we give ourselves and the rights we give the people in those countries and conclude that the lives of these muslims are regarded as far less valuable that the lives of Westerners.
(what they don’t focus on is the lives of people in central america don’t mean much to us either or in a whole bunch of other non-muslim countries we choose to meddle in)
And it’s these European muslims, plus the more affluent (economically mobile) muslims in the middle east, that Al-Quaeda are recruiting from to carry out these "idealogical" attacks against the west.
Not some dirt poor son of a labourer in Syria who’s too busy slaving to put food on the table to bother about world events.
That’s why I believe, had we chosen to pursue democracy and freedom for the middle east by starting with Palestine, we would have mended a wound that is felt by those Al-Quaeda recruit from. Instead we opened up another by attacking Iraq.
My view is that we should take action on Palestine. Primarily because we’ve screwed the Palestinians big-time and, morally, it’s our duty to put things right.
If that doesn’t make one iota of difference to "the war on terror", so be it. It’s simply the right thing to do (in my opinion).
Personally, I believe that it would go some way to showing muslims that we’re willing to take the side of a muslim people against a "western" country (Israel) without us having some self-interest driving us.
(don’t suggest Kosovo as an example of that as that just us seizing the chance to ****
Serbia)Steve
Very interesting .. my understanding of the situation .. and I stand to be corrected here, the same as everyone else. Is something like this ..
The Jihadists, if that’s what they are called are mainly Saudi Wabahists. Saudi Wahabism was used by CIA to launch Jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet forces in 1980s. Osama Ben Ladin is a by product of this so-called Jihad. Without the support of the US and in influx of foriegn fighters into Afghanistan, there would have been no effective opposition to the Russian occupation of that region. This war like many others at that time were all a part of the Cold War.
Unfortunately, this Frankenstien’s Monster that they have created has turned on it’s creator .. suprisingly enough.
Today’s Jihad, is nothing to do with atrocities levelled against other Muslims, as Wit quite rightly points out. But the momentum and support it is gaining probably is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.