[lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:47:11 -0000
Lawrence,
Unfortunately, I'm not going to go off on a trawl for evidence. I have my view
and if it fits with the likes of Fukuyama, then at least its not a wildnerness
view. And if I choose to 'analyse' you, I do so because I see you as
representitive of the views of Bush and his Neocons.
My biggest bugbear, and one that I'd like you to address, is your prevailing
view that Islamists act in isolation, that their actions are not influenced or
prompted by the actions of the US. This is where I disagree vehemently.
The following link is a review article in today's Guardian. Have a read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Books/reviews/history/0,,1728122,00.html
For those who don't wish to I'll draw out a couple of quotes.
' The man sitting opposite me in the hotel room in downtown Baghdad was
adamant. His group did not ever combine forces with al-Qaida. They had never
done so and they never would. "We met some of them, but we have refused to work
with them because it is too dangerous," he said. "They are really bloodthirsty
people. They do not care if they kill honest Iraqi people. They are crazy, I
tell you."
The man was an Iraqi civil servant who had taken up arms against coalition
forces in the summer of 2004. He had been fighting ever since. A Sunni, he did
not know how many American soldiers he had killed because, he admitted, it was
difficult to tell who had been wounded, who had died outright after one of his
group's attacks and who was just lying down. But one thing the man did know was
that he was not "al-Qaida". "They are terrorists," he told me. "We are freedom
fighters."'
And later...
' As Michael Scheuer, a former CIA agent and Bin Laden expert, has said:
"Western media have made no consistent effort to publish Bin Laden's
statements, thereby failing to give their audience the words that put his
thoughts and actions in cultural and historical context ... Bin Laden has been
precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the
reasons has anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy but
everything to do with US policies and actions in the Muslim world." '
Scheuer makes my point. Al Quaeda are not seeking to conquer the US or Europe,
they are using terrorist methodology to seek a change in US policy towards the
Middle East and the wider Muslim world. In other words, US actions have an
influence, a significant one, on the mindset of fundamentalist Muslims. And if
the wider Muslim world share the view that the US are infringing upon their
culture, yet do not choose to confront the matter with bullets and bombs, then
that's understandable. But the real point is that the US won't change this view
by maintaining an interventionist policy, all that does is make the situation
worse.
One of my first posts on Phil-Lit was in response to one of yours Lawrence. I
remember saying that the real battle was about influencing the minds of the
vast majority of Muslims. It's about showing them that the US and the West in
general does not wish to intervene in their culture. Invading Iraq, an action
that had nothing to do with Al Quaeda and everything to do with US energy
policy, hardly fit the bill did it.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:28 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
I don't accept your view that the problem Muslims are not numerous. This is
the viewpoint of Fukuyama which I discussed elsewhere. He followed the
viewpoint of Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy, but most of the writers I've read
described a few activists, but a vast reservoir of Fundamentalist Islamists who
share their viewpoint and agree with them but don't wish to become activities
themselves. It is not their calling, but they do support the activists.
If you Kepel, Roy and Fukuyama are right then we have little to worry about,
but if all the others I've read are right then we are at war and our opponent
is formidable and serious. It would be nice if you were right, but I don't
think you are.
I'll challenge you as I have some others. Provide some evidence of this vast
peaceful majority that does not share the viewpoint of Fundamentalist Muslims.
I have looked for this evidence as I have remarked in several notes in the past
and haven't found it. And when you want to analyze me rather than the
evidence, facts, and accounts I'm presenting, I'm fairly certain you haven't
found it either.
Other related posts:
