I totally agree with this, viz a viz changing the attitudes at the ground level and erasing the hatred toward the western world through goodwill projects that improve everyday people's lives, and conducting them in as non-ostentacious a manner as possible. You have to get those people to believe that we don't hate their religion even though we might not agree or subscribe to it.

The people at the top know that, but they have to posture like they're fighting God's war to keep the nutzo popular masses happy so they can stay in power. You see what happens when folks like Itzakh Rabin get too close to actually reaching a peace with the other side. Some nut living in a hovel with a family of 10 decides Rabin's not a true believer and is selling out God and BLAMMO!
Because that guy and millions like him live a life of desperation and they're not the least bit happy about it, but the prospect of a bountiful afterlife is all they have, so they're willing to kill others and even themselves to reach that end of eternal properity. Meanwhile, everything politically is back at square one.

If you can lessen the dread that leads folks like that to see martyrdom as the only step up for their soul - and, more importantly, change the idea that we're the oppressors they're willing to be martyrs for — then you might be able to get somewhere.

I think this might have been the Bush administration's plan from the beginning. They expected to improve the lives of the average Iraqii in a very short period of time, which may have actually worked, if we'd planned better for what was going to happen after we took down Sadam. Instead we went in with littke post-hostility planning, and wasted the initial good-will of the Iraqii people. We have already dumped so much money into the reconstruction of Iraq it is scary. Unfortunatly, big American companies like Haliburton have sponged a lot of it up. Projects like water and electrical rebuilding are very easy for insurgents to disrupt, which creates a spiraling security cost. Simply throwing money at the problem, at least currently as things stand, just won't work.

let's get specific here. This is Islam. And, let's clear up the fact that this is not martyrdom. That is a horrible misuse of that word.

Martyrdom: "death that is imposed because of the person's adherence of a religious faith or cause."

The key word here is "Imposed". Imposed death on one's self is suicide, regardless of the motives, not martyrdom. Generally, a martyr is someone that is killed by someone else because they believe something. For instance, it is more realistic to say that the muslims or christians that the "Zealots" kill with their bombs are martyrs, not the ones with the bombs.

But I'm not advocating simply throwing money at it. As I am very eager to point out, I don't like the government spending my money.

My point was to do this stuff before you bombed the shit out of them. Before you put worthless sanctions on them. Before you set up military camps or station battleships within striking distance. And it's not just Iraq. It's sort of a catchall for unfavorable or potentially unfavorable regimes. It's not perfect, but the drawbacks are relatively small. Hell, we've had sanctions on Cuba for 40+ years, and pneumonia will take him out before the sanctions finally squeeze him.

I'm not big on handouts, but also I don't think tough love really works in these situations. We also should do it out of pure charity. No quid pro quo. No bullying. Let them retain self-determination. It all falls under the silly little fable I was told many years ago:


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The North Wind boasted of great strength. The Sun argued that there was great power in gentleness. "We shall have a contest," said the Sun.

Far below, a man traveled a winding road. He was wearing a warm winter coat. "As a test of strength," said the Sun, "Let us see which of us can take the coat off of that man."

"It will be quite simple for me to force him to remove his coat," bragged the Wind.

The Wind blew so hard, the birds clung to the trees. The world was filled with dust and leaves. But the harder the wind blew down the road, the tighter the shivering man clung to his coat. Then, the Sun came out from behind a cloud. Sun warmed the air and the frosty ground. The man on the road unbuttoned his coat.

The sun grew slowly brighter and brighter. Soon the man felt so hot, he took off his coat and sat down in a shady spot.

But, I don't believe that this is actually accurate. There is plenty of money in these countries. However, the money is hoarded by those in power. Saudi Arabia even is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The people in power in places like Iran decide to leave their population poor. It's easier to control them. It's easier to have a live pawn do what you want when you promise them and their family the basic needs that they rarely get on a consistent basis.

This whole Count-PointerCount thing works better if you read and attempt to comprehend what I wrote before you start spewing whatever pops up in your mind.

From your posts now and in the past, it's not a stretch to assume your obvious dislike of the people in this region and belief set, and that's your prerogative. I don't think they are a lost cause, however.

