[Taliesin]

... to Pakistan and Afghanistan:

Would it be imaginable that the US made an alliance with radical Islamism, funding it with money, weapons, political support as well as a concentrated martyr-ideology summed up and made understandable in milions of schoolbooks, developed by an american university and distributed in Afghanistan and Pakistan from 1984-1994, where hundreds of thousands of pupils grew up, and students from around the islamic world were called to and indoctrinated with that martyr-ideology?

All that and more for the purpose of defeating communism?

Yes, that and more has really happened:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...5339-2002Mar22

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/St...x?StoryId=3453

A book: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...05076522&itm=1


I think it was Carter who played with the idea, but ultimately Reagan put it all into action, weaving a net between the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and some southamerican countries, using the CIA and american universities to develop more radical and concentrated islamistic propaganda, funding it, teaching it and training in guerillia-warfare and terrorism.

Taliesin

[Nicko]

Nothing like planting the seeds of your own destruction.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Nothing like planting the seeds of your own destruction.

"Ye reap what ye sow."


If you sow fanaticism among Islamic groups is there any surprise when they use it?
Or is it only "good" fanaticism when they use it against our enemies and not against us?



<edited to add this quote from another thread. I said it better with this post.>

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Ahh, but they were good Islamic fanatics as long as they were fighting the communists. Now that they are fighting Western powers they are bad. That fact to me makes this whole scenario absurdly comical: The US does not have a fundamental position on Islamic fanaticism as being "bad"; It is only "bad" when it no longer serves our foreign policy purposes or, worse yet, turns on us. I think there is an excellent quote that summarizes the whole situation of Islamic fanaticism and western interference/support: "Ye reap what ye sow." We sowed violence and discord among the Islamic community for several decades when it suited us and now that violence and discord is coming back to bite us. It seems rather fitting if you ask me.

[Nicko]

Ok I see your point. However, it seems the US is making the same mistakes in Iraq right now by allowing the country to be divided upon ethnic lines. Whether or not US forces ever pull out of Iraq completely remains in the distant future, but as of right now sectarian killings are accelerating. The US gov is passing out guns to the new Iraq "army" as fast as they can, when at the same time the militias (some of whom are part of this new Iraq army) are equally being armed by their supporters.

Why would the militias disarm when they face a continued threat from death squads? Iraq could easily turn into another Somalia in this respect.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Ok I see your point. However, it seems the US is making the same mistakes in Iraq right now by allowing the country to be divided upon ethnic lines.

I'm honestly curious as to how exactly the US could have not "allowed the country to be divided upon ethnic lines". This kind of tribalism has plagued nation-builders for centuries, and not just in the Middle East. So far it seems the most effective means of dealing with it is brutal repression, but that's obviously not a good option: what others exist?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm honestly curious as to how exactly the US could have not "allowed the country to be divided upon ethnic lines". This kind of tribalism has plagued nation-builders for centuries, and not just in the Middle East. So far it seems the most effective means of dealing with it is brutal repression, but that's obviously not a good option: what others exist?

Easiest solution would have been not to have invaded at all.
Iraq was contained and didn't pose a direct threat to the US, no matter how much they wanted it to. To achieve the so called 'democracy' that the US seeks is a complicated and decades long process.

Clearly, the utter failure of the multi billion $$$ rebuilding effort by the US in Iraq so far shows that no amount of money can buy democracy. At the same time, the way the US is arming certain segments of the population is equally perilous.

The US didn't just dethrone Saddam, they bombed the country's infustructure and killed thousands of civilians, the effects of these actions will be felt by those effected for the rest of their lives. Its a no win game for them.

[Kevin]

Yeah we don't care about the brown people over there.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Easiest solution would have been not to have invaded at all.

Point, but that's done, and it can't be undone.

Iraq was contained and didn't pose a direct threat to the US, no matter how much they wanted it to.

This remains debatable.

To achieve the so called 'democracy' that the US seeks is a complicated and decades long process.

Not always. Indeed, I can point to several other instances of nation-building which directly contradict your statement.

Clearly, the utter failure of the multi billion $$$ rebuilding effort by the US in Iraq so far shows that no amount of money can buy democracy.

It did in West Germany. It did in Japan.

At the same time, the way the US is arming certain segments of the population is equally perilous.

