Fundamentalism, Wahhabism, and the sources of terrorism

Perception
Is that not the goal of the neocon reactionary Bush? Ah yes the good ole days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

Hell I might as well laugh----nothing else works

dys, when men were men and sheep were nervous?

perception, I have always found it is a good idea to laugh. Better than answering back, in many cases.

I have work to do before the brutal heat comes today. Back later to respond to your post.

Hurry back Kara:

I've got to do something important myself-----like cook breakfast.....................

i was intending to post this in US UN and Iraq but its locked this morning:
The Saudi government challenged the Bush administration Tuesday to prove its claims that Saudi citizens have traveled to Iraq to fight American troops, and said U.S. forces have failed to secure their side of the border. "We are very concerned about this issue because we would like to take action," Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But we have no evidence of Saudis crossing into Iraq and we have received no evidence from the U.S. government.

It's unlocked now!

In reply, the Bush's will say they can't revel anything because they must protect the Saudi's for intelligence reason <snicker, snicker, snicker>

Actually, its gone now.
Anyway, I think that we are falling into a self deluding trap by placeing so much emphasis on Iraq. I wonder how much in the terms of intelligence resources have been squandered in the Iraq situation, thus ignoring the rest of the world?
And again, how do your eliminate "terrorism?" Short of scouring the planet of human life, it doesn't seem possible.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6593&start=4600

Saudi Arabia & Wahhabism

Fighting for the Soul of Islam

By Jim Hoagland

The Washington Post
July 13, 2003
Web site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46070-2003Jul11.html

Why do they hate them? That is the question to ask in the wake of the slaughter of 53 people by Islamic suicide attackers in a mosque in Quetta, Pakistan, on July 4.

This was no isolated local atrocity, no jihad against Zionist oppressors, no blow delivered by the underdog against American crusaders. These victims were poor Shiite Muslims. As with the bombs set off in Saudi Arabia and Morocco a few weeks ago, this assault in southwestern Pakistan involved Muslims killing Muslims in the name of religion. It was part and parcel of an expanding civil war within Islam that is being fought across an extended region vital to U.S. interests.

Americans tend to think of their country as the center of global virtue. When Osama bin Laden's henchmen killed more than 3,000 people on American soil on 9/11, politicians and pundits rushed to ask, about Arabs in particular and Muslims in general: Why do they hate us?

But events since then have shown that this was too self-centered and exclusionary a reflex. Those who hate in this way hate much more than us. Their fury is part of a bigger picture that is succinctly and expertly treated by historian Bernard Lewis in his new book, "The Crisis in Islam." As Lewis points out, the radicals have an entire world to destroy before their apocalyptic design of restoring the Islamic caliphate can be realized.

Instead of asking with embarrassing, self-referential introspection why they hate us, American politicians and pundits should be pointing out that the first, most important line of this battle must be fought by Muslims in the battle for the soul of Islam.

The key to winning that battle lies in the mobilization of a revitalized Islamic mainstream that will reassert and protect itself from the extremists. Islam, like other great religions, has periodically had to rescue itself from movements that would hijack an entire faith. This is such a moment.

The American way of life, U.S. support for Israel and Washington's military power provoke specific animosities toward the United States by the jihadists. But their rage against those they consider fallen-away Muslims is as great. Apostates are the worst of all infidels.

Arab leaders who exercise power through the nation-states created in the colonial era are turncoats and usurpers. Islamic radicalism has become a vehicle for the power-mad, such as bin Laden. Islamic moderation is the best antidote to their ideological poisons. The United States on its own cannot reform the Muslim world. Only Muslims can do that.

But Washington can be a catalyst to introduce change into the grim stalemate that now exists between the two main branches of Islam: the Sunni majority, which controls the governments and commerce of most Arab countries, and the Shiites, who govern Iran but are downtrodden elsewhere.

As long as the leaderships of both communities were absorbed in pan-Arabism, nationalist struggles and the Cold War, Islam was dormant as a political force. But in 1979 a Shiite theocracy took power in Iran after the overthrow of the shah and set off a chain reaction throughout the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia by vowing to export its revolution.

The Wahhabist Sunni establishment of Saudi Arabia responded by pouring its oil wealth into a fierce counterrevolution. Muslim governments either sought to profit by taking funds from both contending factions or looked the other way and pretended no religious conflict was occurring.

