Hva er Islam?

[karl]

Hvor mange muslimer har du snakket med?

 

[bber]

Hvor mange muslimer har du snakket med?

Det er godt dokumentert at en betydelig andel av muslimer i Europa ikke vil ta avstand fra terror.

 

[Ivar_Loekken]

Hva vet du om muslimenes antipatier og sympatier mht terror? De undersøkelsene jeg har sett referert i media viser at det er svært få muslimer som støtter dette.

Du liker å bruke fraser som "alle undersøkelser viser" og "statistikken sier tydelig at..", - hvor er disse undersøkelsene da? Hvis du tar statistikk til inntekt for ditt synspunkt bør du backe det opp med litt data.

Jeg har tidligere henvist til en undersøkelse gjort i midt-østen av PEW, såvidt meg bekjent den eneste betydelige i sitt slag:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_attitudes.pdf

Se spesielt fra side 9-15 (i den første linken) for synspunkter på Islams rolle i politikk, side 18 for synspunkter på terror (i Jordan støtter 57% av befolkningen terror, i Libanon 39%). Side 22 og 29 er heller ikke hyggelig lesning. Å påstå at islamister støttes av "noen få" er en sterk underdrivelse.

 

[karl]

Det er godt dokumentert at en betydelig andel av muslimer i Europa ikke vil ta avstand fra terror.  

Kommer an på hva du synes er betydelig, og i hvilken sammenheng.
Gitt det er riktig: hvor fører det oss hen?

Løkken: svar på mine spørsmål, og jeg skal svare på dine.

 

[AGD]

I thought my first real post on this forum would relate to Hi-Fi, but since I have some experience with the Middle East I may as well begin here....

Let me begin by saying I find it very sad indeed that so many people appear to believe that what they see in the media is the whole and full truth about Arabs, Islam and the Middle East. One would think that today, with all our knowledge about the world in general, everyone would realise that TV, newspapers and the like only present us with an extremely limited and narrow view of
*any* subject, be it a conflict, a country, a people or anything else. In my opinion that is more true in relation to the Middle East and its conflicts than in most other cases.

All told I have personally spent about 5 years in the Middle East. Some on assignment, some on my own time, as a tourist. I have worked as an observer in Lebanon during the civil war there, as well as in Gaza, on the West Bank, in Jordan, in Egypt, in Iraq and also Iran. Additionally I have travelled extensively in all those countries, as well as in North Africa. With the exception of members of Hamas and Hezballah as well as some other religious/political groupings, I can honestly say that I have never met anyone expressing the views which Komponenten and others above appear to believe to be so prevalent amongst all muslims. The exceptions noted would, in my estimation, add up to far less than one percent of those I have met and conversed with. On the contrary I have always been met with exquisite courtesy and hospitality wherever I have travelled, be it in the midst of Damascus or trekking through the Dasht-e-kavir. Far more so, it must be noted, than when travelling through any other part of the world (although I have yet to go everywhere).

In my experience the average muslim, or Arab, or whatever you will, want only the same things from life as the average Brit or Norwegian. A peaceful existence, enough money to get by comfortably and a safe and prosperous future for their kids. Unfortunately many of them will never have either, because a very small minority is caught up in Militant Islam - and yes, it *is* a small minority only, regardless of what impression my media and yours choose to present. Just as unfortunately it is unlikely to change anytime soon, because such a change would necessitate the emergence of greater understanding between the West and the Middle East. While possible (just), I fear it to be unrealistic in the extreme when so many people on both sides choose to have their opinions determined for them by others - the muslims by their religious leaders, because they have, in general, no access to the information resources which we use daily and we by the narrow and disturbing perspective offered us by the media, because we simply cannot be bothered to explore behind and outside it.

As for Christianity and Islam, the Bible and the Koran, they are of course pretty much identical. The Koran borrows most of its tenets from the Old Testament and both are simply mosaics stuck together from other and older religions. There is nothing new or unique in either. As far as there is a difference, it is that the Bible's New Testament grew out of a relatively advanced culture, with access to good agricultural land, trade and all the benefits of that time's civilisation, whereas Islam grew out of a harsh desert environment where constant vigilance and strict discipline were necessary for survival. The greater tragedy is really that either one is a viable belief system today, so many centuries later. Had it not been so, this discussion would never have existed.

 

[bber]

I thought my first real post on this forum would relate to Hi-Fi, but since I have some experience with the Middle East I may as well begin here....

