Job Discussion Forums

[Mark100]

johnslat

Have to agree with you about the 1424 thing.
It sometimes seems like that here!
One has to remember that is only 30 to 40 years since most of the peoples in Arabia have moved from a semi nomadic existance to a modern type society.
The process took hundreds of years in Europe so we should not expect miracles.
Further because a country is at a different stage of development it does not mean that they are better or worse that any other country just that they are at a different stage of development.

[ohman]

One major difference between the "threat" of Judeo/Christian fundamentalism vs. Wahhabism, is that here in the US we can loudly question it, criticize it, lampoon it, satirize it, ridicule it, vote against it.

The US pre-emptive strike and staging of tons of materiel and a hundred thousand soldiers in the region is as appalling to me as any of the past US actions which walked and quacked like imperialism beginning with the subjugation of Mexican lands and later the invasion of the Philipines, etc. But again, I have to wonder: what if the majority of moderate Muslims had been willing to risk life and limb years ago in order to silence cults like the Wahhabis, what if they had had the the courage to demand basic civil liberties like freedom of speech?

[johnslat]

Dear ohman,
" . . what if the majoroity of moderate Muslims had been willing to risk life and limb years ago in order to silence cults like the Wahhabis, what if they had had the the courage to demand basic civil liberties like freedom of speech?"
Well, that might be asking a little much of your " average man/woman on the street " Muslim. There were probably a majority of moderate, decent Germans back in the 1930s, but there was no uprising against Hitler. Unfortunately, most of us in every country don't pay too much attention to what the leadership is doing as long as our own little world isn't too adversely affected. One might also ask, I suppose - what if the majority of moderate Americans . . . etc. with regard to Dubya and Co. And actually, I believe Mr. Michael Moore, mentioned earlier in this thread, asked just that.

Dear Mark 100,
Ah, yet another person not afraid to demonstate his " supreme ignorance of historical events " ( I'm still waiting for the particulars on that from Truth Hurts ). Remember that book, " Future Shock " ( Alvin Toffler ) that came out back in ( I think ) the 1970s? Well, in my opinion the Saudis have been and are undergoing what could be called Future Mega-Shock, and, considering what they've had to absorb and adapt to in such a relatively short tme, I'd say they're really not doing so very badly.
Regards,
John

[ohman]

Good point John. A common defense by the talking heads on Sunday week-in-review shows here was that going into Iraq was justified by the lessons of history, that is, suppose we had set up bases in Austria in 1936?

Clearly this is a faulty analogy. However, if the average Muslim man or woman on the streets of Riyadh wish to take to those streets now and demand some basic civil liberties, would they be able to depend upon the US? How would the US react? Would the US be there for them as it was (eventually) for the Kosovars in 1999 or would we not be there for them as we weren't for the Kurds in 1991?

Before 9/11, no question, a US response would've been unthinkable. Then the unthinkable occurred. Now, chances are we'd find members of the royal family who would be willing to draft a constitution and perhaps follow Bahrain's lead and establish a parliament.

Obviously, the neo-cons haven't thought this thing through. However, Wesley Clark might have. He was NATO commander in 1999 and in a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, he beat Bush.

[johnslat]

Dear ohman,
My guess is that the " average Muslim man and woman on the streets of Riyadh " isn't ready to " take to those streets ". Life still ain't so bad for many/most of them, which is one big difference between the Kingdom now and Iran in 1979 ( hmm, and what a revolting develoment that turned out to be ). Even if that were to happen, I suspect that any demonstration demanding some basic civil liberties would be totally ignored by the USA. The devil you know . . . etc. Those Saudi ladies who staged that " drive on " protest back in Gulf War I were swatted down fast, with nary a peep from our embassy ( Imaginary embassy spokesperson: " Well, after all, this is strictly an internal matter and no concern of ours whatsoever " ).

[ohman]

John et al,

Have you read the following editorial by Friedman?

http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/117P52.htm

Your thoughts?

If you can't link to it, I'll paste it in.