I understood what you were saying. And, I think it would be a great idea to try and step in and do something drastic like fixing the "3rd world" rating of many countries around the world besides bombing them first and foremost. I just wasn't responding to that.

And, I don't dislike the people there. Because I think that there is wide corruption in the people in power over there not too different than the easily accepted idea that there is widespread corruption in the leaders over here does not mean that I don't think that progress could be made. However, I do think that the general population over there would benefit greater from our interventions if the ones who were in power actually cared about their people. It does not seem that they do. I was not speaking about the general population in these countries. What I was saying was that it's hard to fix any problem when the leaders are in control of everything and don't like to let their people prosper. It's a means by which to keep the population scared and submissive to doing drastic things like bombing other people. Ultimately, I think that most people over there don't really want the life they have. But, they're scared to do anything about it. I think this is why we didn't see any real reaction to the burning of the embassies and such to the negative, not even in this country, from fellow muslims. I don't think it's because all muslims agreed with that action. I think it's because they're afraid that if they speak up then they will be killed. It's hard to be a hero, and most muslims(people in general even) will not choose something that has a high risk of leading to their death, unless it is associated with the promise of a wonderful afterlife.

I don't think that me pointing out something that I didn't agree with in your statement really speaks to the "truth" that I don't like or have hope for the people in the Middle East. That was a stretch. I will admit it. I don't like the people in power in some of those countries. Not because they're Arab or Persian or Pakistani, but because they get off by oppressing their own people.

So it is a cultural thing?

I am trying to figure out what makes this OK.

I read a lot about the dearth of "Moderate Muslims" whoa re willing to stand up and say "HEY ASSHOLES, YOU AIN'T GOING TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU KILL 75 INNOCENT PEOPLE"

Where is the outrage from within?

same place as outrage in the black community stopping black on black crime...

I still can't comprehend the Oklahoma City bombing. Or 911 for that matter so I'm probably not the one to discuss this issue.

Worth more that way on Ebay.

i think that a lot/most people in these countries don't like these bombings but a lot of the governments in these countries simply don't have the resources or organization to deal with these problems very well (India) while others can't crack down on these people because their entire hold on power is so tenuous (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.)

Moderates can yell and tsk tsk all they want. Many do. But if someone REALLY believes that they're doing God's work and will be richly rewarded in the hereafter by strapping a bomb to themselves — vs. the inescapable life of desperation they see for themselves on this plane of existence — then all the rational thought in the world won't change their mind.

You need to give these people a way out and some form of hope that doesn't involve sacrificing themselves in the name of a holy war being fomented by crooks at the top of the government.

I agree here. Maybe I just can't wrap my mind around the senselessness of it all.

and at some point I think we gotta say this interpretation of a religion needs to go away. Not sure which way to accomplish that.

We best think fast on that point, because that random bombing mentality is on its way to this continent. And it won't be some dark, burka-clad other doing it - it'll be every disenfranchised Timothy McVeigh we all once sat beside in shop class.

Dude, religion has been perverted by people in power for eons. These jackasses are far from being the first ones to that party. If you can figure out how to stamp out any form of radical interpretation, you'll be the first.
Though I wouldn't mind starting with booting the nuts in the White House who are guilty of doing the same thing with Christianity.

best way to get rid of this fundamentalist attitude is - shock - liberalism. of course that brings us to the brink of hell according to some, but oh well. i'd rather deal with pot heads than suicide bombers.

Liberalism is also the best way to fan the flames.

Such a paradox

You can't press fast forward on a culture or religions historical evolution.

Remember, to these people, its the fucking Middle Ages.

the real question is why.

its multi faceted but I'll generalize and say that a lot of it has to do with a rejection of Western Culture and using religion as a means of (for lack of a better term) crowd control.

good point about crowd control. separation of church and state doesnt really register over there.

Because both are (organizationally) just designed to get people structured and busy. Both are methods of solving a very basic issue... who does what? CurchState is a much simpler version of Church + State. No fuss, no muss.

Outrage?

2000 Muslim Men Protest Acid Attacks Against Women in Bangladesh

That's pretty horrifying.

Yeah the Pakis and the Afghans started this. Pretty fucked up.