Let me begin by saying I find it very sad indeed that so many people appear to believe that what they see in the media is the whole and full truth about Arabs, Islam and the Middle East. One would think that today, with all our knowledge about the world in general, everyone would realise that TV, newspapers and the like only present us with an extremely limited and narrow view of
*any* subject, be it a conflict, a country, a people or anything else. In my opinion that is more true in relation to the Middle East and its conflicts than in most other cases.

All told I have personally spent about 5 years in the Middle East. Some on assignment, some on my own time, as a tourist. I have worked as an observer in Lebanon during the civil war there, as well as in Gaza, on the West Bank, in Jordan, in Egypt, in Iraq and also Iran. Additionally I have travelled extensively in all those countries, as well as in North Africa. With the exception of members of Hamas and Hezballah as well as some other religious/political groupings, I can honestly say that I have never met anyone expressing the views which Komponenten and others above appear to believe to be so prevalent amongst all muslims. The exceptions noted would, in my estimation, add up to far less than one percent of those I have met and conversed with. On the contrary I have always been met with exquisite courtesy and hospitality wherever I have travelled, be it in the midst of Damascus or trekking through the Dasht-e-kavir. Far more so, it must be noted, than when travelling through any other part of the world (although I have yet to go everywhere).

In my experience the average muslim, or Arab, or whatever you will, want only the same things from life as the average Brit or Norwegian. A peaceful existence, enough money to get by comfortably and a safe and prosperous future for their kids. Unfortunately many of them will never have either, because a very small minority is caught up in Militant Islam - and yes, it *is* a small minority only, regardless of what impression my media and yours choose to present. Just as unfortunately it is unlikely to change anytime soon, because such a change would necessitate the emergence of greater understanding between the West and the Middle East. While possible (just), I fear it to be unrealistic in the extreme when so many people on both sides choose to have their opinions determined for them by others - the muslims by their religious leaders, because they have, in general, no access to the information resources which we use daily and we by the narrow and disturbing perspective offered us by the media, because we simply cannot be bothered to explore behind and outside it.

As for Christianity and Islam, the Bible and the Koran, they are of course pretty much identical. The Koran borrows most of its tenets from the Old Testament and both are simply mosaics stuck together from other and older religions. There is nothing new or unique in either. As far as there is a difference, it is that the Bible's New Testament grew out of a relatively advanced culture, with access to good agricultural land, trade and all the benefits of that time's civilisation, whereas Islam grew out of a harsh desert environment where constant vigilance and strict discipline were necessary for survival. The greater tragedy is really that either one is a viable belief system today, so many centuries later. Had it not been so, this discussion would never have existed.

Several polls and reports from the UK have given results markedly different from your findings.

 

[karl]

Har du snakket med noen muslimer i det siste da BB?

 

[wurst]

En gammel radikaler som er verdt å lytte til:

http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060616/BOGER/106160157

 

[AGD]

Several polls and reports from the UK have given results markedly different from your findings.

Indeed. My reverence for polls however, is quite similar in strength to my reverence for the general media.

 

[Pink_Panther]

Interessant det du skrev, AGD. Særlig det siste avsnittet.
Bombing tilbake til steinalder og oppildning til hat mot islam er det siste vi trenger nå.

 

[Komponenten]

Jeg tviler selvsagt ikke på dine personlige opplevelser AGD ( og vil ellers si at det er trivelig at du starter din karriere på Hifisentralen her på offtopic ) men jeg har lest, sett og hørt såpass mye annet om denne religionen, som ikke akkurat stiller den i noe godt lys at mitt syn på islam blir ikke så lett endret, og det er ikke kun aviser, men også bøker, hvor muslimer selv forteller om sitt liv, og det er ofte tragiske historier, spesielt når de fortelles av kvinner.

Jeg er enig i at mennesker uansett opphav, kultur og religion stort sett alltid er trivelige og sympatiske mennesker når man får de på tomannshånd og blir kjent med dem. Og selvsagt ønsker de fleste å få leve i fred og fordragelighet. Men hvorfor er det da så mye vold, undertrykking og elendighet, spesielt i muslimske land? Hvorfor ønsker så mange å innføre sharia, som er så steng at den straffer utroskap med steining og tyveri med kapping av hender? Hvorfor er det så mye kriging også innad mellom disse landene?

Hvilken annen religion enn islams tilhengere vil reagere som vi så tidligere i år under Muhammed-tegning-striden ( regner med du fikk med deg den, selv om du ikke bor i Norge) Hvorfor syntes såpass mange “vanlige” muslimer at det var på sin plass å true en hvilken som helst nordmann, svenske eller gjerne europeer, for at noen frie mennesker i deres eget land hadde valgt å trykke noen helt uskyldige tegninger? Hvorfor ble vi så redde “alle mann“, og følte at dette måtte vi beklage, og ga blaffen i at dette var et stort slag mot ytringsfriheten som vi ellers setter så høyt?

Hvis det som du sier bare er noen få militante muslimer som ønsker ufred, så er det viktig at vi i vesten støtter de som er moderate, og ikke som nå, å støtte hamas og andre militante terrororganisasjoner med utslettelse av Israel som mål.
Men også her er vi feige. Under Muhammedstriden var det en del modige avisredaktører i muslimske land som faktisk våget å trykke disse tegningene, og de håpet vel kanskje på litt støtte, og at vi her vest skulle våge å gjøre det samme. Men der ble de stående alene.

Problemet er nok i stor grad at mange muslimer ser på Muhammed og koranen som ufeilbarlige, man kan ikke stille spørsmålstegn med Muhammeds ord, alt tolkes fremdeles helt bokstavelig.

Her står det litt om denne mannen:

http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/innsikt/article1219370.ece


Det blir kanskje ikke fred om man bomber noen tilbake til steinalderen, men det blir ikke bedre i de muslimske landene av seg selv heller ser det ut til. Så hva er da løsningen?

 

[bber]

En gammel radikaler som er verdt å lytte til:

http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060616/BOGER/106160157

Ja, han har sikkert mye rett her, og jeg synes betegnelsen"Den radikale taper" på mange måter er god. Kanskje dette er en treffende betegnelse på mange muslimske samfunn? Islam er vel i virkeligheten et realt taperprosjekt.

 

[Honkey_Chateau]

You are raising some good questions, Komponenten. The only problem you have is that your answer is already given and unchangeable:
Islam is THE evil religion. The people living in islamic countries are evil. People believing in Allah are a danger to our society. Period.
Generalization.
The world is a rainbow, filled with all colours. I'm fed up with all the people telling me that the greyscale mass is "a danger". Like people (also here in Norway) can tell me that "Ola Nordmann just can't handle freedom etc...". Who the heck is Ola Nordmann!? Who the heck is Abdullah Islamist?!?

Yes, I know the world is filled with evil. It's definately a human characteristic!

Honkey!

PS: AGD bare fristet meg til å bli litt internasjonal et øyeblikk... Morsmålet føles lettere å leke med, ja!

 

[bber]

You are raising some good questions, Komponenten. The only problem you have is that your answer is already given and unchangeable:
Islam is THE evil religion. The people living in islamic countries are evil. People believing in Allah are a danger to our society. Period.
Generalization.
The world is a rainbow, filled with all colours. I'm fed up with all the people telling me that the greyscale mass is "a danger". Like people (also here in Norway) can tell me that "Ola Nordmann just can't handle freedom etc...". Who the heck is Ola Nordmann!? Who the heck is Abdullah Islamist?!?

Yes, I know the world is filled with evil. It's definately a human characteri

Nå ble det nesten litt "barn av regnbuen" stemning her.

Er konklusjonen at alle mennesker er like snille, og at verdens ondskap, inkludert islamofascismen, i bunn og grunn er skapt av vårt hensynsløse forbrukersamfunn og griske, vestlige kapitalist-imperialister?

 

[karl]

Konklusjonen er at alle folkeslag har litt av hvert blandt sine egne.

Tror du at muslimer er onde?

 

[Honkey_Chateau]

Nå ble det nesten litt "barn av regnbuen" her.  Er konklusjonen at alle mennesker er like snille, og at verdens ondskap, inkludert islamofascismen,  i bunn og grunn er skapt av vårt hensynsløse forbrukersamfunn og griske, vestlige kapitalist-imperialister?  

Nei. Konklusjonen er at mennesket er som art et meget sammensatt fenomen med store mengder godhet og store mengder ondskap. Disse egenskaper (og mange andre) har forskjellige måter å trigges på. Vi bruker for tiden mye energi i verdenssamfunnet på å trigge ondskap. I slike tider er det viktig å holde tunga rett i munnen, puste dypt og tenke enda dypere.

Honeky

 

[bber]

Konklusjonen er at alle folkeslag har litt av hvert blandt sine egne.

Tror du at muslimer er onde?

Nei, men jeg regner all religion som skadelig og farlig. For tiden er islam den klart farligste og skadeligste. 99% av all terror i dag utøves av muslimer. Islam brukes i seg selv ofte som terrorens begrunnelse, kfr kamp mot de vantro, kamp mot de som håner Muhammed osv.

 

[karl]

Da får du angripe det du ikke liker, ta saken og ikke personene. Du kommer mye lenger med det.

 

[bber]

Da får du angripe det du ikke liker, ta saken og ikke personene. Du kommer mye lenger med det.

Personene og organisasjonene som utøver terror bør naturligvis elimineres.

 

[karl]

Med å ta saken mener jeg å diskutere terroren og dens årsaker saklig, ikke diskutere personene.

 

[Ivar_Loekken]

All told I have personally spent about 5 years in the Middle East. (...) With the exception of members of Hamas and Hezballah as well as some other religious/political groupings, I can honestly say that I have never met anyone expressing the views which Komponenten and others above appear to believe to be so prevalent amongst all muslims. The exceptions noted would, in my estimation, add up to far less than one percent of those I have met and conversed with.

In my experience the average muslim, or Arab, or whatever you will, want only the same things from life as the average Brit or Norwegian. A peaceful existence, enough money to get by comfortably and a safe and prosperous future for their kids. Unfortunately many of them will never have either, because a very small minority is caught up in Militant Islam - and yes, it *is* a small minority only...

For the sake of argument, I'll follow your reasoning; that islamic militants and their views only represent a minute part of the muslim population and that most only want peace and hate terrorists as much as we do.

Then I'm curious to know: If the radicals represent such a small minority, why are they seemingly so prevalent? Why are they allowed to operate freely in Lebanon? Why are they financed by the syrian and iranian governments? Why is secterian violence pushing Iraq to the brink of civil war? Why is Afghanistan ruled by warlords? Why is Somalia being torn apart (without any western interference)? Why is Aceh and other parts of Indonesia being radicalised as we speak?

Why don't all these countries go together and clamp down on the extremists once and for all? They have been given plenty of chances. Lebanon has been urged peacefully to disarm Hizbollah for years and years. Have they done so? No. Have they even tried? No. Diplomatic pressure is continuously put on Syria and Iran to get them to cooperate, to seemingly little effect. Every time Israel has conceded, there has been a consequent increase of attacks. It isn't like diplomacy is untried in the region, it's exhausted.

If the arabs are unable or unwilling to clean up in their own house so to speak, it shouldn't come as a surprise if others do it for them.

 

[Pink_Panther]

Jeg tviler selvsagt ikke på dine personlige opplevelser  AGD ( og vil ellers si at det er trivelig at du starter din karriere på Hifisentralen her på offtopic   ) men jeg har lest, sett og hørt såpass mye annet om denne religionen, som ikke akkurat stiller den i noe godt lys at mitt syn på islam blir ikke så lett endret, og det er ikke kun aviser, men også bøker, hvor muslimer selv forteller om sitt liv, og det er ofte tragiske historier, spesielt når de fortelles av kvinner.

"Mitt grusomme liv som muslim" selger nok mye bedre enn "Mitt gode liv som muslim"
Hadde du giddet å lese en bok/artikkel av sistnevnte kategori?
Det er det samme mantraet når en viss politiker messer om hvor ille minstepensjonistene har det. Sannheten er jo at de aller fleste har det bra. Vi velger å lese og tro på hva vi vil og da kan det tenkes at bildet blir litt skjevt.

 

[AGD]

Komponenten (or perhaps "The Component" ): in terms of the actual teachings of Islam and Christianity, there are in fact only fairly minor differences.  Reading each religion's respective bestseller uncovers that fact very rapidly.  There are easily an equal or greater number of unpalatable and unsavoury teachings in the Bible compared to the Koran and it can certainly be argued that the latter's views on women are more in line with our western views than the Bible's.  However, if you only read *about* it, rather than actually reading the book itself, then your views will most likely forever remain coloured by what you want to believe, rather than what is actually correct.  You will in any case find that as good as all religious historians agree that the two are pretty much the same.

A brief deviation; I have never understood why anyone would, in seriousness, quote "information" stemming from novels, newspapers and the tabloid media in any discussion.  Personally, if I am looking for actual knowledge on any given subject, I go to the library or a bookshop and pick up one or more works by acknowledged authorities on the subject in question.  I don't go to the newsagent to pick up something written by a person about whom I know nothing at all and who might very well have an agenda I am unaware of.  A scholarly work may not be as entertaining, but it is at least infinitely more likely to provide actual knowledge, rather than feeding you bias and erroneous conclusions.