"Certain segments of the population" like the elected government?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Millennium

It did in West Germany. It did in Japan.

Germany was a Western culture.

Japan was brought down to near complete destruction, with an Emperor who technically abdicated its God-like status, leaving a nation to make a choice.

Iraq has been and remains a Middle East culture. A totally different challenge, with a long and heavy history of massive killings and revolts and invasions. Saddam Hussein is only one tiny piece of its history; significant, yes, but hardly the most important of its history.

Germany has been relatively safe and under "civilised" wars, and Japan is a country that was relatively stable but for some inner struggles over the last 1000 years. I maybe wrong t assume these elements can be factorised in the social engineering equation, but so far, it is a fact that any attempts at creating a clone of the Western cultures in non--Western cultures brought immense sacrifice, if not near-genocide.

First Nations of North America is a prime example. Africa (the continent) as a whole is another example. So you may entertain the belief that the US will provide democracy in Iraq, and it may work, but when, how, and at what cost, is clearly uncertain.

And by the way, you can have people put a piece of paper in an urn, but what it really means to them, you have no idea, and I am pretty certain they are not so clear about what democracy means, themselves, and certainly not to the extent, or in the manner, you understand democracy.

[abe]

From The Washington Post: This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.). (hat tip Jack Friedman)

A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government's statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the "polytheists" and "infidels").
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to "spread the faith." ...

The Saudi public school system totals 25,000 schools, educating about 5 million students. In addition, Saudi Arabia runs academies in 19 world capitals, including one outside Washington in Fairfax County, that use some of these same religious texts. ...

EIGHTH GRADE:

"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus." ...

NINTH GRADE:

"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."

"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him." ...

TWELFTH GRADE:

"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000849.html

To read the Washington Post article, "This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)" click here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051901769.html

[abe]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Easiest solution would have been not to have invaded at all.
Iraq was contained and didn't pose a direct threat to the US, no matter how much they wanted it to. To achieve the so called 'democracy' that the US seeks is a complicated and decades long process.

Not true.

You remind me of a girl I once knew who believed in the withdrawal method of contraception.

"Hey, it's always been successful before!"

Well, that woman became an unexpected mommy.

The containment was crumbling and was never intended as a long term solution. But you know all that. You are just being trollish.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by abe

To read the Washington Post article, "This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)" click here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051901769.html

The wahabis of Saudi-Arabia are always good for a chuckle. I still don't get it, how they can preach such hatred and still view themselves as muslims, in their eyes even the only true muslims. Nothing could be further from truth.

I have read a bit more on the subject of Reagan and his legacy, and it seems as if he was the one who intensified the relationship between the US and Saudi-Arabia and not Bush senior.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Reagan's administraion and the american universities worked together with the wahabis to create the US-brand of jihadistic schoolbooks for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Taliesin

[abe]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The wahabis of Saudi-Arabia are always good for a chuckle. I still don't get it, how they can preach such hatred and still view themselves as muslims, in their eyes even the only true muslims. Nothing could be further from truth.

I have read a bit more on the subject of Reagan and his legacy, and it seems as if he was the one who intensified the relationship between the US and Saudi-Arabia and not Bush senior.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Reagan's administraion and the american universities worked together with the wahabis to create the US-brand of jihadistic schoolbooks for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Taliesin

Hmmm, you think so?

Btw, doesn't the Koran say that if someone is doing to Islam what you say that OBL and the Wahabi's are doing to Islam that the REAL Muslims must defend the religion?

I don't see anyone doing their Holy duty except for SOME of the good people of Iraq and in other places where the WoT is being fought, and notably with our help.

So, let's see...

You have a violent group that's trying to impose THEIR interpretation of Islam on you. But on the other hand you have the USA trying to help you negate or control the violent group that would kill you or enforce upon you THEIR view of Islam.

So tell me what's wrong with this picture?

Why aren't the 999,000,000 Muslims the world over rejoicing and praising our willingness to get rid of the scourge that plagues you moderates?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm honestly curious as to how exactly the US could have not "allowed the country to be divided upon ethnic lines". This kind of tribalism has plagued nation-builders for centuries, and not just in the Middle East. So far it seems the most effective means of dealing with it is brutal repression, but that's obviously not a good option: what others exist?

