More on our Islamic friends

[ACPlayer]

So, we include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan as our friends and allies in the war on terror. Of course these are all proud democracies with a long history of supporting freedom and not supporting terrorist organizations.

Along comes Uzbekistan: With friends like Uzbekistan (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FD01Ag01.html)

Here is an extract for those who want to understand why the Islamic extremists can find suicide bombers in countries that our administration is friendly with:

"The Uzbek government is conducting a merciless campaign against peaceful Muslim dissidents," said Rachel Denber, the acting director of HRW's Europe and Central Asia Division. "The scale and brutality of the operations against independent Muslims makes it clear that these are part of a concerted and tightly-orchestrated campaign of religious persecution."

and another:

Washington and other Western countries have long warned Karimov that his failure to respect human rights and implement serious political and economic reforms, and his repression of independent Muslims in particular, could destabilize the country. But he has responded mainly with only token gestures, while insisting that any far-reaching relaxation of his control would likely lead to a major upsurge of terrorism by the IMU and another, much larger group, the Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has called for the replacement of his regime with a Central Asian caliphate, albeit by non-violent means.

As a result, the Bush administration has tried to walk a tightrope with Karimov by, on the one hand, condemning human rights abuses and urging reforms, and on the other by supporting him as a strategic ally in the "war on terrorism".

This balancing act - reminiscent of US alliances with anti-Soviet autocrats during the Cold War - has been on display in just the past week, with the White House expressing its solidarity with Tashkent on Monday by declaring: "These attacks only strengthen our resolve to defeat terrorists wherever they hide and strike, working in close cooperation with Uzbekistan and our other partners in the global war on terror," while on Tuesday, the State Department stressed that "more democracy is the best antidote to terror".



Under the guise of "War on terror" our friends are carrying out their own terror campaigns suppressing human rights and in the process creating more Mohammad Atta types. Did we not learn what happened to us when we supported Osama Bin Ladin?

We continue to be viewed as opportunistic and unprincipled.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
We continue to be viewed as opportunistic and unprincipled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our government IS. So, let us ask: Is it the American people who are intrinsically opportunistic and unprincipled, or is it merely a byproduct of an Oligarchical Capitalistic Democracy?

[MMMMMM]

"Our government IS. So, let us ask: Is it the American people who are intrinsically opportunistic and unprincipled, or is it merely a byproduct of an Oligarchical Capitalistic Democracy?"

Or is it merely a product of human nature (especially en masse and on average)? In other words, the human race may be far from ready to act in unison (or even in majority) in a truly principled manner. If so, then many choices are reduced towards the direction of being choices of the lesser of multiple evils. However such inherent imperfections give much fodder to those who find great fault with us based on comparison against some imagined ideal rather than by comparing us to our peers or to other real-world beings, institutions, or countries. This is, by the way, a favorite trick of Chomsky and his devotees.

[ACPlayer]

I suspect that one reason for the American mindset is that we still dont really have a sense of history and culture as a nation and a society. We dont understand the thinking of the people who have lived as a people for thousands of years in the same area and under the same banner (nation, race, or religion). As adoloscents, we act first and for immediate gratification rather than taking the longer view of things. THat is our strength (in business understanding) and our weakness (in cultural understanding).

[MMMMMM]

Agreed there are some differences in cultural understanding.

My basic stance is that I respect the right to be different but not the right to harm others.

Also I believe in being tolerant but I do not believe it extends to tolerating intolerance.

If specific intolerances are a wrapped up in cultural traditions, that does not mean those intolerances should be excused or justified. As an example, the Islamic cultural customs of oppressing women in various ways does not make such oppressions acceptable, nor should it shield such oppressions from criticism.

We tolerate any religion; Saudi Arabia tolerates one religion. That it is their custom does not make it OK, no matter how long they have been doing it. Some African Muslim tribes forcibly cut out the clitoris of all young girls so that they can never, as a woman, achieve orgasm. That this is their custom does not make this OK. Your right to punch the air ends where my nose begins, or where any innocent person's nose begins. Please try not to take the ideal of tolerance so far that you excuse even horrid intolerance.

[ACPlayer]

The issue is not intolerance per se.

Societies adopt customs quickly to solve real or perceived social problems but are slow to divest them as times change. These conservative attitudes lead to the retention of customs that are abhorrent by standards of others.

In our previous discussions we have disagreed on the need for speed to make the changes. In general, I argue that societies need to change themselves and to let the liberal roots take hold in the society wresting control from the conservative elements. Forcing changes causes resentment and even if the problem is "solved" in the short term invariably brings a conservative backlash as the fundamentalists find otherways to strike back at the outsider.

An interesting example at the moment is Iran. There are clearly forces of change in Iran for the better that are being suppressed by force. It should be our stance that we find ways to encourage the forces of change. If we charged in Iran tomorrow, chances are we could force a different regime on them (much as we did with ths Shah) but these cultures have a long history, memory and patience and will come back. True lasting change comes from within.

Similarly, we cannot force lasting change on Iraq, it must come from within.

[MMMMMM]

"An interesting example at the moment is Iran. There are clearly forces of change in Iran for the better that are being suppressed by force. It should be our stance that we find ways to encourage the forces of change. If we charged in Iran tomorrow, chances are we could force a different regime on them (much as we did with ths Shah) but these cultures have a long history, memory and patience and will come back. True lasting change comes from within.

Similarly, we cannot force lasting change on Iraq, it must come from within."

Agree in general principle but in these cases the old-guard is in the minority; most citizens of those countries want change and it is a violent relative few which are trying to thwart that change at all costs. If it were the majority which did not want change or to move forward I would be more inclined to agree with you regarding Iran or Iraq. But why should a violent minority be permitted to hold back most of the population, especially when what the majority of those populations want is more in keeping with human rights and freedoms, and yes, also with our interests.

In Iran most people are very sick of the mullahs but the mullahs have the guns and thugs to back them up. If we helped the students and general population oust the mullahs there would be less resistance at the grass-roots level than there is in Iraq, because most Iranians are more forward -looking, younger and liberal than most Iraqis. It is the mullahs and their guard which are backwards and iron-fisted. So I think the backlash in Iran would be less than in Iraq, although the initial war might conceivably be more dangerous.

What you seem to be requiring is that the population not only be largely in favor of change, but that they also have the sheer force to overcome those who control the army and the thug-police-force. I suspect that you may be placing the bar too high.

[ACPlayer]

What you seem to be requiring is that the population not only be largely in favor of change, but that they also have the sheer force to overcome those who control the army and the thug-police-force. I suspect that you may be placing the bar too high.

Perhaps the bar is too high. but I dont think there is an alternative. Further, historically, it is clear that eventually the society changes.

Some examples:

-- India freed itself of the British who controlled most of the guns etc. There were clearly other forces at work (such as the sapped Brits from WWII) but by 1940 it was clear than India would have its independence.

-- The Apartheid era's brutal regime was thrown out by the locals of South Africa, Zimbabwe etc.

-- The Shah of Iran was deposed even though SAVAK was as brutal a police force as any.

-- The Russian totalitarians were removed without DIRECT outside intervention.

-- China is slowly reforming, helped by increased trade and ties with the west.

These are some examples from the 20th century.