Anyway.  If we presume for a moment that the two religions are more or less identical, then obviously the underlying reason for the troubles we see must be something other than Islam's inherent nastiness.  Could it be that the conditions onder which so many people live in the Middle East have something to do with the problem?  It is after all common knowledge that poverty, illiteracy and the like create the most fertile ground for unrest of any kind.  If we once again make a presumption that this is the cause, or a large part of the cause, what would then be the benefit of using military means in order to attempt to solve the problem?  Bombs, missiles, tanks and soldiers would leave only more poverty and depravation in their wake, as well as fuelling the already pervasive view that the West hates Islam and all it's followers.  It would play directly into the hands of the fundamentalist clergy, confirming (rightly or wrongly) that what they preach is the truth: that we are all out to get them, that we want to eradicate Islam and to subjugate every muslim nation.

You ask which other religion would react "as Islam did" (which is of course not correct - the reaction was not Islam's, it belonged to the radical and fundamentalist segments of Islam) to the cartoons presented earlier  this year.  Consider then what was mentioned earlier in this thread; that the Middle East can in fact be likened with "the West" during the medieval period.  In many ways this is true, or at least it is for a large number of people in the region.  That being the case, draw a line to medieaval Christianity and ask instead how it would have reacted to the circulation of cartoons depicting Jesus in a variety of less than reverential situations and postures?

The fundamental mistake most people make, regular people and leaders alike, is to attempt to address fundamentalist Islam as if its adherents were just like us, when they are not.  The vast majority at the gound level in Hamas, Hezballah and all the lesser known factions are basically medieval peasants.  They have limited schooling, they are poor to a degree which most of us are unable even to fathom and they have no access to the internet or (relatively) unbiased information channels of any kind.  Their radical Imams then come along, offering food, shelter and the promise of heaven if they'll only help kill the infidels.  Compared to a life in endless poverty, perhaps that doesn't appear as such a bad deal?  Anyway - what then makes us think that we can address them in the same manner as we address our daily acqaintances or the next door neighbour and expect similar responses?  That our logic has any meaning whatsoever when transposed into their daily existence?  What good is it to attempt a discourse based exclusively on our world view, when theirs is a fundamentally different one?

As for simply bombing Hezballah, Hamas, Syria, Iran and whoever else we feel like back to kingdom come, it would in my opinion be the most stupid thing imaginable.  It would confirm, once and for all, our "adversaries'" views of us and simply guarantee another 1000 years of strife.  Unless of course we come to see genocide as a morally acceptable solution too: if so, then by ridding the world of all Arabs we could of course ensure a peaceful Middle East.

 

[karl]

Jeg er helt enig med deg AGD. Norsk debatt er gjerne lite "intellektuell", nordmenn hopper gjerne på synspunkter på følelsesmessig grunnlag. Norsk skole oppdrar ikke til kritisk tenking, og de skolene som har prøvd dette kan få et dårlig stempel. Norge har svake akademiske tradisjoner, vi var sent ute med å få universitet, og fremdeles er det ikke så mye respekt for kunnskap, kritisk tenking og utdanning.

Les en dansk avis og se forskjellen.

 

[AGD]

Ivar: most of the reasons why radicals are so prevalent can, I believe, be found above. Poverty, illiteracy, etc, etc. Add to that a number of religious fanatics to stir the pot and another handful who see religion as a way to power and you have an instant recipe for anything from unrest to terror.

As far as Lebanon and the disarming of Hezballah goes, the reasons why it has never happened should be evident to anyone familiar with the region. 1. The Lebanese Army is not and has never been much of a force. 2. The political wing of Hezballah is a de facto part of the administration of the country. 3. Attempting it regardless of points 1 and 2 would ensure an unsuccessful outcome and most likely a second civil war.

I fail to see how the warlords of Afghanistan enter into this though. The country is ruled (parts of it anyway) by warlords because it has always been ruled by warlords. The warlords have nothing to do with Islam, it is simply the way things have always been.

Aceh and Somalia are outwith my area of "expertise" (such as it is), so I'll refrain from offering any kind of analysis there.

As for a "final solution" I have no difficulty seeing why a military one is so tempting to many. It appears simple and final to the average Joe and so is undertandably attractive. It is also, fortunately, doomed to go horribly wrong. Did the war in Iraq permanently or temporarily solve anything at all? If not, then where is the indication that carpet bombing of Beirut, Damascus and Teheran will be any more effective? "Cleaning house" is simply an impossibility as far as any kind of military campaign is concerned, it is as simple as that.

