Prophet Muhammad insulted by a film, so we claim the right to kill you?

[ToreBear]

This should all be in the us politics thread btw.

Well I don't think you can divorce the Muhammad furore from politics. They are interlinked.

By european you of course you mean the old elitist - germany, france britain deal and not actual europe. This brainless heroworship of a man who is at the end of the day a politician is far less prevalent outside these 3 major powers.

Besides what people ignore is that obama would not be half as popular in western europe if he actually had to answer to people here rather than be presented by all media as some sort of superhero, which is what he currently gets. I mean the bbc for example have as one of their adverts obama saying - "change", and a father in a hospital holding his new born child and starting to smile as he sees obama on screen. Thats just an example but throughout western europe its been 4 years of obama shown in a positive light and totaly immune from cirticism even on political comedy shows.

Eh, well I'm Norwegian, so I guess I'm not the kind of european to hero worship.

I don't recognize the presentation of Obama in western Europe that you have seen. I could have switched the channel and not read the articles of course. As for comedy shows, perhaps he still hasn't set off the creative funny bone for the script writers.

As for the last sentence,

This - Republicans= war, democrats = peace stupidity is exactly the type of crap youy get from people who know only what they hear in their local european media, all of which paints bush as a child who has **** cheyney change his nappies and obama as God's representative on earth.

Bill Clinton was talking about invading iraq in 1998, and him and Al gore passed a motion in the senate called the iraq resolution act. Moreover Clinton did go to war in the balkans and ordered a famous, poorly researched bombing of a vital medicine factory in Sudan.

Had Bush lost the 2000 election, America would still have invaded iraq as seen by the fact that half the democrats in congress voted for it anyway, the would be president - Al gore, backed it, the would be vice president - joseph lieberman was its most vocal supporter, and more importantly it was seen as a politically expedient thing to do, and would be especially for the democrats who would stand to gain a piece of their rival parties base.

And Obama is the biggest pilitico of the lot. His record as a senator,state senator and presidential candidate to make up and change his mind based on what is politically expedient, is legendary. If oabama saw a poll tomorrow that nuking canada would win him the election he would do it in a heartbeat.

I don't think Republicans= war, democrats = peace is what drives my views. Reality is much more complex, and again I don't recognize this from the media I have been exposed to. Perhaps I ignored such simplicities or avoided articles likely to postulate them.

There was no Iraq invasion in 1998, just a lot of bombing. In the Balkans the US responded to European prodding/begging to get involved. After Mogadishu the US population was not in a mood for war.

The medicine factory, I would assume was targeted because of faulty intelligence and not some warmongering plan to deprive the Sudanese of medicines.

I don't think Gore would have acted like Bush in regards to Iraq. The thing to remember is the kind of foreign policy ideas an admin takes in. Bush took in the neocons, while Gore would have relied on much the same group as they did in the 90s.

But if they decided to use 9/11 as an excuse to rid themselves of Saddam, I don't believe they would do it in such a moronic manner(disbanding existing security structure etc). I also don't believe the Democrats would have gone for huge tax cuts, and financed the pentagon with loans. After all, they spent much of the 90's reducing the deficit. As for Lieberman, I'm pretty sure Gore knew enough Foreign policy that Lieberman would be all but sidelined in making foreign policy.

That the democrats in that environment went with the flow is not something I take as an indication of their choices had they been in Power. Bush set the tone after 9/11, and the US media followed. Anyone opposing the narrative would likely suffer.

As for Obama, well he is a politician. I'm pretty sure, had he been in the Senate at the time he would also have supported the Iraq war. But he wasn't and can use that to his advantage.

If you think I think Obama is some kind of Jesus, then you are wrong. He is a politician from the US, and resides within that narrative. My view is that within that narrative he is much better for the rest of the world than his opponent.

As for nuking Canada if the polls show it's a good idea. No, he wouldn't be that stupid, and neither would Romney.

 

[ToreBear]

There was a large riot in Sydney yesterday about this video.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/dont-bring-riots-here-victorian-muslim-leaders-plead/story-e6frf7kx-1226474867112

From what little I know of Australia, any time there is a possibility of Riots and fighting breaking out, it will break out.

I think living in a place were all the wildlife is lethal would do that to me too.

 

[rhubroma]

I think to arrive at a more accurate rendition of what has actually taken place and is going on, you have to combine what I wrote about Muslim tribalism with what Blutto’s link said about US and Western Imperialism.

The Muslim world is today totally ****ed-up, because any society that is that enslaved to its religion is no good in my book. At the same time it must be admitted, for the reasons that Roberts elucidated in his analysis, the US has been behaving like any other imperial state of the past, which it has only thinly veiled behind the ideology of “exporting democracy.” The Muslims aren’t going to see the “virtue” in US lead military actions in their countries, when stray bombs extinguish grammar schools. So while the Muslim world is hopelessly regressive, America is by no means progressive.

On the one hand Islam is lived by many of its faithful as an unviable creed in which the figure of the Prophet doesn’t consent satire, let alone mockery. Two female Islamic students in France interviewed by le Parisien have said: “We nourish within ourselves an immense love for the Prophet, the most perfect man that has ever lived. To humiliate him signifies to mutilate our love.” In less ingenuous terms, Malek Chebel, a specialist of Islamic studies, has analyzed the conflict in action with some noteworthy observations. To begin: “Westerners need to keep in mind that the relationship with imagery still represents a novelty for the Islamic masses. Up until twenty years or so ago imagery was prohibited, since it arose suspicions. When this type of imagery, then, comes to directly touch upon the figure of Mohammad, the cholera explodes into violence.“ Still more: “Within the most cultured Islamic environment this insignificant film, was judged for what it is: namely, ridiculous nonsense. The Arab masses, however, aren’t capable of this type of unemotional judgment. They only feel attacked by a film that contains a slew of insults against their religion and, if that weren’t enough, was made in America.” Professor Chebal thinks that the present episode is even graver than the caricatures published in a Danish newspaper in 2005: “Then there was up for debate the freedom of expression within the press. This time there is only the will to befoul and insult Islam and its Prophet.”

Prof. Chebal’s thoughts, while comprehensible, nevertheless evidence how undomesticated the Arabs are with any concept of freedom of thought ("incapable of this type of unemotional judgment") and tolerance of other’s ideas, however offensive to one’s religion. In addition Chebal confirms that the Muslim religious-politco elite is absolutely paranoid about the effects of Westernization may have on liberating Islamic society from the firm clutches of its tenacious control over it, hence the suspicion imagery arose: also because, once the imagery gets out there, it becomes increasingly difficult to monitor and control and might actually instigate critical thinking among the masses.

On the other hand the US has been bombing the Muslim world for a decade know, has opted to impose an ideology by force to maintain its global hegemony and economic interests, for which it hasn’t mattered whether there has been a republican or a democrat in the White House. While it has always provided unwavering support for its ally Israel against the drama of the Palestinian people. There is also far too much bigotry and theological discourse within its own socio-political make-up, particularly within the leadership of its conservative political class and its constituents, which by no means though has left the democratic party immune from its venomous bite.

As far as Europe is concerned, I’m beginning to think that under the leadership of France it has behaved no better than its US overlord in pushing to arrive at the UN resolution to bomb Libya, ostensibly to liberate the Libyans from the bloody dictator Gadhafi. If this is how Europe wants to show a leadership role, then they only behave under the principles of a less broad and far-reaching imperialism.

Lastly it is probably true that the anti-Islam film was the trigger, though not the cause, of the flash-point which has risen Muslim ire, but one has to wonder about the timing. A never heard of before director on the film market who, look at the case on the anniversary of 9-11, serves up on a plate a perfect excuse to Islamic extremism and a chance to galvanize a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda during a period that seems for quite some time to have seen their potency obfuscated. Who knows if we’ll ever know the whole story behind this sordid affair. While talk about imbecility: take a look at the way political opportunism is created by such events in Romney vs. Obama.

 

[Amsterhammer]

This should all be in the us politics thread btw.




By european you of course you mean the old elitist - germany, france britain deal and not actual europe. This brainless heroworship of a man who is at the end of the day a politician is far less prevalent outside these 3 major powers.

Besides what people ignore is that obama would not be half as popular in western europe if he actually had to answer to people here rather than be presented by all media as some sort of superhero, which is what he currently gets. I mean the bbc for example have as one of their adverts obama saying - "change", and a father in a hospital holding his new born child and starting to smile as he sees obama on screen. Thats just an example but throughout western europe its been 4 years of obama shown in a positive light and totaly immune from cirticism even on political comedy shows.

As for the last sentence,

This - Republicans= war, democrats = peace stupidity is exactly the type of crap youy get from people who know only what they hear in their local european media, all of which paints bush as a child who has **** cheyney change his nappies and obama as God's representative on earth.

Bill Clinton was talking about invading iraq in 1998, and him and Al gore passed a motion in the senate called the iraq resolution act. Moreover Clinton did go to war in the balkans and ordered a famous, poorly researched bombing of a vital medicine factory in Sudan.

Had Bush lost the 2000 election, America would still have invaded iraq as seen by the fact that half the democrats in congress voted for it anyway, the would be president - Al gore, backed it, the would be vice president - joseph lieberman was its most vocal supporter, and more importantly it was seen as a politically expedient thing to do, and would be especially for the democrats who would stand to gain a piece of their rival parties base.

And Obama is the biggest pilitico of the lot. His record as a senator,state senator and presidential candidate to make up and change his mind based on what is politically expedient, is legendary. If oabama saw a poll tomorrow that nuking canada would win him the election he would do it in a heartbeat.

I started out sn i ggering, progressed to outright head-shaking laughter, and then completely lost it by the time I reached the final, utterly ridiculous and embarrassing sentence

Then I remembered who the poster was - a youngster with massive intellectual pretensions who cannot even make the small effort to check for simple errors and misspelled names, something one would expect from a student, and who appears to live in a very different Europe to the rest of us. I usually happily ignore his lectures, but just this once feel compelled to reply.

In a nutshell Hitch, any thinking European rightly sees Obama as the lesser of two evils. Any thinking European understands that Romney, based on his own rhetoric, is more likely to start new, dangerous and foolish adventures, especially since the Rep. party has been largely hijacked by lunatic fringe extremists. Until such time as the US system changes from the ground up (not in our lifetime,) most thinking Europeans will prefer a Dem to a Rep in the White House, no matter what their respective images or public personae. It's as simple as that, and has nothing to do with 'hero worship'. That's just you displaying your personal bias. I will display my own bias by contending that the widespread European view of Dubya as a political moron controlled mainly by big oil interests, as personified by Cheney, was entirely spot on.

Returning to the topic, the 'entire film' of some 13 minutes is now on youtube. How this can even be called a 'film' is totally beyond me. It is complete and utter garbage and not worth a moment of anyone's time.

I just wonder what the reactions would be in the Bible Belt if some Muslims with an axe to grind made a 'film' ridiculing the life and person of Jesus?

 

[blutto]

....here is another article that gives a bit more context to the playing out of this weird bit of history...from an author who has the bonifides to be taken more seriously than most...and btw, if you haven't already, please read the Roberts article linked up-thread, it expands the contextual picture presented here nicely...

...the bottom line on this is a lot of different players had much to gain or lose from this incident...though in the end it may not have part of some devious master plan but just some devious dumbness..

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/romney-jumps-the-shark-libya-egypt-and-the-butterfly-effect.html

Cheers

blutto

 

[Amsterhammer]

Excellent article blutto, as was your last kink. Thanks for posting these!

 

[ToreBear]

...a nifty summary...

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=79593848

Cheers

blutto

This is a horrible article. I tried several times to read it through, but it continues to spout such ignorance that I could not take any more. When it got to quoting Cynthia McKinney I had enough. She was in Libya last year and eagerly let herself be used for Gadaffis propaganda purposes. Why she did it, I have no idea.

I think a common problem a lot of people have is that they think the Iraq war was the same as the Libya war. Then they take all the stuff filed under the Iraq war and put it in their Libya file and then start thinking. It's understandable that things go wrong when you start your reasoning process on that basis.

The guy who wrote this appears to have taken the Iraq file and put additional stickers on it. I can't torture my self through all of it to get a clear picture of how much he thinks is the same as the Iraq situation, but it appears to be a lot. Syria, Egypt etc.

So if you read this, I recommend you purge your memory, lest it permanently damage your world view.

If there are any specific points you would like to bring up, I would be happy to explain further.

....here is another article that gives a bit more context to the playing out of this weird bit of history...from an author who has the bonifides to be taken more seriously than most...and btw, if you haven't already, please read the Roberts article linked up-thread, it expands the contextual picture presented here nicely...

...the bottom line on this is a lot of different players had much to gain or lose from this incident...though in the end it may not have part of some devious master plan but just some devious dumbness..

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/romney-jumps-the-shark-libya-egypt-and-the-butterfly-effect.html

Cheers

blutto

Thank you, that was much more sensible! Juan Cole uses his grey cells from what I could gather from this article.

I didn't fine read all of it since there doesn't seem to be much new to me, or much I disagree with.

One thing worth mentioning is him using Hadeel Al Shalchi's articles for an understanding of the events. Hadeel is a good reporter and her articles give a good initial understanding, but take the details with a grain of salt. The details of this story are essential to gain a correct understanding, and the details are still unclear.

One thing though is that the events happened in phases, and it's still unclear weather those storming the embassy in the first place actually were angry demonstrators, and not a part of the overall plan.


As for stuff like people getting angry and getting their RPGs. Did Juan just make that bit up?

 

[rhubroma]

This is a horrible article. I tried several times to read it through, but it continues to spout such ignorance that I could not take any more. When it got to quoting Cynthia McKinney I had enough. She was in Libya last year and eagerly let herself be used for Gadaffis propaganda purposes. Why she did it, I have no idea.

I think a common problem a lot of people have is that they think the Iraq war was the same as the Libya war. Then they take all the stuff filed under the Iraq war and put it in their Libya file and then start thinking. It's understandable that things go wrong when you start your reasoning process on that basis.

The guy who wrote this appears to have taken the Iraq file and put additional stickers on it. I can't torture my self through all of it to get a clear picture of how much he thinks is the same as the Iraq situation, but it appears to be a lot. Syria, Egypt etc.

So if you read this, I recommend you purge your memory, lest it permanently damage your world view.

If there are any specific points you would like to bring up, I would be happy to explain further.



Thank you, that was much more sensible! Juan Cole uses his grey cells from what I could gather from this article.

I didn't fine read all of it since there doesn't seem to be much new to me, or much I disagree with.

One thing worth mentioning is him using Hadeel Al Shalchi's articles for an understanding of the events. Hadeel is a good reporter and her articles give a good initial understanding, but take the details with a grain of salt. The details of this story are essential to gain a correct understanding, and the details are still unclear.

One thing though is that the events happened in phases, and it's still unclear weather those storming the embassy in the first place actually were angry demonstrators, and not a part of the overall plan.


As for stuff like people getting angry and getting their RPGs. Did Juan just make that bit up?

No that's not the case. Though because there was the Iraq war, the case in Libya becomes much less transparent and problematical.

Especially since US policy has at some point or another supported the Saudi monarchy (even after all the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi's, but not one was from Iraq), Saddam Hussein, the monarchy of Bahrain, Mubarak for years, the Taliban, the Shah of Iran, etc., which is incongruous, among the Islamic masses, with a policy of defending liberty and equal opportunity abroad that it has of late taken upon itself as solemn duty.

Roberts is a provocateur, undoubtedly, however the inconsistencies of US foreign policy in the region and its bellicosity should at least be cause for intelligent reflection. I'm no fan of demagoguery, at the same time there is truth in the imperialist sketch portrayed. With arms mind you.

 

[pelodee]

The provocateurs know politics and religion don't mix (Robert Fisk - The Independent)

Anti-American Protests: Cutting Through Media Propaganda (Deepa Kumar - ZNet)

Humiliation and Rage in Libya (Vijay Prashad - Counterpunch)

A news story about the burning down of the Italian consulate and murder of protestors in Benghazi 2006 which is mentioned in Prashad's piece:
In Libya, 11 reportedly die in cartoon protests (CNN)

 

[ToreBear]

I think to arrive at a more accurate rendition of what has actually taken place and is going on, you have to combine what I wrote about Muslim tribalism with what Blutto’s link said about US and Western Imperialism.

The Muslim world is today totally ****ed-up, because any society that is that enslaved to its religion is no good in my book. At the same time it must be admitted, for the reasons that Roberts elucidated in his analysis, the US has been behaving like any other imperial state of the past, which it has only thinly veiled behind the ideology of “exporting democracy.” The Muslims aren’t going to see the “virtue” in US lead military actions in their countries, when stray bombs extinguish grammar schools. So while the Muslim world is hopelessly regressive, America is by no means progressive.

The situation for Muslims is different from country to country. How the religion influences politics is also different from country to country. I agree regarding the US. They are distrusted in the arab world for good reason.

On the one hand Islam is lived by many of its faithful as an unviable creed in which the figure of the Prophet doesn’t consent satire, let alone mockery. They only feel attacked by a film that contains a slew of insults against their religion and, if that weren’t enough, was made in America.” Professor Chebal thinks that the present episode is even graver than the caricatures published in a Danish newspaper in 2005: “Then there was up for debate the freedom of expression within the press. This time there is only the will to befoul and insult Islam and its Prophet.”

I think the there are too many muslims in too many different countries to allow such a broad generalization. Arabs in Lebanon are not going to react the same way as arabs in Yemen. There are many reasons for this, differences in religious practice is only part of the reason.

I think the Danish cartoon problem was much more difficult. Now 7 years later there is a greater understanding of what the modern world means in terms of communication.

Prof. Chebal’s thoughts, while comprehensible, nevertheless evidence how undomesticated the Arabs are with any concept of freedom of thought ("incapable of this type of unemotional judgment") and tolerance of other’s ideas, however offensive to one’s religion. In addition Chebal confirms that the Muslim religious-politco elite is absolutely paranoid about the effects of Westernization may have on liberating Islamic society from the firm clutches of its tenacious control over it, hence the suspicion imagery arose: also because, once the imagery gets out there, it becomes increasingly difficult to monitor and control and might actually instigate critical thinking among the masses.

Freedom of thought and Freedom of speech are new concepts in many arab countries. Only with the Arab spring have the restrictions on speech been loosened. Still there is little understanding in these countries about the limits governments have on their behavior. This might lead to not understanding why the US can not stop films like this, since this is what has been done in their own countries in the past.

As for leaders being afraid of westernization, it depends on the situation. Were leaders rely on the uninformed masses to stay in power, this is true, but in newly free societies this is not true.

On the other hand the US has been bombing the Muslim world for a decade know, has opted to impose an ideology by force to maintain its global hegemony and economic interests, for which it hasn’t mattered whether there has been a republican or a democrat in the White House. While it has always provided unwavering support for its ally Israel against the drama of the Palestinian people. There is also far too much bigotry and theological discourse within its own socio-political make-up, particularly within the leadership of its conservative political class and its constituents, which by no means though has left the democratic party immune from its venomous bite.

I agree. Especially in the last 10 years this has become worse in the US.

As far as Europe is concerned, I’m beginning to think that under the leadership of France it has behaved no better than its US overlord in pushing to arrive at the UN resolution to bomb Libya, ostensibly to liberate the Libyans from the bloody dictator Gadhafi. If this is how Europe wants to show a leadership role, then they only behave under the principles of a less broad and far-reaching imperialism.

Actually it was under French-UK leadership. The UK might have been even more visible had they not had a diplomatic misfortune in Benghazi in early March 2011. As for imperialist. Pushing for and getting a UN resolution is not very imperialistic in my book. Europe wanted to intervene because the cost of not intervening would likely be very high. However most European countries were unwilling to intervene unless it's legality was firmly established. Something the UN resolution did.

Lastly it is probably true that the anti-Islam film was the trigger, though not the cause of the flash-point which has risen Muslim ire, but one has to wonder about the timing. A never heard of before director on the film market who, look at the case on the anniversary of 9-11, serves up on a plate a perfect excuse to Islamic extremism and a chance to galvanize a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda during a period that seems for quite some time to have seen their potency obfuscated. Who knows if we’ll ever know the whole story behind this sordid affair. While talk about imbecility: take a look at the way political opportunism is created by such events in Romney vs. Obama.

I agree, The movie became known a few days before 9-11 in Egypt, despite being uploaded in July on youtube. Perfect timing for extremists to make use of it on 9-11. I think the Benghazi attack was preplanned by a local Libyan group under direction of someone affiliated with Al Qaeda. That Ambassador Stevens was caught up in the event was just a coincidence. However his presence might have led to an increase in security beyond what was originally expected, and hence ironically insured that fewer lives were lost in the attack due to the stiffer resistance the attackers were faced with.

No that's not the case. Though because there was the Iraq war, the case in Libya becomes much less transparent and problematical.

Especially since US policy has at some point or another supported the Saudi monarchy (even after all the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi's, but not one was from Iraq), Saddam Hussein, the monarchy of Bahrain, Mubarak for years, the Taliban, the Shah of Iran, etc., which is incongruous, among the Islamic masses, with a policy of defending liberty and equal opportunity abroad that it has of late taken upon itself as solemn duty.

Roberts is a provocateur, undoubtedly, however the inconsistencies of US foreign policy in the region and its bellicosity should at least be cause for intelligent reflection. I'm no fan of demagoguery, at the same time there is truth in the imperialist sketch portrayed. With arms mind you.

I don't think one should look for a one rule fits all events as a sign of consistency. The US policy might very well be consistent. We just don't know what policy they are following. Hence we don't know which action it would be consistent for it to follow.

If we list some simple reasons for each situation we might get an idea of what overall policy the US is pursuing.

Libya: It's European allies demanded action, not helping could risk the future of NATO, which is a vital national interest.

Support for Saudi Arabia: They have a lot of oil, and straddle important sea routes for oil. Keeping the oil flowing and the sea routes transporting this and other oil open would count as a vital national interest.

Bahrain: In Saudi Arabia's sphere of vital interest. Going against their interest could jeopardize the relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Mubarak: He kept the peace with Israel, kept open the Suez for trade. Was not allied to the Soviet Union any longer. And there was no way to topple him without risking any of the two or three major Security interests. Also, what would replace him was also unclear. (Mind you in last years situation, the US did work to get Mubarak to step down.)

The Taliban: The US has never supported them. The Taliban became a force after the Soviets had withdrawn. The US did support the Mujahedin during the War, however those were mostly what would later become the Northern Alliance(Talibans enemy).

Support for the Shah: Cold war, weapons sales, he was brought to power by them etc.

Iraq: He tried to kill Dubyas daddy? The Iraq war is something I find hard to explain as rational.

Needless to say it was an illegal invasion, since it had not gotten a UN resolution, and there was no good argument to be made regarding self defense.


Personally I don't see much of a policy of defending liberty and equal opportunity abroad as a US policy.

I see more a policy of longer and shorter term interests being followed. If for example a choice needs to be made between oil and human rights, I don't see human rights winning.

However if defending Liberty etc abroad carries few drawbacks, I see no reason why the US should not do that.

 

[rhubroma]

The situation for Muslims is different from country to country...

As a Westerner, one who likes to humbly call himself a secular rationalist, and having visited several Muslim countries in the Near East, the Maghreb and sub-Sahara Africa, I'm well aware of the diversity between nations. In all cases, however, (to not even bring Saudi Arabia and Iran into the discussion) the concept of the lay State is simply, even in this day, a distant whim of the future. At the same time I have found a great sense of humanity in these societies, which at times, however, is accompanied by a diffidence toward the non-Muslim.

I think the there are too many muslims in too many different countries to allow such a broad generalization. Arabs in Lebanon are not going to react the same way as arabs in Yemen. There are many reasons for this, differences in religious practice is only part of the reason.

Whether I'm in Turkey or Tunisia, Morocco or Zanzibar, Jordan or Libya, the sense is that an intense religiosity is an integral condition of being. Of course one must measure his words, even among so called progressive Muslims, to not fall into the trap of unwelcome, or indeed imprudent, controversy. A Muslim's faith is not up for discussion. He is completely shut-off to any notion of historical criticism and religion in a post-Enlightenment sense.

I think the Danish cartoon problem was much more difficult. Now 7 years later there is a greater understanding of what the modern world means in terms of communication.

Of course the current hullabaloo suggests that not much has changed.

Freedom of thought and Freedom of speech are new concepts in many arab countries...

Precisely. This is why I said that under the current regimes, the Arab societies have simply been stifled and repressed (both by the religious hierarchies and the so called secular despots), so that they are simply undomesticated with a notion of free speech and thought.

As for leaders being afraid of westernization...

Whenever a regime risks its hold on power, anti-Westernizm will come to the surface, simply because in its desperation, as we saw with Saddam, as we see in Libya and as we see in Iran, it seeks a scapegoat. Bearing in mind that the US and the West have never lost an occasion in offering such regimes and religious hierarchies an occasion to become instruments for venting popular rage and frustration. Besides the military always has too powerful a role (look at Egypt), while at a certain point the fundamentalists find ways to bring the necessary pressure to bear over the state (look at the results of popular elections).

I agree. Especially in the last 10 years this has become worse in the US.

Don't need to comment here.

Actually it was under French-UK leadership. The UK might have been even more visible had they not had a diplomatic misfortune in Benghazi in early March 2011. As for imperialist. Pushing for and getting a UN resolution is not very imperialistic in my book. Europe wanted to intervene because the cost of not intervening would likely be very high. However most European countries were unwilling to intervene unless it's legality was firmly established. Something the UN resolution did.

Europe was caught unprepared to deal with the responsibility of having to actually be held accountable for itself, and not have an alibi in the US for once, even if of course the US got involved. At any rate you had France that wanted to show itself to be at the pinnacle of EU leadership, even though that place is really held by Germany, which was not on board. Britain basically took the role of US surogate, while Italy, under Berlusconi, was caught with its pants down, because just a couple of months before Gadhafi was being wined and dined in Rome to get all Libya's gas and oil at a good market price. It was a fiasco and one never could understand how bad the dictator really was and simply how much oil was behind it all. In any case the final sense I got is that the latter was significantly greater and that Europe behaved in the example of its US overlord, although I reserve some further consideration before arriving at a final verdict. Also because Gadhafi was no doubt a bloody dictator, but so was Saddam when the US supported him against Iran, and apparently the Libyan leader was setting up excellent social programs and trying to get his country off the petrol dollar, which has basically enslaved so many oil rich states in the region to the Americans and Opec.

I agree, The movie became known a few days before 9-11 in Egypt, despite being uploaded in July on youtube. Perfect timing for extremists to make use of it on 9-11. I think the Benghazi attack was preplanned by a local Libyan group under direction of someone affiliated with Al Qaeda. That Ambassador Stevens was caught up in the event was just a coincidence. However his presence might have led to an increase in security beyond what was originally expected, and hence ironically insured that fewer lives were lost in the attack due to the stiffer resistance the attackers were faced with.

I'm reading an article today in la Repubblica about this very topic: The New Cove of Militants of Bengasi: "We will rebuild Libya with the sharia." Should such zealots take power, the Arab Spring will be transformed into the Arab Winter in no time.

I don't think one should look for a one rule fits all events as a sign of consistency. The US policy might very well be consistent. We just don't know what policy they are following. Hence we don't know which action it would be consistent for it to follow.

If we list some simple reasons for each situation we might get an idea of what overall policy the US is pursuing.

Libya: It's European allies demanded action, not helping could risk the future of NATO, which is a vital national interest.

Support for Saudi Arabia: They have a lot of oil, and straddle important sea routes for oil. Keeping the oil flowing and the sea routes transporting this and other oil open would count as a vital national interest.

Bahrain: In Saudi Arabia's sphere of vital interest. Going against their interest could jeopardize the relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Mubarak: He kept the peace with Israel, kept open the Suez for trade. Was not allied to the Soviet Union any longer. And there was no way to topple him without risking any of the two or three major Security interests. Also, what would replace him was also unclear. (Mind you in last years situation, the US did work to get Mubarak to step down.)

The Taliban: The US has never supported them. The Taliban became a force after the Soviets had withdrawn. The US did support the Mujahedin during the War, however those were mostly what would later become the Northern Alliance(Talibans enemy).

Support for the Shah: Cold war, weapons sales, he was brought to power by them etc.

Iraq: He tried to kill Dubyas daddy? The Iraq war is something I find hard to explain as rational.

Needless to say it was an illegal invasion, since it had not gotten a UN resolution, and there was no good argument to be made regarding self-defense.


Personally I don't see much of a policy of defending liberty and equal opportunity abroad as a US policy.

I see more a policy of longer and shorter term interests being followed. If for example a choice needs to be made between oil and human rights, I don't see human rights winning.

However if defending Liberty etc. abroad carries few drawbacks, I see no reason why the US should not do that.

I understand realpolitik, but it doesn't mean I have to like it, while some find in it a convenient alibi for what they call leadership and governance. America, like all imperial states, has always placed its own interests before those of weaker societies and states, and mostly against what's good for those regions (or at least all but a very small minority elite that makes a killing in its business relations with the superpower). In this regard it has no justification to boast of exceptonalism. The Saudi regime has been among the worst examples of anti-democratic states, Mosadeq was a secular leader who wanted the Iranian oil profits to benefit Iranians not BP, for which under British and US orchestration he paid his life for it (which begot the Shah, which begot Khomeini, which begot jihad); same with the Mujahedin that begot Osama bin Laden and practices a shared fundamentalism and extremism with the Taliban; Mubarak was a vassal of the US in keeping Israel happy after Sadat was assassinated, and so forth and so on. To speak nothing of Latin America. Such declinations of power may be politically expedient, but they can't be labeled just or even fortuitous. So long as the US behaves like any other imperial state of the past, it will never be respected, let alone admired, but either feared or hated. This is what the discussion is ultimately concerned about in US-Arab-Muslim relations.

Naturally I don't limit myself to one source, but hundreds and thousands of articles over the years. While if I could recommend the work of one historian regarding US history and imperialism, it would be the late Howard Zinn and works like A People's History of American Empire and A People's History of the United States, which tell history from the bottom up and not top down. In short not a victor's account of what happened as is usually the case.

PS: I recently read in this period of global economic stagnation, the arms trade is up 30% over last years sales. This one statistic alone is atrocious and naturally repugnent and demonstrates that the world is ruthless, mean and ultimately depressing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg

 

[The Hitch]

In a nutshell , any thinking European rightly sees Obama as the lesser of two evils.

This type of elitism i have not yet come across. Usually elitists are intellectuals arguing that those who disagree with them only do so because of ignorance, lack of education, etcetera.

The above uses existing concepts of who is educated and who is uneducated, and claims there is a correlation between the category in which one falls and their political opinion.

Hearing someone like you spout elitism is a bit different. Because to claim that you are the thinking person, and anyone who disagrees with you is the ignoramus, you actually have to mix the table up completely, and throw a number of intellectuals and well educated people into the ignoramus category, while elevating yourself into "educated", or "thinking" as you put it.

As for mispelled names, writing on a smart phone does that. A smart phone is a recent invention, well more advanced but slightly harder to type on, than your Apple Macintosh.

 

[pelodee]

Pamela Geller's Blog Solicited Funds For anti-Muhammad Film (Bruce Wilson - Talk To Action)

 

[rhubroma]

Pamela Geller's Blog Solicited Funds For anti-Muhammad Film (Bruce Wilson - Talk To Action)

So it seems as if a Jewish bigot was somehow worked into it after all. Funny how Christian bigots and Jewish bigots have formed an instrumental alliance in the U.S.A. against the Islamic bigots (to quote BroDeal), which is contrary to the traditional antagonism, when not outright hatred, between the two groups, though which today seems connected to shared objectives and worldview. A merely informal and less effective interconnectivity, as that established between finance, strategic policy making in the Mideast and US military action in the region.

 

[hiero2]

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that some Muslims seemingly claim the right to kill other (non-Muslim) people because of . . .

My gut reaction is why should any non-Muslim be sensitive to or understanding of, let alone deferential to a religion that - in this modern age - can be utilized to justify the attack on a US consulate and the murder of four US citizens - including the ambassador? B/c I've posted the above editorial cartoon, would it be OK for a practitioner of Islam to kill me now?

Islam seems incompatible w/ modernity, . . .

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
People use the above comment as an excuse. We are not all ignorant fools here. However, the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center were Muslim. Please send me a note when hillbilly white rednecks start strapping bombs to themselves and blasting away buildings and hi-jacking planes. No, Timmy Mcveigh doesn't count, he was ****ed because the Branch Davidians got there butts in a sling with the Feds. Besides, he just left the VBIED in front of the building and tried to escape.

. . . All based on belief and nothing more.

I think the comment about McVeigh misses the point. Mcveigh KILLED people. THAT is the point. The suicide bombers are killing people. In all likelihood, nobody except their mom and dad would care if the suicide bombers only committed suicide. The point is killing people.

Religious people from Christianity are just as guilty of killing others as followers of Islam. We in the US don't have to go far to find examples. We have to realize that the emotions and belief systems that drive such violence are never buried deeply. Abortion clinics are one example that the violence is only a scratch away.

At this point in history, two things seem obvious to me: one, the peoples of the Arabian peninsula and northern Africa do not yet understand democracy in their blood. Or, perhaps they do, but they are willing to tolerate more violence against each other than other democratic countries. Like the democracy, for example, in Colombia - where the internal violence of side against side has been ongoing for centuries. I say "understand in their blood" - but what I mean is the knowledge that I grew up with - I might disagree with other people, but at some level tolerating those opinions was essential. Enough Americans (or Brits, or French, insert whomever) believe this, that among us, those who would embrace violent answers are generally muzzled. I think, for the countries of the Arab spring, having their own voice is too new for them to embrace this.

The 2nd thing that seems obvious to me is that, at this point in history, Islam in general seems to be having a fundamentalist surge in power. They happen on occasion, and not just to Islam. However, this surge, because it is occurring in petro-dollar countries, has been of particular problem to us. The petro-dollars means there is money available, and money means you can buy guns, bombs, and time.

There is a flip side - and we don't have to go far to see it. Read some history on Milosovic, and Ratko Mladic, and the other Serbs who massacred, what, 7-8K Serb Muslim men, in the Srbenica events? Of those guys, the ones who can still speak to us - they still believe they were right. But then, so does Idi Amin (think he was right).

Is there an end to it? Idk - look at Ireland, and the troubles there. I've never been clear on what exactly ended that - although with the return of economic hardship, it seems there has been an increase in sectarian violence. But I only get the news over here, and Ireland is a long way away - so what do I know?

 

[sublimit]

Maybe the USA will see sense and reign these Jewish and ultra nutty Christian fundamentalists back a little bit. They're in danger of losing the sphere of influence in the Middle East otherwise to the Russians and Chinese.

 

[joe_papp]

Let them eat pork!

Maybe the USA will see sense and reign these Jewish and ultra nutty Christian fundamentalists back a little bit. They're in danger of losing the sphere of influence in the Middle East otherwise to the Russians and Chinese.

How?... by abrogating their/our free speech rights by trying to criminalize certain political speech, when the Supreme Court here unanimously found that even speech that encourages the use of force/violence in the political context is legal? Uhhh, no thanks. Let the Muslim fundamentalists / Islamofascists riot in the streets across the Middle East and hopefully blow-up each other.

You must be thrilled that on Thursday of last week, the Obama White House called executives at Google, the parent company of YouTube, and "requested" that the company review whether the anti-Muslim film that has sparked such unrest could be removed on the ground that it somehow violated YouTube's terms of service.

As was reported, "Free speech groups such as the ACLU and EFF expressed serious concerns about the White House's actions. While acknowledging that there was nothing legally compulsory about the White House's request (indeed, Google announced the next day they would leave the video up), the civil liberties groups nonetheless noted – correctly – that "it does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship", and that "by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don't want them to take it down; when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect"."

As G2 noted correctly, "Free speech is not intended to protect benign, uncontroversial, or inoffensive ideas. Those ideas do not need protection. It is intended to protect – to foster – exactly those political ideas that are most offensive, most provocative, most designed to inspire others to act in the name of its viewpoints. One could say that every significant political idea, on the right and the left, has that provocative potential. If speech can be constrained on the ground that it can inspire or provoke violence by others, then a wide range of political ideas, arguably the only ones that really matter, are easily subject to state suppression."

Personally I think all those non-Muslims / non-Islamofascists who are offended by the offensive, violent, destructive, murderous behavior of these seething masses of primal Muslims across the globe should themselves take to the streets, but peacefully and without murdering ambassadors or attacking other countries' diplomatic missions, and march in protest of militant Islam and those who think that their dogmatic views and immense insecurities somehow permit them to ignore the rule of law and murder in the name of a "prophet." And as part of the counter-demonstration, I would hope that these non-Muslims/non-Islamofascists carried signs depicting said "prophet" contextually, w/ an eye towards the violence and murder his "followers" seem to think he condones their committing!

But then for the sake of consistency, I would hope that later on in the week, or perhaps next month, the counter-demonstrators would march in protest against the USGOVT's criminalizing political speech such as in the example cases cited recently by Glenn Greenwald here.

(They should also protest against the USGOVT's misguided attempt to pass law(s) making it a criminal offense to protest at military funerals via Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012.)

PS. lol if you think that Russia has markedly better relations by-and-large w/ the Muslim-in-the-street, let alone the Islamofascists, than we do in the West! Sure, Syria might be a client state of Russia, but have you never heard of Chechnya?

 

[RedheadDane]

I suppose the only way to 'reign back' fundies of any religion is to teach them that it is possible to be religious without being crazy about it.
Just look at me...

 

[Netserk]

This is outrageous! Kill them all!
BTW did anyone see 'Life of Brian', those who made that film should die as well! How dare anyone criticize religion


[/sarcasm]

 

[ToreBear]

As a Westerner, one who likes to humbly call himself a secular rationalist, and having visited several Muslim countries in the Near East, the Maghreb and sub-Sahara Africa, I'm well aware of the diversity between nations. In all cases, however, (to not even bring Saudi Arabia and Iran into the discussion) the concept of the lay State is sim

Of course the current hullabaloo suggests that not much has changed.

We don't disagree on that many points. The way I see it the general quirkiness of many muslims in these countries is due to the society they find themselves in. There might perhaps be some general muslim view or sensitivities, but I find it much more prudent to understand these from a societal context and not a religious one. Hence the intrusion of the US embassy property in Cairo is much better explained if one focuses on the Egyptian context, and not the religious.

On this current controversy, I would expect some more hullabaloo on Friday and then not much after that.

The Cartoon debacle brought the conflict of free speech vs. blasphemy to world attention in 2006. This has meant that more muslims are now aware of how freedom of speech in western societies work. Also western society has grown more understanding of muslim sensitivities.

The reactions and demos wore much bigger and much more inflamed in 2006 than now. Demos today are IMHO much more based on local issues than any Muslim anger as a result of the cartoons back in 2006.

Whenever a regime risks its hold on power, anti-Westernizm will come to the surface, simply because in its desperation, as we saw with Saddam, as we see in Libya and as we see in Iran, it seeks a scapegoat. Bearing in mind that the US and the West have never lost an occasion in offering such regimes and religious hierarchies an occasion to become instruments for venting popular rage and frustration. Besides the military always has too powerful a role (look at Egypt), while at a certain point the fundamentalists find ways to bring the necessary pressure to bear over the state (look at the results of popular elections).

Desperate regimes try desperate things

Here I also have trouble generalizing. There was one situation before and one situation now. The before and now has came at different times in different countries. Also the degree of appealing to "Islamic values" was different between different countries. As to the power of the military, this was and is different between different countries. The Egyptian military was and is exceptionally powerful while for example the Libyan military was left with little status and little financing for the last 10-20 years.

Hence why I find it so difficult and perhaps also futile to generalize so much across the Arab world. Some things are similar across countries, but the essential explanatory information is found within the countries themselves.

Europe was caught unprepared to deal with the responsibility of having to actually be held accountable for itself, and not have an alibi in the US for once, even if of course the US got involved. At any rate you had France that wanted to show itself to be at the pinnacle of EU leadership, even though that place is really held by Germany, which was not on board. Britain basically took the role of US surogate, while Italy, under Berlusconi, was caught with its pants down, because just a couple of months before Gadhafi was being wined and dined in Rome to get all Libya's gas and oil at a good market price. It was a fiasco and one never could understand how bad the dictator really was and simply how much oil was behind it all. In any case the final sense I got is that the latter was significantly greater and that Europe behaved in the example of its US overlord, although I reserve some further consideration before arriving at a final verdict. Also because Gadhafi was no doubt a bloody dictator, but so was Saddam when the US supported him against Iran, and apparently the Libyan leader was setting up excellent social programs and trying to get his country off the petrol dollar, which has basically enslaved so many oil rich states in the region to the Americans and Opec.

Here I find many points of disagreement.

Europe was much more prepared for Libya than for Kosovo. A ballpark figure I have in my mind is that US vs European involvement in Kosovo was 90% US and 10% European. This instigated a lot of reform in European militaries. 12 years later the US only stood for 10% while Non US were 90%. This is as it should be in my mind since this was a NATO led operation and the US is it's most important member. I personally don't see such a need for European nations to have the capability the US brought to the table in this operation. The Libya operation was structured in a very special way. If any of the European nations wanted to do all themselves they could do so by sending ground troops which together with other assets would have quickly neutralized Gadaffi.

There are many reasons for action by the different countries. Sarkozy/France was caught red faced by his foreign ministers(woman who got replaced) actions relating to the Tunisian revolution and wanted to redeem himself/France in the eyes of the Arab world. Sarkozy also carried ideas of a Mediterranean partnership etc. France had also recently rejoined all parts of NATO and with the UK were able to play an important role within the NATO alliance.The UK played a US role, but this is something they have often taken upon themselves both within NATO and outside.

As for Berlusconi and Italy, they were caught in the middle. Heavily compromised by Gadaffi and their previous history in Libya, but also not willing to refuse to be a team player. Italy did what was required of them, but not much more.

As for the reasons for the intervention, Gadaffi kept Europe supplied with oil before the revolution, and would have continued after if he had stayed in power. From a strictly oil perspective. Europe gained nothing they did not already have. Europe did however avoid a much more bloody and drawn out civil war on it's border, scores of refugees etc.

US support for Saddam I feel is a different matter, different context both historically and geographically. I don't argue the US supported the NATO operation because they wanted to spread democracy, the US did so because other interests were at stake. Now if they in some way contributed to the spread of democracy, for them I'm sure it's a happy side effect.

As for Gaddafi's care for his people, this was in a large part window dressing. The polls I posted earlier should go some way to explaining this. Gaddafis rule was not really based on a modern society, some got a bucket of money, while others suffered in poverty. Some cities were given everything, while others were actively prevented from developing. The health system perhaps existed in some areas, but still Libyans with money would go to Tunisia if they could afford treatment, and Europe if they were rich.

The money from Libyas resources went into his pockets and those who he felt supported him.

Gadaffis social programs were there, but they were programs designed to support his rule rather than support his people. And even then their quality was ridiculous compared to the resources he used for his own purposes.

He wanted to be the King of Africa. First he tried to use weapons, then he tried bribes. His bribes were much more effective, hence why many Africans might miss him.

The petrodollar argument does not hold water. There is no enslavement there, neither to OPEC nor the US. Libya had a lot of Gold, but that was because of limited investment opportunities due to western embargo more than anything else. Once the embargo was lifted Gadaffi went on a spending spree.

If you are thinking of the resource curse, that is a totally different area of discussion.

I'm reading an article today in la Repubblica about this very topic: The New Cove of Militants of Bengasi: "We will rebuild Libya with the sharia." Should such zealots take power, the Arab Spring will be transformed into the Arab Winter in no time.

I understand realpolitik, but it doesn't mean I have to like it, while some find in it a convenient alibi for what they call leadership and governance. America, l

I'm not really that concerned that the zealots will take control.

Yes the US has been imperialistic. But if you compare them to the past imperialists like the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium etc they have been quite nice.

Also you are forgetting the Cold War situation. The US believe it or not was an important guarantor for my Freedom and for my country. We had a much nastier imperialist living next door. To judge the US in the cold war while ignoring the historical context and the Soviet Union makes no sense. Yes they made many mistakes. Yes they were focused on their own interests, yes they they followed policies more reminiscent of the old imperialists in South America. But they were not like the old imperialists all over the world.

As for the muslim/arab worlds view of them, I would argue the Israeli occupation and the US support for Israel as the single biggest issue. US policies are in a large part focused on supporting israel in the middle east. This requires the US to follow policies which are in opposition to the interests of the average citizens of the Arab world. That and the need for Oil compromise any idealistic ideals which any US politician might initially hold.

As for american exceptionalism, thats just silly talk in the US. They are not endowed with any exceptional rights just because they are the US. They are big and important, that is all. They are not a light unto nations or gods country bla bla. They are the USA. Thats all.

 

[ToreBear]

This is outrageous! Kill them all!
BTW did anyone see 'Life of Brian', those who made that film should die as well! How dare anyone criticize religion


[/sarcasm]

I think it was banned in Norway when it first came out. Us Norwegians have always been a bit backward. Well as a Dane I'm sure you know all about it.

 

[Netserk]

I think it was banned in Norway when it first came out. Us Norwegians have always been a bit backward. Well as a Dane I'm sure you know all about it.

I think in Denmark many appreciate dark/British humour. In general we're a very liberal nation, and unlike Germany we don't ban books.

 

[rhubroma]

We don't disagree on that many points. The way I see it the general quirkiness of many muslims in these countries is due to the society they find themselves in. There might perhaps be some general muslim view or sensitivities, but I find it much more prudent to understand these from a societal context and not a religious one. Hence the intrusion of the US embassy property in Cairo is much better explained if one focuses on the Egyptian context, and not the religious.

On this current controversy, I would expect some more hullabaloo on Friday and then not much after that.

The Cartoon debacle brought the conflict of free speech vs. blasphemy to world attention in 2006. This has meant that more muslims are now aware of how freedom of speech in western societies work. Also western society has grown more understanding of muslim sensitivities.

The reactions and demos wore much bigger and much more inflamed in 2006 than now. Demos today are IMHO much more based on local issues than any Muslim anger as a result of the cartoons back in 2006.



Desperate regimes try desperate things

Here I also have trouble generalizing. There was one situation before and one situation now. The before and now has came at different times in different countries. Also the degree of appealing to "Islamic values" was different between different countries. As to the power of the military, this was and is different between different countries. The Egyptian military was and is exceptionally powerful while for example the Libyan military was left with little status and little financing for the last 10-20 years.

Hence why I find it so difficult and perhaps also futile to generalize so much across the Arab world. Some things are similar across countries, but the essential explanatory information is found within the countries themselves.




Here I find many points of disagreement.

Europe was much more prepared for Libya than for Kosovo. A ballpark figure I have in my mind is that US vs European involvement in Kosovo was 90% US and 10% European. This instigated a lot of reform in European militaries. 12 years later the US only stood for 10% while Non US were 90%. This is as it should be in my mind since this was a NATO led operation and the US is it's most important member. I personally don't see such a need for European nations to have the capability the US brought to the table in this operation. The Libya operation was structured in a very special way. If any of the European nations wanted to do all themselves they could do so by sending ground troops which together with other assets would have quickly neutralized Gadaffi.

There are many reasons for action by the different countries. Sarkozy/France was caught red faced by his foreign ministers(woman who got replaced) actions relating to the Tunisian revolution and wanted to redeem himself/France in the eyes of the Arab world. Sarkozy also carried ideas of a Mediterranean partnership etc. France had also recently rejoined all parts of NATO and with the UK were able to play an important role within the NATO alliance.The UK played a US role, but this is something they have often taken upon themselves both within NATO and outside.

As for Berlusconi and Italy, they were caught in the middle. Heavily compromised by Gadaffi and their previous history in Libya, but also not willing to refuse to be a team player. Italy did what was required of them, but not much more.

As for the reasons for the intervention, Gadaffi kept Europe supplied with oil before the revolution, and would have continued after if he had stayed in power. From a strictly oil perspective. Europe gained nothing they did not already have. Europe did however avoid a much more bloody and drawn out civil war on it's border, scores of refugees etc.

US support for Saddam I feel is a different matter, different context both historically and geographically. I don't argue the US supported the NATO operation because they wanted to spread democracy, the US did so because other interests were at stake. Now if they in some way contributed to the spread of democracy, for them I'm sure it's a happy side effect.

As for Gaddafi's care for his people, this was in a large part window dressing. The polls I posted earlier should go some way to explaining this. Gaddafis rule was not really based on a modern society, some got a bucket of money, while others suffered in poverty. Some cities were given everything, while others were actively prevented from developing. The health system perhaps existed in some areas, but still Libyans with money would go to Tunisia if they could afford treatment, and Europe if they were rich.

The money from Libyas resources went into his pockets and those who he felt supported him.

Gadaffis social programs were there, but they were programs designed to support his rule rather than support his people. And even then their quality was ridiculous compared to the resources he used for his own purposes.

He wanted to be the King of Africa. First he tried to use weapons, then he tried bribes. His bribes were much more effective, hence why many Africans might miss him.

The petrodollar argument does not hold water. There is no enslavement there, neither to OPEC nor the US. Libya had a lot of Gold, but that was because of limited investment opportunities due to western embargo more than anything else. Once the embargo was lifted Gadaffi went on a spending spree.

If you are thinking of the resource curse, that is a totally different area of discussion.


I'm not really that concerned that the zealots will take control.

Yes the US has been imperialistic. But if you compare them to the past imperialists like the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium etc they have been quite nice.

Also you are forgetting the Cold War situation. The US believe it or not was an important guarantor for my Freedom and for my country. We had a much nastier imperialist living next door. To judge the US in the cold war while ignoring the historical context and the Soviet Union makes no sense. Yes they made many mistakes. Yes they were focused on their own interests, yes they they followed policies more reminiscent of the old imperialists in South America. But they were not like the old imperialists all over the world.

As for the muslim/arab worlds view of them, I would argue the Israeli occupation and the US support for Israel as the single biggest issue. US policies are in a large part focused on supporting israel in the middle east. This requires the US to follow policies which are in opposition to the interests of the average citizens of the Arab world. That and the need for Oil compromise any idealistic ideals which any US politician might initially hold.

As for american exceptionalism, thats just silly talk in the US. They are not endowed with any exceptional rights just because they are the US. They are big and important, that is all. They are not a light unto nations or gods country bla bla. They are the USA. Thats all.

Just for curiosity sake, which country do you mean? Though just to be fair and not to hoodwink you: confidentially, I'm not really interested in politik. I know, it's a cop out, but, hey, what can I say?

 

[The Hitch]

I suppose the only way to 'reign back' fundies of any religion is to teach them that it is possible to be religious without being crazy about it.
Just look at me...

Extremists hate the mildly religious people most of all. If you believe god is ordering you to submit totally, and you see people ignoring this instruction than that is the ultimate insult.

Osama bin laden said the assasination of 1 person - Ahmad Shah Massoud on September 9th 2001, was just as important as killing 3000 people in New york 2 days later.

 

[The Hitch]

btw, for a informative account of muslim extremism, i reccomend taking a look at Majid Nawaz, a British born former member of a major extremist group who fought for Jihad in Europe and the Middle East, turned anti extremism campaigner after a stint in a secret Egyptian prison.

Very articulate and intelligent speeches. Goes without saying that he has a fatwah on him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKBE9Bm8aCI&feature=related

And here he is comically arguing with the leader of the Sharia law campaign in the UK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQwp45PyWEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XtUsRyWAcg