I think you almost nailed it here. Is it possible there was a militaristic, radical Islamic element prior to 1984? It seems we're attempting to blame violence on textbooks we disseminated over the span of 10 years from '84 to '94. That said; a moronic policy overall, but I think anyone would be hard-pressed in quantifying the effectiveness of the policy.

I'm not buyin'.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by abe

Why aren't the 999,000,000 Muslims the world over rejoicing and praising our willingness to get rid of the scourge that plagues you moderates?

I know you mean that to be read with a good dose of sarcasm, but even if 99% of the Islamic world actually opposed the fanatics, the moderates would logically not be prepared to risk their lives in order to actively fight them. The only time such a statement is invalid is when the moderates perceive the fanatics are threatening their core interests, as with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the first Iraq war. Many Islamic countries fuel the radicalization of their own populations because the hatred produced is functional from the tyrant's standpoint. Those who are consumed by hatred of Israel and the West are too busy to rebel against their leaders over the poor conditions in their homelands.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I think you almost nailed it here. Is it possible there was a militaristic, radical Islamic element prior to 1984? It seems we're attempting to blame violence on textbooks we disseminated over the span of 10 years from '84 to '94. That said; a moronic policy overall, but I think anyone would be hard-pressed in quantifying the effectiveness of the policy.

I'm not buyin'.

Yes. Let's all wait for substantiation that what he says is borne out by proof and let's consider the facts of the matter, if it's true, before we start giving our opinions of it.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I know you mean that to be read with a good dose of sarcasm, but even if 99% of the Islamic world actually opposed the fanatics, the moderates would logically not be prepared to risk their lives in order to actively fight them. The only time such a statement is invalid is when the moderates perceive the fanatics are threatening their core interests, as with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the first Iraq war. Many Islamic countries fuel the radicalization of their own populations because the hatred produced is functional from the tyrant's standpoint. Those who are consumed by hatred of Israel and the West are too busy to rebel against their leaders over the poor conditions in their homelands.

So true, just look at the situation in Sudan. --> Darfur

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

Yes. Let's all wait for substantiation that what he says is borne out by proof and let's consider the facts of the matter, if it's true, before we start giving our opinions of it.

Why the "wait and see" attidue all of a sudden? You have never been this reticent before to speculate about a situation or to postulate a theory to explain something that is knwon only partially. I think there is lots of potential for discussion/debate surrounding the suppositions of Nicko and Big Mac.

I have no doubt there is correlation between US-led support for Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia and its rise in prominence around the world. I think the question that has been debated is whether there is any sort of causation. In other words,
Did the US create the Islamic fundamentalist movement?
or
Did the US take a small existing movement, provide it with financial support, and allow it to grow into a much larger movement? (which eventually turned on the US)


I think the latter scenario is a more appropriate assessment of the situation.

[yakkiebah]

I think neither scenario is an appropriate assessment of the situation.

I'll give you one small example: the murderer of Theo van Gogh, born and raised in Amterdam went to school got educated, read the Koran, radicalized. End.

Btw, where does the Muslim Brotherhood fit in this theory?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by abe

Hmmm, you think so?

Btw, doesn't the Koran say that if someone is doing to Islam what you say that OBL and the Wahabi's are doing to Islam that the REAL Muslims must defend the religion?

I don't see anyone doing their Holy duty except for SOME of the good people of Iraq and in other places where the WoT is being fought, and notably with our help.

So, let's see...

You have a violent group that's trying to impose THEIR interpretation of Islam on you. But on the other hand you have the USA trying to help you negate or control the violent group that would kill you or enforce upon you THEIR view of Islam.

So tell me what's wrong with this picture?

Why aren't the 999,000,000 Muslims the world over rejoicing and praising our willingness to get rid of the scourge that plagues you moderates?

Yes, and that's what I want, that the islamic world goes on its jihad against violent and oppressive Islamism. It will eventually happen, but currently the islamic world is still confused about which direction it must take, a lot is shifting and shaking right now in the theological, ideological and political spheres, and once that shaking-up-process, which will without doubt lead to a discarding of old, wrong and superfluos traditions, and a new consensus is established, is over, then the islamic world will come into gear and get rid of extremistic Islamism.

