![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
It's funny. Now that we have a firmer leader in France with Sarkozy, it looks like we have a rather 'Frenchy' leader in Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, who seems to buy into the idea that Islamophobia is a bigger problem then the Islamist/jihadist terrorists:
Well, Mr. Brown is new and the Brits are eminently sensible people, maybe he will come around, especially as things promise to get worse with more 'crimes'.
(Source: Melanie Phillips for USA Today)
xXx
It's funny. Now that we have a firmer leader in France with Sarkozy, it looks like we have a rather 'Frenchy' leader in Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, who seems to buy into the idea that Islamophobia is a bigger problem then the Islamist/jihadist terrorists:
Gordon Brown, has banned his ministers from using the word "Muslim" — and presumably "Islamic" or "Islamist" — in connection with the terrorist crisis. He has also put an end to the phrase "war on terror."And Mr. Brown joins those who look upon terrorist incidences as criminal acts rather than acts of war. 9/11 or carjacking, what's the difference? When it comes to the inhumane butchery that we have read about today, the killing of Muslim school children, I guess that is just the reflection of different cultural values, and it would be wrong to judge under the enlightenment of cultural relativism as well.
Well, Mr. Brown is new and the Brits are eminently sensible people, maybe he will come around, especially as things promise to get worse with more 'crimes'.
(Source: Melanie Phillips for USA Today)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 03:32 am (UTC)From:Sorry dude, but I don't agree with you at all. People in Britain can't be so fast and loose with terms like Islamic terrorist, War on Terror etc., like the way one can be over here. There are a lot more Muslims in the general population compared to the USA.
---
And yes, thinking that such brutal stuff are part and parcel of Islamic culture is NOT at all the true picture.
I remember talking with you about this earlier, where you made the point that in Islamic countries it's usually the extremist voices that are the most vociferous. Thus one can be forgiven if one has the impression that there's something wrong with the Islamic religion itself.
But the real story most often is that it's just the politicians taking advantage of emotional issues for their personal gain. I know this because I've seen the same thing happening in my country as well, where Muslims comprise upto 20% of the population. A vast majority of them are just regular folks too busy trying to earn their bread, to care about some idiot screaming fatwas.
You might have a hard time believing all this, but that's because you're living somewhere else, half-way across the world. You might find it amusing to know that back home where I live, people have a similar warped impression that all of America is filled with Bible thumpers.
This is because of the perceived bias of the Bush Administration and because most of the news coverage we get is only about the crazy stuff that happens here.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 03:57 am (UTC)From:It has been becoming too much a part of Islamic culture. Furthermore, even before this extremism started taking off, the Middle East Islamic countries have been stagnating, and an over-reliance on religion and control on the part of the governments is probably a big part of the reason.
By contrast, the picture of Americans being Bible thumpers is not entirely misplaced in my region of the south, but even here free markets and free votes rule. The Muslim nations of the Middle East really do need to become more liberal, not only because of the extremisim but for the development of the economies and the people, so that they can have more opportunities, and so that they can better shape what it means to be Islamic.
It matters who governs. I'm sure Muslims have the same human nature as we all do, and we are all just trying to get by and lead as fulfilling lives as we can, but that doesn't help a lot if they are subject to despotic, extremist rule and leaders who drive behavior.
As far as the issue of the Brits needing to be more circumspect about racial and religious categories, that is fine, but they also have a more serious Islamist problem, and they need to be honest about that in order to deal with the problem.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 04:16 am (UTC)From:I believe it is a war. Al-Qaida certainly believes it is, and Iran seems to be acting accordingly.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 04:38 am (UTC)From:With respect to how America may be taking a different perspective from that of India and (for now) Britain, it could have something to do with the fact that America has to take the lead against a global threat.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 04:34 am (UTC)From:Dude, you're right that even India has felt the pinch hard as well. But even here, our Govt. follows an unofficial policy similar to that of Britain, in our fight against them.
Merely not calling it as a War on "Terror", or not juxtaposing Islam with terrorism doesn't mean appeasing Al Qaida.
(Sorry. Seem to be committing mistakes in grammar all over the place. Haven't slept in awhile.)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 04:39 am (UTC)From:With respect to how America may be taking a different perspective from that of India and (for now) Britain, it could have something to do with the fact that America has to take the lead against a global threat.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 04:21 am (UTC)From:Because of the aformentioned reason that they live in society with a much greater religious diversity, Brown is only doing the most practical thing possible by asking his ministers to refrain from making incendiary statements.
It may appear stupid to you to reduce terrorist acts to being being "merely criminal". I can understand your anger, because when taken to it's logical conclusion, even something as horrible as 9/11 would then be reduced to a criminal act. But this is the reality of the global situation.
For example, my country has been fighting a cold war with our neighbors. Everyday, there are reports of 10's of people, either the "terrorists" or our soldiers dying. No different from what you guys face except that we've had this for over half a century now. If you ask the common man, then he won't be able to tell you which one of them is committing terrorism. People have come to realize that terrorism is a relative term. There's ample evidence that my own elected Govt., isn't so moral after all. The same can be said for your country's CIA.
Anyway, this is the situation back home - and would you know, mine's one of the most stablest countries in the region!
The thing is that 9/11 was the first time that the US faced an attack in it's homeland, in centuries. In this respect, it's been incredibly lucky compared to a lotta other countries. I hope it never faces another situation like it again. It'd be sad to see the people here become as
jadedrealistic as the rest of the world. But yeah, I hope this comment would let you know where myself and a lot of other people come from , and somewhat assuage your anger when I say, that I regard 9/11 as a merely a "criminal act" as well.no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 04:30 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 05:56 am (UTC)From:Take the example of the BBC, which if you notice always uses terms like "the so called War on Terror", or "the Bush Administration's War on Terror" in it's news reports. One of the main reasons for this, (and you may find it weird, given your sensibilities) is because they deem the term unnecessarily biased. Here's an explanation by one of the editors of World Tonight. Interestingly, they readily use the term "terrorist" for people bringing harm to their own country.