The United States has largely stumbled its way into a central role in this conflict of religious extremes. Uncomfortable with admitting and analyzing the role of religion in politics abroad as well as at home, American policymakers rely almost exclusively on the region's political authorities and U.S. military power as levers of policy.

Washington has been slow to capture the depth and breadth of the competing Islamic revolutions and their long historical roots. Lewis argues persuasively that the conditions that create movements such as bin Laden's al Qaeda are almost as old as Islam. They have more to do with the way in which the religion developed than with any particular "us." We are stand-ins for and acolytes of the Muslims who are the main target of the radicals' fury.

The entire political system that has prevailed in the Muslim world since the end of the colonial era is under attack. It is not up to Americans to decide whether the survival of the nation-state, as it exists in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere, is compatible with Islam. That is a task for Muslims, who themselves should be asking, "Why do they hate us?"

Excellent article submission! It reinforces the fact that the roots of the problem tend to stretch back at least as far as the Ottoman period. the aftereffects of colonialism are also important contributers to the current situation. the old colobial administrator class became to post-colonial ruling class.

Well, and the crusades, and the Christianizing of southern Spain. I have to admit I think Hoagland's article, though very interesting and apt, is a bit overdrawn. I'm not convinced that they are as regressive as they are made to look. Certain elements, yes. But the movement as a whole, no. Technologically and economically modern, socially regressive, autocratic -- that's the impression I get. Certainly power-mad, as Hoagland says.

I'm a little wary of Lewis. But agree that "revitalizaling the mainstream" is important -- and I think that's unattractive to the "oil administration" in this country. So we have at least three tugs of war going on here: the Muslim fundamentalists, the mainstream Muslims, and US and other foreign interests which kind of like the status quo ante but would just like more control over it!

Lewis is from the same generation that produced Peter Brown and Emmanuael LaDurie. They were steeped in the mindset of the 1930s with all of the inherent assumptions about the "fitness'" of non-European societis to rule themselves. Once one gets past the neocolonial mindset they exhibit, their writings are often quite good. Of that generation I prefer L. Carl Brown to Lewis, but that is a personal preference.
I think teh point that should be made is that many of the nations in the Near East and South Asia were jolted rather abruptly from the role of colony to the role of independent nation following WW II,and immediately absorbed into the cold war posturing of the US and the Soviet Union. This allowed the old Colonial era administrator classes to gain power (the same group who had been part of the Ottoman Suzerainity) and allowed the peasantry access to education and technology, but often not to power strructures.
I recall a frequent comment by my Father and his friends when we lived in Pakistan that all of the countries of the Indian Sub-Continent and the Middle East were simmering pots of revolution that were just waiting ot boil over. As I get older I believe he may have been right.
Dys, had you a similar impression living in the Kingdom?

Just want to add here something which many of us who have spent big chunks of their lives overseas are aware of. There is most certainly -- still, in spite of everything -- an American/Anglo/European sense of superiority (my god, we see it regularly in posts in A2K!). Having lived elsewhere, I can see how perfectly revolting has been. We've been asking for that "revolt" for years, feeding it, allowing it to strengthen. Our only response to it seems to be military, rather than understanding and change.

I keep recommending something, knowing it isn't all that easy to get -- but available. The American movie "Traffic"? It was based on a really first-rate BBCTV series, "Traffik." To get (yet another) sense of high-finance, ground-level interactions between East and West, it's not only terrific drama but an ongoing education. I think I got my (four-tape) copy from EBay, but it's probably available elsewhere. I might consider a loan to responsible A2K'ers...!

There is a famous quote (probably apocryphal) attributed to a low level official in the British Foreign Service that goes something like "The Shah is our man, and no matter how bad he is, the wogs certainly can't rule themselves. We can keep him in power for as long as we'd like ." This wonderful bit of failed prophecy was said to have been uttered in 1977. Oops!
Anyway, this sort of thinking is still rampant in both the US and the UK, and not just among the ruling elites. How often do we hear the denizens of the developing world referred to in terms that imply stupidity, or a state that is a little less than human? I call it "those people'ism," as in, "those people are always killing each other," or "those people still measure their wealth in goats." I have long said that the developed world was likely to have a rather dissapointing wake-up-call from the smaller nations, and it looks like that is happening. Despite Bushy-PooII's rhetoric to the contrary, the US' new excercises in imperialism are likely to light the powder keg under us all.

Tartarin,
A feeling of superiority is within the PERSON, and I do not believe the American/Anglo/European came up with these feelings exclusively. They are fed by having opportunity to 'achieve and acquire.'
I haven't studied far enough yet to really under stand how other countries have allowed corrupt rulers to keep them always ignorant and poorer, but check it out and all see.... in Iraq for instance, seems the Saddam relatives and friends get almost all the money, and the 'little people' are given just enough to be quiet and comfortable. And it seems to be true in muslim nations, that the thumb is kept in place over the poorer masses by use of the Islamic religion.
The Bush Administration and "conservatism" are trying to do the same thing here in the USA by louding chorusing how awful is ABORTION-
And, what a pathetic thing it is to have taxes going for public 'assistance' in ANY form.
But when they get into office, all that is shuffled off to the side, and the REAL agenda comes to the fore.

Bush and campaigners had "Testimony pages" circulating through email and churches before the 2000 election. Touting how George Bush had been born again and the nation needed this man who would "fight against sin on every hand."
Thousands of votes came his way just on the abortion issue alone, and that has not changed and will not change, (due to who is in office in Washington).
Speaking of basic fundamental issues, Alabama is having to remove the ten commandments from their public Courthouse. Has Bush even COMMENTED? Where is his support for Christians, of which he is supposed to be one?
I keep asking, are we REALLY this ignorant, to have this 'person' who so favors a wharf rat succeeding, when he grins- as the primary leader of a nation that used to be the GREATEST in the known world?
And what are we going to say about the people who go back to their houses or workplaces where they have been disgruntled, and do their best to destroy everyone they knew- or lived with, or were hurt by??? Is this fundamentalism? No, it is blind, discompassionate hatred!! Driven by rejection and stupidity.
So People, it is my humble feeling that MISTAKEN ANGER, and WRONG CHOICES are one, by one.......by one. Cannot lump them.

Iraq has become a dumping ground of evil. And US soldiers will continue to die there for no one's good, as long as they are forced to serve there.

perception,
I address your continuous accusation of people here being guilty of HATRED. I do not hate the administration, nor do I hate muslims, Iraqi's ,palestinians, or Saudi's. I don't believe the folks here who speak against what they see is wrong, are spewing hatred. They are discussing things that are extremely serious.

Commentary like 'ride your broom' is way beyond discourteous. It is stooping to a level we have come to expect from extremists on these topics.
I cannot say I "respect" your views. I merely say I respect your place of discussion, for it is the same as mine. Memebership is free to all of us.

That's a valid distinction, Verbal. To respect the person's right to speak but not necessarily the person's opinions or style.

There really hasn't been that much difference between the autocracies in the east and in the west, when it comes to keeping thumbs on people. We can feel the thumb right here, right now, as you point out. When east and west come up against each other, I don't see either as owning the moral high ground in the confrontation...

Good point about the absence of comment on Alabama!

Thank you Tartarin,
I do not really like to see government messing in peoples "religion". Faith based ideals are better handled on the Church and Synagogue level, and left alone by politicians.
Why did we ever have to have a Roe vs Wade? There should not have ever been a 'LAW' on books concerning women's birthing of children. Love, compassion and ethics should govern what woman decides to do.
I also believe it is "fundamental" and "basic" to humanity and all animal life to have the purest oxygen they can have to breathe. What is this administration doing to promote clean air and water... (Iraq screams at the 'infidels' that they do not do anything about getting water and cleanliness for them, shoot- they do not even do that back here!)??

Right on! I wish I'd grabbed the quote from among my bits and pieces of reading during the past few days -- don't think I'd be able to find it now.. It was a remark about Roe v. Wade in an article not about Roe v. Wade. It was a very eloquent, well-written couple of sentences in which the essence of Roe symbolizes a wish to return to an era in which men (not so much in the gender sense as in the power sense) wanted to regain control over the laws. Roe being a symbol of loss of power.

All the rest of it about "murder" I see to be icing, flourishes. White-men-government-bureaucracy-institutions-predictability-"real leadership" are at stake. I've always shied away from my fellow females' righteous anger about Roe because I've seen it as a political ploy, a symbol, not a moral stand. Those who want to erase Roe don't give a flip about vacuumed babies; they use that as a pretext. Lurid sentimentalism in the service of self-righteousness. Better stop now. When I say what I really think about Roe, both sides want to vacuum me!!

Yeah---- I got ya meaning.