That's why it's so crucial and important to carefully analyse and criticize the old traditions and establish a through analysis of the Quran to clean up Islam from wrong interpretations, ideologies.. before the challenge by extremistic Islamism is over and the need and opportunity for reformation is over.

Taliesin

P.S.: Please don't use the term "moderates". "Moderates" are muslims that are unsure what to think, they are partly sympathetic to Islamism, but also sympathetic to other things..

A much better and more correct term would be "modernists". Currently the islamic world is divided between orthodox, islamists and modernists. The "moderates" are usually in the fold of the orthodox.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

I think neither scenario is an appropriate assessment of the situation.

I'll give you one small example: the murderer of Theo van Gogh, born and raised in Amterdam went to school got educated, read the Koran, radicalized. End.

That assessment is wrong.

Van Gogh's murder

Mohammed Bouyeri murdered van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat streets. He shot him with eight bullets from a HS2000 (a handgun produced in 2000 in Croatia), and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri slit van Gogh's throat and then stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one pinning a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contains references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

The murderer Mohammed Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Dutch citizen, was apprehended by the police after being shot in the leg. Although born in Amsterdam, well-educated and apparently well-integrated, Bouyeri has alleged terrorist ties with the Dutch Hofstad Network. He was also charged with attempted murder of a police officer and bystander, illegal possession of a firearm, and conspiring to murder others, including Hirsi Ali. He was convicted on July 26, 2005 and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_va...ogh.27s_murder

He was obviously recruited by extremistic organisations and identified himself with their ideologies.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Btw, where does the Muslim Brotherhood fit in this theory?

This here in this thread is not about the theory that the US created radical Islamism in the first place, which is rediculous.

The theory which is already pretty much proven is that the US instrumentalised, supported, funded, even wrote schoolbooks for, taught and enflamed and helped to radicalise Islamism more than it already was and helped in spreading that US-brand of islamism in the middle-east for the purpose of keeping communism out of there, and by this hugely increased the appeal and success of radical Islamism in the islamic world.

Taliesin

[abe]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, and that's what I want, that the islamic world goes on its jihad against violent and oppressive Islamism. It will eventually happen, but currently the islamic world is still confused about which direction it must take, a lot is shifting and shaking right now in the theological, ideological and political spheres, and once that shaking-up-process, which will without doubt lead to a discarding of old, wrong and superfluos traditions, and a new consensus is established, is over, then the islamic world will come into gear and get rid of extremistic Islamism.

That's why it's so crucial and important to carefully analyse and criticize the old traditions and establish a through analysis of the Quran to clean up Islam from wrong interpretations, ideologies.. before the challenge by extremistic Islamism is over and the need and opportunity for reformation is over.

Taliesin

P.S.: Please don't use the term "moderates". "Moderates" are muslims that are unsure what to think, they are partly sympathetic to Islamism, but also sympathetic to other things..

A much better and more correct term would be "modernists". Currently the islamic world is divided between orthodox, islamists and modernists. The "moderates" are usually in the fold of the orthodox.

Thanks for the info. The terminology and labels remind me of the late 1960's when we were all trying to get a feel for what we were going to be called.

The older folks preferred, "colored." Most young blacks went for, "black" as in James Brown's, "I'm Black and I'm Proud." The intellectual, often radical, Dashiki-wearing blacks (we called them 'ci-diddy') used the term, "Afro-American." And some thought the rather cold and dry categorization of, "negro," was best.

How much of a consensus is there for using the modernist vs moderate label?

And how do modernists feel about Jews?

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Why the "wait and see" attidue all of a sudden? You have never been this reticent before to speculate about a situation or to postulate a theory to explain something that is knwon only partially. I think there is lots of potential for discussion/debate surrounding the suppositions of Nicko and Big Mac.

I have no doubt there is correlation between US-led support for Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia and its rise in prominence around the world. I think the question that has been debated is whether there is any sort of causation. In other words,
Did the US create the Islamic fundamentalist movement?
or
Did the US take a small existing movement, provide it with financial support, and allow it to grow into a much larger movement? (which eventually turned on the US)


I think the latter scenario is a more appropriate assessment of the situation.

Well, you are really defining your powers of observation here.

What you don't seem to grasp is that I already know much of the stuff that is brought up here and so I don't need to wait for information from outside sources. It's already been consumed and digested. So I don't need to deliberate sometimes. The deliberations have already taken place beforehand.

