The War on Terrorism or Islam?

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

THE WAR ON TERRORISM OR ISLAM?

It is impossible to think that there can be a war on terrorism – a war means inflicting terror in some way onto a people. How can we possibly combat this new wave of anti-American tendencies being felt globally? The answer, though not hard to find, is in each breath taken in the 'third world'.
As stated before by many political and non-political thinkers, the Cold War was predominantly fought in the third world. It would only be fitting that sentiments to the 'first world' would not be as so warm as to invite them over for a Christmas dinner. Of course this invitation could easily be agreed upon through military tactics, and the eventual utilization of force. Why then, should countries who have suffered greatly during the Cold War have such a strong support for the first world's international and foreign country policies? Should it not be necessary to make it known that there are differing cultures, ideals and beliefs that need to be preserved instead of procuring a more 'homogenized' culture of human beings? Amidst much dismay, we must understand that the war on terrorism is the advancement of imperialism – telling one culture that their ideologies are wrong, and furthermore need to be changed to a 'norm' set by the first world.
Saddam Hussein was a horrid dictator – a man who committed his first murder at the age of twelve. He mass-murdered people who had differing political beliefs and mounted opposition against him. The Kurds in Iraq were never given justice – a seperate state if equal representation was not met. The question remains – how does the international community respond to such a dictator? Do we do a shock and awe campeign, and hope for the best? Or do we deliberate and try to reach a compromise. It is obvious that both the people of Iraq and the international body would not want to negotiate an agreement with a man who has been committed of several international crimes – most recently invading Kuwait. But is the shock and awe method necessary?
We have heard countless stories on the news today of car bombings, suicide missions in busy areas of suspected 'terrorists' who need to be fought and subdued. However, when the dust clears, we have to understand that this action was not an anarchical response to hatred towards the United States, but rather a cultural message – 'You've rid our country of an evil tyrrant and we salute this act. But your time is up, let us govern ourselves'.
Are supposed 'terrorist' groups in Iraq really terrorists? Can we say as outsiders that Iraq should not govern itself in the manner in which they see fit? Is this not what democracy is about, allowing people to voice their opinions on their own government? So many questions, so little answered.
As I have initially mentioned – cultures need to be preserved, instead of a homogenized culture of human beings. This being said, how can we export our ideas of 'freedom' and what that means to us, to a people with entirely different beliefs? How can we say that our Christian-centralized 'human rights' is the be-all and end-all, and that every human being must follow suit, or else they are criminals by violating it? The answer is we cannot. We cannot force a people to comply to our ideas unless it is through terrorism or coercive means. If another culture attacked the West and tried to import their beliefs here, mass military troops would begin an attack and there would be an all-out war. Oh, wait did that not happen on September 11, 2001? What is the difference between what America did in Afghanistan and what resistance groups are doing in Iraq? Both are trying to preserve their culture and identity.
This is not a war on terrorism – it is a war on Islam. The misuse of Islam is as prevelant as the misuse of Christianity – both believe that Allah/God is on their side. Islam is the next culture lined up on the infamous 'chopping block' of imperialism, it spells unfortunate doom to the innocent women, men and children who will pay the ultimate sacrifice for something that was out of their hands. What can be done about this war on Islam? Opposition must be created not only through paramilitary tactics. Political leaders of various countries around the world must make it known that they disagree with the actions of the selected few. If the international body is not behind this war, then Islam has a greater chance at success. Compliance through coercive means is a dogma of this imperialist act – subtract the compliance and you have an idea that is, in reality, idiotic.
I am not saying that Islam nor Christianity should rule the world – quite the opposite. The people must decide their fate within their respective countries. Can religion play a heavy political role? It has been done as so far as establishing human rights and Westernized beliefs to make us think that this is some 'natural' thing every human being on earth must follow to.
In this neoliberalist state of globalization where corporations are the real rulers of the world, Islam must make its stance; it does not agree to Western dogmas of truths but has its own truths which should be respected and preserved by the international community.
Bhagat Singh of India though young, made a remarkable statement to the British imperialists in India during the 1930s when he said, “The choice is yours sir, either leave this land or be thrown out.” America is in Iraq by choice, it thus must be a choice by the people, both military and politically; religious and non-religious; woman and man; Iraqi and non-Iraqi to say, thankyou for capturing Saddam, now get out before it is too late.

thoughts anyone?