[johnslat]

Dear ohman,
Good article - I especially like the quotes from Mansoor al-Jamri about the " roots of 9/11 ". I used to have almost complete respect for Friedman's thoughts. I mean, this was one journalist who didn't write from an " ivory tower " in New York or Washington, D.C. Nope, he got up off his a s s and went to the scene, knew some of the right people and asked the right questions. But then, he got into his Iraq invasion cheerleading. Now was he really so foolish as to think that Dubya and Co. were " going to do the right thing " after the " war was won "? I mean, that's how he justified going in. Or was he so egotistical that he actually thought he could influence the powers-that-be through his columns? I lost a fair amount of my respect for Mr. Friedman as a result of his attitude toward Iraq. But shucks - I guess everyone's entitled to one mistake. And, now that he's seen just how badly the aftermath is being handled, perhaps he's come ( or soon will ) to see the error of his ways. Heck, I'm a guy with a forgiving nature.
Regards,
John

[ohman]

John et al,

Here's one of Friedman's latest editorials

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mcherald/news/editorial/6867032.htm

"missed opportunity" has become his latest catch phrase.

As for his position pre-invasion: Suppose we had been able to rebuild Iraq into an pluralistic democratic Arab country similar to Lebanon? He wasn't alone in hoping that the neo-cons had thought this through.

(notice Freidman is not afraid to use the "dubya" word!)

Friedman refers us to author of Rogue Nation, Clyde Prestowitz*, who says, "If only the Bush team connected the dots, it would see what a nutty war on terrorism it is fighting." Here, (Prestowitz) says, is the Bush war on terrorism: Preach free trade, but don't deliver on it, so Pakistani farmers become more impoverished. Then ask Congress to give a tax break for any American who wants to buy a gas-guzzling Humvee for business use and also ask Congress to resist any efforts to make Detroit increase gasoline mileage in new cars. All this means more U.S. oil imports from Saudi Arabia. So then the Saudis have more dollars to give to their Wahhabi fundamentalist evangelists, who spend it by building religious schools in Pakistan. The Pakistani farmer we've put out of business with our farm subsidies then sends his sons to the Wahhabi school because it is tuition-free and offers a hot lunch. His sons grow up getting only a Quranic education, so they are totally unprepared for modernity, but they are taught one thing: that America is the source of all their troubles. One of the farmer's sons joins al-Qaida and is killed in Afghanistan by U.S. Special Forces, and we think we're winning the war on terrorism.

It isn't too early to begin asking Clark, "So then General, what will you do to clean up this horrible mess?"

(Why do we keep going back to Little Rock to find a Rhodes scholar who can fix the Bushes' debacles?)

*Clyde Prestowitz, by the way, is a conservative Reaganista --Dubya is now getting clobbered by the paleo-cons.

[johnslat]

Dear ohman,
This is what gets me so mad about Friedman. A man who usually displays such intelligence and good judgment SHOULD have known better than to expect those bozos in Washington to " do the right thing " in the aftermath to the invasion. " Missed opportunites ", indeed. Those idjits wouldn't know an opportunity if it broke into their houses and took them hostage. Iraq was invaded for many reasons - the supposed " public ones " and the actual " private ones ". But that clueless crew running the USA didn't have the faintest idea of what they were really getting into or how to handle it.
Lord - hope we can evict them all in '04 - and may whoever takes over have some good sense.
Regards,
John

[ohman]

Heard a report on BBC America this afternoon that some reformists took the streets of Riyadh yesterday? Is this a one off or something we're likely to see again, soon, in other parts of the kingdom?