But, when I don't know about a matter I usually try to become informed BEFORE giving my opinion. See, I like being accurate.

In this case what I wasn't certain of was the EXTENT of any US involvement in helping to encourage this virulent brand of Islamism.

And for that matter neither are you certain yet.

Taliesin says the US was responsible for printing and producing and distributing (what I'll assume was) the most hate filled books possible and in effect helping to make the monster of Islamism even more monstrous, bigger, faster growing, more hateful.

I'm still just starting to explore the extent and depth of our involvement with that.

And once I know the facts of the matter and someone brings up the subject and I have what seems like an impromptu thought, off the cuff opinion, instant position or point of view off the top of my head, you'll know that it only came about through research and study.

Right?

BTW, an aside to besson3c: I just thought back to some of our exchanges when you asked me to think about the other positions and I said that already had. You never seemed to grasp that I REALLY had given all sides some deal of thought before coming to these points of view.

[abe]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

I think neither scenario is an appropriate assessment of the situation.

I'll give you one small example: the murderer of Theo van Gogh, born and raised in Amterdam went to school got educated, read the Koran, radicalized. End.

Btw, where does the Muslim Brotherhood fit in this theory?

I haven't read enough to know for sure, but (to give dcmacdaddy a thrill) I'll venture a guess.

I'm thinking that if what Taliesin says is correct then the US government may have acted as the de facto "education ministry" for all of the right wing extremist Islamic groups.

He says the US govt. produced and distributed books and education materials that reflected the beliefs of the extremists. And that we did it so well that it gave the extremist groups a boost as though they were on rocket fuel. The numbers of books would have been greater than would have been produced without our help. The quality would be better. The hate would be better presented. The distribution would have been faster and more widespread with our help.

My initial thoughts. Subject to edit with the discovery of new information.

[abe]

"Devil's Game"
www.robertdreyfuss.com/thebook.htm

Either click the link or Google the name of the book (Devil's Game) to get more info about it.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

This here in this thread is not about the theory that the US created radical Islamism in the first place, which is rediculous.

The theory which is already pretty much proven is that the US instrumentalised, supported, funded, even wrote schoolbooks for, taught and enflamed and helped to radicalise Islamism more than it already was and helped in spreading that US-brand of islamism in the middle-east for the purpose of keeping communism out of there, and by this hugely increased the appeal and success of radical Islamism in the islamic world.

Taliesin

Its the oldest story in the book,
the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Then one day the enemy becomes a friend, which leaves the former enemy's enemy, enemyless thus forcing them to become THE enemy. Setting up the infustructure to promote insurgencies probably didn't help either.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by abe

Thanks for the info. The terminology and labels remind me of the late 1960's when we were all trying to get a feel for what we were going to be called.

The older folks preferred, "colored." Most young blacks went for, "black" as in James Brown's, "I'm Black and I'm Proud." The intellectual, often radical, Dashiki-wearing blacks (we called them 'ci-diddy') used the term, "Afro-American." And some thought the rather cold and dry categorization of, "negro," was best.

How much of a consensus is there for using the modernist vs moderate label?

You can read this introductory overview to get a feeling for the subject: http://www.rand.org/news/press.04/03.18.html

Originally Posted by abe

And how do modernists feel about Jews?

Why are you interested in that question?
But ok:

Traditionalists, ie. orthodox sunnis, usually are anti-jewish, but not antisemitic. They think that jews are followers of a corrupted religion, and really would like jews to convert to Islam.



Fundamentalists, ie. islamists usually have a similar view as traditionalists, ie. orthodoxs, but on top would like to subdue jews and christians to the jizja-tax, while extreme fundamentalists, ie. extremistic islamists, are flirting with antisemitism.

Secularists and modernists are usually neither antijewish nor antisemtic.

Taliesin

[Spliffdaddy]

Americans have done some things we're not proud of. We've made mistakes.

Hell, we elected Bill Clinton twice. Stands to reason that we might publish and distribute some jihadist nonsense.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Americans have done some things we're not proud of. We've made mistakes.

It is wonderful how you put it.

A few individuals made the mistake, and all Americans should be blamed for it?

[Spliffdaddy]

No, just the morons that voted for Bill Clinton.