[Eastside Revolt]

It is a war on niether.

If it was a war on terrorism, they would turn-over to a hydrogen economy, or at least, a more energy efficient one.

If it was a war on islam, they would be doing all they could to educate musliim women. They would not be waging wars on these countries, keeping the people ignorant.

I couldn't exactly tell you what it's about, but it ain't terrorism or islam.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:28 PM
It is a war on niether.

If it was a war on terrorism, they would turn-over to a hydrogen economy, or at least, a more energy efficient one.

If it was a war on islam, they would be doing all they could to educate musliim women. They would not be waging wars on these countries, keeping the people ignorant.

I couldn't exactly tell you what it's about, but it ain't terrorism or islam.
But don't you think its an advancement of an imperialist state onto another country?

Ppl who support the war are usually taking the stance that 'freedom and liberty are being brought to the ppl of Iraq'. Its this ideology routed somewhat in religion, that 'God is choosing a side'..

I'm not saying that Americans have to be so bold as to convert women out of their traditional beliefs and into a more 'westernized' view of human rights, etc. It's more subtle - Haliburton may claim to help Iraq, but really we all know its hidden agenda of getting oil for Bush.

It's an advancement of this globalization neo-imperialist mindset - conquer by coercive means, but do not stick an American flag in the country - just install a leader who claims to represent the people, but is really working for the American gov't.

[ComradeRed]

The war on terror is bourgeois-speak for "imperialist wars of colonization". It was sparked by the gas capitalists, like the munitions capitalists pressured Wilson into WWI.


It's more subtle - Haliburton may claim to help Iraq, but really we all know its hidden agenda of getting oil for Bush. Exactly my point.


Its this ideology routed somewhat in religion, that 'God is choosing a side'.. I would certainly expect that their invisible best friend would join them in war; but when you think about it God was on everyone's side: the Nazis, the Allies, the Triple Entente, the Central Powers, etc.


It's an advancement of this globalization neo-imperialist mindset - conquer by coercive means, but do not stick an American flag in the country - just install a leader who claims to represent the people, but is really working for the American gov't. No, it was the tactic of the French during their colonialization period. Its called, as opposed to a territory or colony, a "protectorate". The "mother country" intervenes and removes any government opposing them. It worked extremely well for the French, we'll see how it will work out for the Americans.

[Eastside Revolt]

Calling it plain old imperialism doesn't seem to encompass it.

"I'm not saying that Americans have to be so bold as to convert women out of their traditional beliefs and into a more 'westernized' view of human rights, etc."

I kind of used to think that way.

I now belive that atheists and progressive people in general, definitely need to do all we can to push, the islamic world into an age of enlightenment. It would be fundemental for us to help muslim women overcome their beliefs that expose them to brutality.

[ComradeRed]

Calling it plain old imperialism doesn't seem to encompass it.
Indeed. "Old Imperialism" does use the "liberation", "white man's burden", etc. etc. etc. but doesn't use the "If we don't do this, its a threat to our security" arguement. Just "imperialism plus"!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Knowledge666
Should it not be necessary to make it known that there are differing cultures, ideals and beliefs that need to be preserved instead of procuring a more 'homogenized' culture of human beings?

Cultures are not exhibits in a "museum" to be "preserved".

They are active social constructs, constantly changing in response to material conditions, encounters with other cultures, etc.

The only way one could "preserve" a culture would be to isolate it in some kind of unchanging environment.

The absurdity of such an idea is obvious.


Saddam Hussein was a horrid dictator - a man who committed his first murder at the age of twelve.

Is there a "right age" to "commit one's first murder"?


The question remains - how does the international community respond to such a dictator?

That's not a real question. The phrase "international community" is meaningless. And it would not have mattered if Saddam Hussein had been a "saint"...his real crime was disobedience to U.S. imperialism.

While he was fighting Iran, America loved him. When he decided to seize "Kuwait", he became a "monster".

Whenever one of America's dictators starts "acting on his own", that is unforgivable.


This is not a war on terrorism - it is a war on Islam.

No, although Christian fundamentalist rhetoric may give that impression.

What U.S. imperialism wants is "obedient Muslims"...those who will carry out American orders. It does not matter how reactionary a Muslim is...it only matters that American orders are carried out.