This is the general pattern as we keep moving East - the warmth that we have for you grows steadily colder and in many nations it's one of outright hostility.
In the case of my country, it's only off late, that the US has been shown in better light in the media (because of the support that we've been getting from you guys to fight our "terrorism" concerns). However, we weren't all that chummy for a long time and I can tell you for a fact, that when I was growing up, reading the papers was mainly about reading about 1 more "atrocity" that the US committed, in this or that corner of the world.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the "the murderous nihilism of Islamist terrorism" is NOT AT ALL crystal clear to a large number of people and in many cases you'd find more than a few folks who'd take you up on the bet that the CIA is not just as bloodthirsty.
In this respect, I think some dude in the Middle East can be forgiven for placing more credence to what Al Jazera or Khaleej Times tells him over the BS of CNN or NY Times.
A lotta these so called "terrorists" are simply people fed up with the "arrogant culture" of the US - again, BS fed by the news media of their own countries.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 12:15 pm (UTC)From:As such, I understand that much of that larger world has this anti-American bias, and when it comes to these jihadists, that is the dangerous bias to have. Sure, there are people who would say the CIA is no better, or is even worse, than al-Qaida, but then there is no reconciling our views because we are too far apart. They can believe what they want, and I don't have to take them seriously.
I also appreciate that there is an arrogance of America that is in itself off-putting, and which is indeed a factor in our difficulties in trying to lead a worldwide effort against the jihadists. I'm sure also that a lot of people enjoy the picture of the world's only superpower getting bloodied up.
We do need to be more receptive to other perspectives and interests and peoples, but that doesn't make us wrong about these jihadists. They aren't going to be as good for you as are our policies. I should think you could appreciate that in your own personal life, preferring our universities to a madrassa.
Agree to Disagree
Date: 2007-07-11 05:24 pm (UTC)From:Your right. I prefer a regular university because I get to be in an environment where there's independence of thought. Then again, I've never studied in a madrassa so I dunno what I'm missing (Very little I think, although the thought of frolicking with 72 virgins for eternity isn't without it's appeal ;-))
We do need to be more receptive to other perspectives and interests and peoples, but that doesn't make us wrong about these jihadists.
Agree with almost everything in your comment, but I guess this is where we differ. I don't agree with the latter half of the sentence ie., I don't believe that there's anything right/wrong or good/bad.
This position may change in the future, but given what I've seen, this hypothesis is the only thing that makes logical sense to me.
Re: Agree to Disagree
Date: 2007-07-12 02:45 am (UTC)From:This position may change in the future, but given what I've seen, this hypothesis is the only thing that makes logical sense to me.
Maybe some things are so obvious that you overlook them when you are in full scientific-logical mode.
For instance, when you want to add something to your fries, and you see on the counter a bottle of ketchup and a spray of insecticide, then you can distinguish good and bad well enough to choose the ketchup.
Human constructs are not wholly arbitrary, even though they evolve and change, which they do because we grow and learn as a species.
Maybe you cannot coneive of a logical proof why liberal democracy is better than a Hitler-led dictatorship, or a murderous religious fanaticism for that matter, but I have enough faith in you to believe that you will opt for the liberal democracy, and that you will see it's better not to treat women as such second-class citizens and to deny them education, and certainly not to kill them because you feel they impaired your honor, and you do not think it is alright to execute gays because they are suppose to be a religious abomination. Given your intellectual predilections, of course you think free speech is good, and you would shrink under a repressive regime that barred everything but the Koran and what is deemed supportive of the Koran.
I think you know these things deep down, but you just have yet to work it into your philosophy.
Re: Agree to Disagree
Date: 2007-07-12 04:57 am (UTC)From:I think the ketchup isn't the best example to use here - it isn't the question of good/bad but rather what works and what doesn't. Based on an objective of self-preservation, it would be logical to chose the ketchup. There's no "good" or "bad" in either act.
but I have enough faith in you to believe that you will opt for the liberal democracy, and that you will see it's better not to treat women as such second-class citizens and to deny them education, and certainly not to kill them because you feel they impaired your honor
Yes. Your faith is well-founded and I would feel horrible when such things occur, but as I explained over here to someone else, I recognize that it's only because of my specific genetic predisposition and because of how I was raised. NOT because it's right. There is no "right" or "wrong" with any act. It just "is what it is".
I hope my philosophical position is clearer with this.
Re: Agree to Disagree
Date: 2007-07-12 12:03 pm (UTC)From:Logic is only a tool. That tool should serve you, and you just need to learn who you are and what is truly important to you.
Re: Agree to Disagree
Date: 2007-07-12 04:29 pm (UTC)From:You sound like a therapist :-)
I guess, what gave you that impression is the apparent lack of importance that I give to emotions over logic.
To be honest, until very recently, I did think that logic was some how "better" than emotion. However, I've refined my ideas. I'll try to put 'em up as my next post, so that it should give you a chance to attack 'em.
I'm as emotional as any other guy - perhaps even more so, because for some hilarious reason they've also diagnosed me as being bipolar :-D
Re: Agree to Disagree
Date: 2007-07-12 09:00 pm (UTC)From:Re: Agree to Disagree
Date: 2007-07-13 07:23 am (UTC)From: