They have been fundamentalist since about 714. But in the modern world, of countries formed by colonial powers in the 20th century, I would agree that there has been experimentation with non-theocracies, except the Sauds of course, who feel that God gave their family the oil and “anointed” them..
One could also argue that it took a rich Muslim, Osama, to transform the cause from Molotov throwing terrorism to much more militarized and equipped force. The metaphor would be that, as long as they were “held under” by colonial and post-Colonial forces, they harbored fundamentalist thoughts but couldn’t act on them. Then, between COLD WAR support for the Mujahadeen by the U.S. and enrichment via Saudi business, opium trade, etc. the level of ability to act on fundamentalist thoughts has been enabled.
I would agree to that extent, but still, does it really help London to put on a hair shirt and say “we done wrong?” I don’t think so and I don’t think Livingstone has any real answers. Especially when guys like Bakri are allowed to spew their hate?
I know several Muslims and the last thing they want is to assimilate the world…
Most of the ones I know just want to be left alone.
The extremists may want to take over…how would you deal with that?
It isn’t your “acquaintances who happen to be Muslim” who are bombing London, dangit. it’s middle class kids who are so influenced by guys like Bakri, along with their historic grievances, who are carrying out his will.
The fact that this guy is allowed to continue to conspire against Britain shows the flaws in the British approach to Islamic terror. Livingstone and Blair should throw his ass in jail or send him to Gitmo. What the heck, the US is taking the heat anyway, what’s one more asshole in jail?
Well well well… look who’s back after giving his farewell speech.
Brianc, (had the same posting style,) gave a similar goodbye last March right before the first appearance of IRTradRU?. hmmmmm
It appears that now both brianc and IRTradRU? (same person?) have resumed posting. If they are the same person, isn’t there something about having two usernames that Dale doesn’t like?
If they’re different, then I apologize, but the reemergence of IRTradRU? means that the fire danger alert is “high.” Get your hoses ready – flames will be all around again.
The problem is that the US is always on the wrong side in the Middle East. When Iran had a democracy the US overthrew it and installed the Shah in 1953. He was on of the 20th Century’s most brutal and bloodthirsty dictators. Why did we do it? Because the elected president of Iran was elected on the platform; “Iran’s oil for Iran’s people.” This underlines exactly the point the mayor of London was making.
The US also was instrumental in helping Saddam rise to power in Iraq, and they armed him to his teeth and even vetoed the UN resolution condemning him for gassing the Kurds. The US also vetoed UN resolutions condemning the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians. If it weren’t for the support the US provides to Israel – Israel wouldn’t have been capable of carrying out the atrocities against the Palestinians. These are only two examples.
Equivalent? Really? Last time I checked, you can worship any God in a democracy or democratic republic. And we are not bombing subways in any non-democracy we feel like, while Islam has about a dozen hotspots in the world where their mayhem continues, most of which have NOTHING to do with Iraq or Palestine.
WB, Irtrad! I don’t know why anybody would have to object to your return. You don’t even own a pitbull, I think…
No, you’re right, we aren’t forcing them, because once we leave someplace that we shouldn’t have been in the first place, it reverts back to a theocracy, or if not, a “democracy” in name only, that cannot provide for its citizens at all.
Don’t forget you guys; Iran became a democracy against the wishes of the British and US governments in the early 50s. Britain approached the US and asked the US to overthrow Iran and reinstate the Shah as dictator.
Democracy is a possibility in the Middle East, but the US and British governments don’t want it if it doesn’t play by their rules. Their rules mean the democracy has to provide access for US and British corporations to the natural resources there. That access has to be satisfactory for the US and UK to be considered legitimate. What they installed in Iraq is a corporate friendly US sanctioned democracy. If the Iraqi people were left to come up with their own democracy it probably wouldn’t be as advantageous for US and UK corporations – and therefore unacceptable.
The truth is rarely comfortable, and those who have the guts to tell it are most often reviled.. that doesn’t change the truth, though, only make the revilers foolish.
The actions of irresponsible officials, both government and corporate, have had great influence to the negative for the US’s (and Britain’s) standing in the world, particularly the Arab world, and trying to blame the problem on the messenger is just about the oldest mistake to make.
Well, let’s see. Jimmy Carter tried to be President on principle similar to what you say. It didn’t work out all that well for him. He may have won undeserving (imo) accolades later in life, but it didn’t help much in Iran.
I still don’t think Livingstone should be mouthing off that way, but that’s the last time I’ll make the point.
I would love to hear what our Londoners here feel about it. Also, whether they feel his comments make them feel any safer or not.
Nonsense. Fundamentalism everywhere is a reactionary and nostalgic ideology–it’s the desire to return to an imagined past.
Every religion goes through varying periods of liberalism and conservatism, but this form of fundamentalist Islam only took root as a political force across the middle east after about 1970.
I am using the term in the context of there having been no Reformation in Islam. Should have pointed it out. There have been schisms since, oh, the day Muhammad died.
I was talking to a Muslim friend of mine and told her that I feel that we need to get completely out of Middle Eastern affairs in order to stop the terrorism. I also said that this would mean finding alternative sources of energy, and stop buying Middle Eastern oil entirely. The look on her face told me that the ramifications of that had never really crossed her mind before. I wonder how long the House of Saud or any of the other hoarders of wealth in the Middle east would last if we weren’t buying anymore. I guess they’d have to go after China or something.
We can go around all day and say that the roots of terrorism are this and that other thing, but that doesn’t really do anything to solve the problem. Other acts of terrorism that I can think of (and I’m not the most well-versed person on this subject) have had specific demands (British out of Ireland, Quebec or Basque separatism, Israel out of Palestine, etc.); I haven’t heard any real demands expressed by the current crop of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists other than world domination. So, the only course I can see is to disengage and let them stew in the repercussions. Sorry if that is callous, but if American interference is the cause of all this, give them what they want and make strategy to disengage from the Middle East. (won’t ever happen, I know, but that’s the only course I can see).
Making way too much sense, Robin. Get ready for the onslaught of “oil and Palestine.”
But remember that in the many hotspots of militant Islam around the world, Israel is irrelevant (like Phillipines, Malaysia, etc). And most of it predated the Iraq invasion as well. And, many Islamic nations were against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