Can religion play a heavy political role? It has been done as so far as establishing human rights and Westernized beliefs to make us think that this is some 'natural' thing every human being on earth must follow to.

The identification of "human rights" with Christianity is not historically justified.

What people think of as capitalist "human rights" was largely won in opposition to the mainstream of Christianity.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

Just one small comment to make:


The phrase "international community" is meaningless.

Not so: "International Community" is synonymous with "Old Boys Club"; it is the "social club" in which the ruling classes of the world play their little games. It differs only from the life most of us lead in scale.

It's not meaningless, simply utterly pointless.

[leftist resistance]

I think it's just a crappy line that guy uses to attack other countries

[ComradeChris]

I saw Canadian professor and author Gwynn Dire speak live the other day. He discussed how the Islamists knew that the US would invade Afghanistan. However, they hoped that they would have committed certain atrocities of a prolonged war to unite Muslims (which has been attemped over and over with know success). However, this plan crashed with the Neo-conservative plan to dominate the globe, apprenamed Pax Americana. However with the threat of the Soviet Union gone, they claimed all these "rogue states" as a threat, in hopes that people would ally with them under THEIR banner once again; and also pay tribute to them (things like the missle defence system). The collision of these two fundamentalist plans gave the more powerful the upper-hand obviously. This war is nothing more to reacheive this power they were accustomed to during the Cold War.

Good news is, there are claims that many countries will rival the US' power within the next 50 years. China and India being the predominant two, are predicted to surpass the US in GDP by the 2040's. However, I can't rememebr the orginization that Dire claimed predicted this. But that's the good news anyway.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 30 2004, 03:06 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 30 2004, 03:06 AM)
Knowledge666
Should it not be necessary to make it known that there are differing cultures, ideals and beliefs that need to be preserved instead of procuring a more 'homogenized' culture of human beings?

Cultures are not exhibits in a "museum" to be "preserved".

They are active social constructs, constantly changing in response to material conditions, encounters with other cultures, etc.

The only way one could "preserve" a culture would be to isolate it in some kind of unchanging environment.

The absurdity of such an idea is obvious.
[/b]
'Preserved' is not the correct term here, but 'Accepted'. Don't come down so hard on the lad because he got the wrong word.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Latifa
'Preserved' is not the correct term here, but 'Accepted'. Don't come down so hard on the lad because he got the wrong word.

Perhaps that is what he meant...most of the time, we can only rely on what people actually say, unless the context strongly implies a different meaning.

But even if "accepted" was his intended word, he's still on very shaky ground. What does it actually mean to say that one "accepts" another culture?

When young Muslim females (in the west) "run away from home" to avoid arranged marriages, should we "accept" Muslim culture and send them back to their fathers under police escort?

What about the presence of westerners or even western cultural artifacts in the Islamic world itself? If I translate the Communist Manifesto into Arabic and smuggle it into "Saudi" Arabia, am I a "cultural imperialist"? Suppose I originate a satellite television program that features westernized Arab women advocating women's liberation (in Arabic) and beam it down to the satellite dishes in the Middle East?

Heck, I don't even accept "my own" culture...or at least many aspects of it. I have a pretty low opinion of all existing cultures. When you stop and think about it, they're all pretty shitty in many ways.

So is it "ok" for me to reject cultural aspects that I dislike no matter what culture they come from?

I think so, obviously...what do you think?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[leftist resistance]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 4 2004, 01:20 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 4 2004, 01:20 AM)
Latifa
'Preserved' is not the correct term here, but 'Accepted'. Don't come down so hard on the lad because he got the wrong word.

Perhaps that is what he meant...most of the time, we can only rely on what people actually say, unless the context strongly implies a different meaning.

But even if "accepted" was his intended word, he's still on very shaky ground. What does it actually mean to say that one "accepts" another culture?

When young Muslim females (in the west) "run away from home" to avoid arranged marriages, should we "accept" Muslim culture and send them back to their fathers under police escort?

What about the presence of westerners or even western cultural artifacts in the Islamic world itself? If I translate the Communist Manifesto into Arabic and smuggle it into "Saudi" Arabia, am I a "cultural imperialist"? Suppose I originate a satellite television program that features westernized Arab women advocating women's liberation (in Arabic) and beam it down to the satellite dishes in the Middle East?

Heck, I don't even accept "my own" culture...or at least many aspects of it. I have a pretty low opinion of all existing cultures. When you stop and think about it, they're all pretty shitty in many ways.

So is it "ok" for me to reject cultural aspects that I dislike no matter what culture they come from?

I think so, obviously...what do you think?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas [/b]
You're mixing custom with tradition

The practice of arranged marriage is not something that is brought about by islam but by the community itself.

You're also mixing up Arabs as muslims but in fact,thre are christian and atheist Arabs.Arab is just a race.

Go ahead with your ideas.I'm sure there are many west-translated-to-arab books in saudi already

[Morpheus]

Is there a "right age" to "commit one's first murder"?

18, according to the US military

[Morpheus]

Good news is, there are claims that many countries will rival the US' power within the next 50 years. China and India being the predominant two, are predicted to surpass the US in GDP by the 2040's. However, I can't rememebr the orginization that Dire claimed predicted this. But that's the good news anyway.

Not if the US controls their oil supply. The world economy is dependant on oil to keep going. If you control that oil (or most of it) that puts you in a position of great power. If you control the oil supplies of potential rivals then you can stop them from getting too far out of line (through war, revolution, etc.) by cutting off their oil supply. That's what Iraq is really about.


Indeed. "Old Imperialism" does use the "liberation", "white man's burden", etc. etc. etc. but doesn't use the "If we don't do this, its a threat to our security" arguement. Just "imperialism plus"!

Actually, the whole "if we don't do this evil bad guys will destroy us" is a very old ploy by Imperialists. The US used it sometimes during the extermination of the native Americans and has applied it to almost every enemy since. It was an important factor in both world wars, as well. IIRC, even Rome used it. Fear is a highly effective means of social control.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:25 PM

Good news is, there are claims that many countries will rival the US' power within the next 50 years. China and India being the predominant two, are predicted to surpass the US in GDP by the 2040's. However, I can't rememebr the orginization that Dire claimed predicted this. But that's the good news anyway.

Not if the US controls their oil supply. The world economy is dependant on oil to keep going. If you control that oil (or most of it) that puts you in a position of great power. If you control the oil supplies of potential rivals then you can stop them from getting too far out of line (through war, revolution, etc.) by cutting off their oil supply. That's what Iraq is really about.
I don't think they'll ever control the oil supplies in the Middle East. Their theft of oil will only breed more and more insurgents. They have their own oil reserves. And I think the company that does the GDP predictions take into account certain events and times of the year. That's that Gwynn Dire said anyway. The onlt thing I can't remember is the company that he said does this :unsure: .

[BuyOurEverything]

You're mixing custom with tradition

The practice of arranged marriage is not something that is brought about by islam but by the community itself.

Custom and tradition are essentially the same thing. Judging from the next line, I assume you meant he is mixing religion and custom. This claim is also rather tenuous, as religion heavily influences religion and vice versa. What does it matter if it doesn't say explicitly in the Koran that women must wear a burka when in public, if that is what's practiced in Islamic countires in the name of Allah? What really defines a religion anyways, what's in its texts or how its practiced? It seems pretty irrelevant to me. And for the record, the Koran is not some liberal feminist love preaching pacifist manifesto, it's hate literature. It may not say women have to wear the burka, but it does say they have to be stoned for adultery.


You're also mixing up Arabs as muslims but in fact,thre are christian and atheist Arabs.Arab is just a race.

No he's not, read the post again. Where does it imply that all arabs are Muslim?

You also seemed to have missed the entire point of the post. Redstar is quite right in saying that culture is not something that is intrinsically worth preserving. If Islamic culture is oppressive (and it is) we should destroy it, not make excuses for it. I don't care whether the practices came from the Koran or simply imerged in the community, they still have to go.

As for the original question, the answer, as many people have already pointed out, is neither. It is a war for political and economic gain, straight up. There is no higher ideological grounding for it, it's purely material.

[leftist resistance]

This claim is also rather tenuous, as religion heavily influences religion and vice versa.
Did you mean religion influence custom?But then again


Where does it imply that all arabs are Muslim?

The burka is not compulsory for muslim women.They are not required to cover their face totally.Stoning for adultery apply for males too.Anyway what has adultery got to do with the burka?


And for the record, the Koran is not some liberal feminist love preaching pacifist manifesto, it's hate literature

How do you know it's hate literature?Have you read it before?