[moonpie]

deleted

[johnslat]

Dear moonpie,
Hmm, so your question is - Is Islam (hey, three "ises" in a row there) responsible for killing Muslims? Gee, seems like kind of a counter-productive way to propagate the faith. Well, is Christianty responsible when fundamentalist, right-to-lifers bomb abortion clincs and kill doctors?
I certainly wouldn't claim that. Is Hinduism responsible when rabid extremists run amok and slaughter Muslims? My personal opinion would again be "Nope". Is Judaism responsible when an Orthodox fanatic machine-guns Muslims in a mosque in Hebron? Once more, my answer would be "Uh-uh". It's absurd to blame a faith, which has about 1.3 billion adherents around the world, the vast majority of whom are as peace-loving as, say, you or I, for the actions of a few crazy zealots.

Blaise Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "There is nothing quite so terrible as evil masquerading as virtue."

Regards,
John

[MacMahon]

Moonpie,


As I am sure you're aware it takes more than just one ingredient to make a "Pie". Not so in your case maybe?

Here's some great additives I would suggest:

Ok, how about a thread discussing Israels' continual role in terrorism?

Americas' long history within the framework of terrorism?

Let's talk about the arms industry, who heads it, and it's role in terrorism?

Foreign policies and there hand in global terrorism?

Then we can move to the beneficiaries of "Global Terrorism".

Who, if any, benefits?

Can/Does global terrorism serve a dual purpose?

Is Osama and his role in "Global Terrorism" supported by
"The Muslim world" at large?

I quote you as saying:

"I notice that the Muslim world gets hot and bothered when muslims are bombed, but they applaud those who bomb innocent israelis".


Another question would be:

Can one expect a balanced rational reply, as relates to terrorism and the Osamas of this world, from say, a Palestinian in the West Bank?
An Afghan tribesman? A Chechen farmer? An Iraqi Villager? And others who have had bombs and bullets rain in on them.
Surprisingly yes. But don't be shocked to find not all are in agreement.

I might add that I am not surprised to find an Israeli pour scorn on the Palestinians and support acts of terrorism (sorry measured responses) by their Gov. as well.

Is the pain and suffering a family/society goes through considered any different between the Israelis/Palestinians?

Do Palestinians laugh, cry, love, feel sorrow and express the full range of emotions as their Neighbours over the wall (soon to be complete) do?

A man walking onto a bus clad with explosives is enough to seal the heart of a liberal minded Israeli. Likewise, Helicopter gunships (American built) hovering menacingly over slums of degradation, Tanks ratlling past your frontdoor daily, sniper nests impatiently taking shots at anything (including western journalists), and being debased to extremes may cause the same response upon the hearts of cetain Palestinians.

How does that taste on the palate?

Don't forget a little cinnamon, Palestinians like it too!?!

[johnslat]

So who - or rather what - is to blame for all this homicidal madness? Why, the usual suspects, of course:

1. rabid intolerance

2. stupidity

3. fanaticism

Hmm, there's clearly some overlap here. But any so-called "religion-based terrorism" requires idiots who believe -

1. that they have a direct line to the Creator and are doing His/Her/Its will.

2. that they and they alone are in sole possession of the "truth".

3. that the ends justify the means, howsoever homicidal.

Of course, in some/many cases, religion is only a part of the reason such bozos act as they do. In some instances, it may even be simply a "cover" for different motivations. Politics, power, xenophobia - these, and other factors, may be the underlying driving forces. And let's not forget plain, old-fashioned insanity, since that certainly comes into play.
Regards,
John

[Truth Hurts]

John

I don't know if I agree with the usual Fox News style analysis you seem to latch onto.

It's very often just simply plain 'ol desperation that drives people to commit such acts. This is certainly the case in Palestine and Iraq. I mean it doesn't take much empathy to understand how just ONE of the families of the 55, 000 Iraqi civilians killed in the past few months might feel towards our troops on Arab soil.

And I really do wonder sometimes who the real homicidal maniacs are: The guys that strap explosives around themselves or the guy pressing the button on the daisy cutter and indiscriminately killing anything that gets in its way.

And you know what often intrigues me is this crazy assumption these days that if the suicide bombers were using modern methods of warfare i.e. they had access to F16s, Apaches, Chinooks or so forth it would somehow make their acts more acceptable or humane.

It's a sick world, John!

Regards

TH