 

[bber]

Ivar: most of the reasons why radicals are so prevalent can, I believe, be found above. Poverty, illiteracy, etc, etc. Add to that a number of religious fanatics to stir the pot and another handful who see religion as a way to power and you have an instant recipe for anything from unrest to terror.

As far as Lebanon and the disarming of Hezballah goes, the reasons why it has never happened should be evident to anyone familiar with the region. 1. The Lebanese Army is not and has never been much of a force. 2. The political wing of Hezballah is a de facto part of the administration of the country. 3. Attempting it regardless of points 1 and 2 would ensure an unsuccessful outcome and most likely a second civil war.

I fail to see how the warlords of Afghanistan enter into this though. The country is ruled (parts of it anyway) by warlords because it has always been ruled by warlords. The warlords have nothing to do with Islam, it is simply the way things have always been.

Aceh and Somalia are outwith my area of "expertise" (such as it is), so I'll refrain from offering any kind of analysis there.

As for a "final solution" I have no difficulty seeing why a military one is so tempting to many. It appears simple and final to the average Joe and so is undertandably attractive. It is also, fortunately, doomed to go horribly wrong. Did the war in Iraq permanently or temporarily solve anything at all? If not, then where is the indication that carpet bombing of Beirut, Damascus and Teheran will be any more effective? "Cleaning house" is simply an impossibility as far as any kind of military campaign is concerned, it is as simple as that.

Du signaliserer en kynisk og privatiserende verdensoppfatning. Skal krigsherrene i Afghanistan få styre fordi de "alltid" har styrt? Her signaliserer du at du gir blaffen i folk som må leve i Afghanistan. Hvor lenge skulle Saddam få herje med irakere , kurdere og andre?
Husk: "Du skal ikke tåle så inderlig vel, den urett som ikke rammer deg selv." Folk i Irak vil ikke ha de allierte ut.

 

[bber]

Jeg er helt enig med deg AGD. Norsk debatt er gjerne lite "intellektuell", nordmenn hopper gjerne på synspunkter på følelsesmessig grunnlag. Norsk skole oppdrar ikke til kritisk tenking, og de skolene som har prøvd dette kan få et dårlig stempel. Norge har svake akademiske tradisjoner, vi var sent ute med å få universitet, og fremdeles er det ikke så mye respekt for kunnskap, kritisk tenking og utdanning.

Les en dansk avis og se forskjellen.

Dette er jeg helt enig i.

 

[Honkey_Chateau]

Du signaliserer en kynisk og privatiserende verdensoppfatning.  Skal krigsherrene i Afghanistan få styre fordi de "alltid" har styrt?  Her signaliserer du at du gir blaffen i folk som må leve i Afghanistan. Hvor lenge skulle Saddam få herje med irakere , kurdere og andre?    
Husk: "Du skal ikke tåle så inderlig vel, den urett som ikke rammer deg selv."    Folk i Irak vil ikke ha de allierte ut.  

Nå ser det ut for meg som om du feiltolker AGD mer enn en smule. Det han gjorde i sitt innlegg var ikke annet enn å analysere en situajson, ikke argumentere for at situasjonen ver rett elller gal.

Honkey

 

[bber]

Nå ser det ut for meg som om du feiltolker AGD mer enn en smule. Det han gjorde i sitt innlegg var ikke annet enn å analysere en situajson, ikke argumentere for at situasjonen ver rett elller gal.

Honkey

"Analysen" er i så fall tynn. Men det er naturligvis en lettvint og behagelig innstilling å ha, nemlig at verden kan gå sin skeive gang uten at det bryr oss.

 

[AGD]

Du signaliserer en kynisk og privatiserende verdensoppfatning.  Skal krigsherrene i Afghanistan få styre fordi de "alltid" har styrt?  Her signaliserer du at du gir blaffen i folk som må leve i Afghanistan. Hvor lenge skulle Saddam få herje med irakere , kurdere og andre?    
Husk: "Du skal ikke tåle så inderlig vel, den urett som ikke rammer deg selv."    Folk i Irak vil ikke ha de allierte ut.  

I do no such thing, nor did I make any judgement, moral or qualitative, regarding the rule of the Afghan warlords. I think perhaps you need to read it once more.

Folk i Irak vil ikke ha de allierte ut.

Patently untrue, as all polls of which I am aware have shown for a long time. As noted earlier my confidence in polls is less than great, but in this case the picture has been consistent over time and also with what I hear from people I know in the area.

Here's one of the most recent polls for you.

 

[Honkey_Chateau]

"Analysen" er i så fall tynn.   Men det er naturligvis en lettvint og behagelig innstilling å ha, nemlig  at verden kan gå sin skeive gang uten at det bryr oss.

Vil igjen gjenta at det er helt feil å tro at en slik analyse har noen som helst sammenheng med holdningen til temaet. Hvis jeg f. eks. hevder at: Israel bomber i Libanon fordi de har maktstruktur til å gjøre det, og fordi de i de seneste 20 år har hatt et konstant behov for å avvæpne Hizbollah, - Er dette da et tegn på at jeg mener det er i orden / ikke i orden? Nei, det sier faktisk INTET om hva jeg mener om situasjonen. AGB har heller ikke hevdet å mene noe spesielt om krigsherrene i Afganistan, han fremførte en opplysning om hvorfdan situasjonen faktisk er.

Jeg har ikke et øyeblikk tillagt AGB holdninger som går i retning av at han gir blaffen i befolkningen i noe land basert på det ytterst saklige han har bidratt med her. Snarere tvert om. BB ser spøkelser på høylys dag.

Honkey

 

[karl]

Dette er jeg helt enig i.

Da bør du sannelig skjerpe deg! Du kan begynne med å lese andres innlegg ordentlig, deretter prøve å sette deg inn i hva dine "motstandere" tenker.

 

[Ivar_Loekken]

1). As far as Lebanon and the disarming of Hezballah goes, the reasons why it has never happened should be evident to anyone familiar with the region. 1. The Lebanese Army is not and has never been much of a force. 2. The political wing of Hezballah is a de facto part of the administration of the country. 3. Attempting it regardless of points 1 and 2 would ensure an unsuccessful outcome and most likely a second civil war.

2). As for a "final solution" I have no difficulty seeing why a military one is so tempting to many. It appears simple and final to the average Joe and so is undertandably attractive. It is also, fortunately, doomed to go horribly wrong. Did the war in Iraq permanently or temporarily solve anything at all? If not, then where is the indication that carpet bombing of Beirut, Damascus and Teheran will be any more effective? "Cleaning house" is simply an impossibility as far as any kind of military campaign is concerned, it is as simple as that.

1). That doesn't add up with the previous notion that <1% sympathize with Hizbollah views and methods. If they are supported by so few, if the vast majority of muslims reject holy war and terrorism, then surely they [Hizbollah] can't run the whole country? Let alone fight a civil war? How is this possible unless they have resonably widespread public support?

2). I don't buy your attempted tautology; western aggression causing poverty causing antagonization causing radicalization. There are countless people in the world living under much worse conditions than palestinians, let alone lebanese and saudis, without for that reason going off on a holy war against the rest of the world.

And people have throughout history fought wars, lost wars and moved on. Look at Japan after WW2; absolutely devastated, Hiroshima and Nagasaki wiped off the face of the earth. Did they embark on a holy war with no end against the americans? Did they descent into violence and chaos? No, they rebuilt themselves, they rose from the ashes and are now a prosporous people living in a peaceful country. What about Germany? Dresden and Berlin were carpet bombed. Nazism, the supreme extremist movement of its age, was taken out via military means. Did the germans blame the world for doing them wrong and embark on militias and world wide terrorism? Did the koreans?

If you want out of war or poverty you can't sit on your ass blaming the rest of the world for your misery. It takes action. Of course one can't expect such action to be taken by a syrian peasant who's unable to read, but one can certainly expect it, and require it, from the syrian government, from its political as well as spiritual leaders. How can they blame anyone else for their poverty as long as they spend their money on RPGs and AK47s for Hizbollah?

On a final note, I don't think fundamentalists can be reasoned or negotiated with. I don't think any concessions will make them change their ways. They simply have to be put out of business. Of course it would be preferable if the arab nations did this themselves, but every diplomatic effort to make them do so have failed miserably. So what's the alternative?

 

[bber]

I do no such thing, nor did I make any judgement, moral or qualitative, regarding the rule of the Afghan warlords. I think perhaps you need to read it once more.


Patently untrue, as all polls of which I am aware have shown for a long time. As noted earlier my confidence in polls is less than great, but in this case the picture has been consistent over time and also with what I hear from people I know in the area.

Here's one of the most recent polls for you.

Dette er en over 2 år gammel artikkel/meningsmåling du viser til.
Irak har heldigvis et parlament som er valgt i et valg med høy valgdeltakelse. Parlamentet har hittil ønsket å beholde de allierte styrkene.

 

[bber]

Da bør du sannelig skjerpe deg! Du kan begynne med å lese andres innlegg ordentlig, deretter prøve å sette deg inn i hva dine "motstandere" tenker.

Takk. Jeg leser og er alltid skjerpet. Imidlertid må jeg medgi at jeg ofte finner dine innlegg litt uklare i argumentasjon og form.

 

[AGD]

Ivar: I don't recall saying that Hezballah "runs the whole country"? I said they were part of the administration of the country, which is rather different. As for the remainder of your argument, you are missing out on two of the key components: Israel is the main thorn in the foot of radical Islam and the extremists gravitate, or are sent, to Lebanon and the West Bank to shore up the forces of Hamas and Hezballah. I have spent considerable time in the company of people from both groups and I can tell you that a large proportion are neither Lebanese or Palestinian, but come from Iran, the Gulf or from farther afield. Additionally, Iran (and Syria earlier, not so much these days) is pouring money and supplies into the area, which means that Hezballah in particular is likely better funded than the Lebanese Army.

In any case, there is far from widespread support for Hezballah in Lebanon, of that you can be quite sure. Partly because no one there is hankering after a new civil war or Israeli invasion, but also of course because Lebanon has very sizeable Christian and Druze populations, both of which have great power and influence.

As for my tautology, there is nothing for you to buy into or not. I never asserted that "we" have created or caused the current poverty and general lack of progress in the Middle East, I simply noted that it is there and that adopting a military "solution" would create even more of the same. If at all possible please try to simply read what I write rather than interpreting it, as I generally try not to write anything between the lines.

The solution? I don't have one. Never claimed to do either, for that sake. What I do know though, is that no military solution to this particular problem exists. Your historical examples are all well and good, but they have no direct bearing on this even if you think they do. We are dealing neither with Germans, nor Koreans, but with Arabs, whose history, traditions and world view is different from either. In any case I fully agree with you that fundamentalists cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. If we could take them all out in surgical strikes, then that would be all for the good as far as I'm concerned (hey, I'm ex-Army after all ). The problem of course, is that we can't and I for one am entirely unwilling to entertain the thought of "Israeli style" collective punishment where entire communities are wiped out in the hope of killing a few bad guys along with the civilians.

BBKing: wrong link, apologies for that. I'll see if I can locate the correct one.

 

[Ivar_Loekken]

I'll gladly admit that you make some very good points here, but for me it just doesn't change the bottom line:

a) Fundamentalists are not rational, can not be negotiated with and constitute a global threat.
b) Fundamentalist groups receive significant funding and support from several governments in the region. Despite intense diplomatic pressure, there is no will to bring them down from within and public support is xx% (insert number from preferred poll/statistic/personal experience, anything above 0 is a problem).

To equal a+b (or rather, to negate a+b), I would say "c" must constitute some form of military response or containment. at least from an Israeli point of view. From a westerner's point of view, as I think I pointed out earlier or in another thread, it would probably make as much sense to just butt out and let them sort out their own problems, albeit while restricting their political and military abilities on the geopolitical arena. The Iraq war has certainly shown that incursion comes at a hefty price. Of course the outcry wouldn't be any less if the west withdrew its interests, because then we'd be abandoning and isolating them. Neither the US-critics nor the fundamentalists would falter and they'd still have plenty of arguments to throw around.

No, there aren't any simple solutions readily available. I don't think regional war will help and I do not believe in Honkey Chateau's "flower and roses" portrayal of the terrorists being good at heart and likely to change their ways and embrace us if we only reach out to them. A mix of military operations and diplomacy is most likely in the forseeable future, in the long run the biggest hope is probably free trade. As an avid believer in free trade, I think that's perhaps the only way to impose the social and structural changes neccessary to bring them from primitive feudal states to participants in the modern world. Unfortunately, free trade has a big enemy, here as well as in the middle east, in the all too mighty state.

 

[Komponenten]

Du har nok rett i en del av det du skriver AGD, men dette argumentet med fattigdom som en årsak til problemet har jeg store problemer med å skjønne.
Det er nok av eksempler i verden på mennesker som er fattige, uten at de av den grunn reagerer som man ofte gjør i muslimske land, uten å gå til selvmordaksjoner og uten å la sin harme gå ut over uskyldige.
En av de aller mest fundamentalistiske islamske stater man finner er også Saudi-Arabia, og der kan man i alle fall ikke skylde på fattigdom som årsak.

Ellers er det jo selvsagt sikkert korrekt at som kilder bør man være kritisk, men om man skal gå så drastisk til verks at man kun skal lese bøker av forfattere man kjenner bakgrunnen til ( om jeg forstår deg rett) så blir utvalget noe begrenset. Vi vet alle at media ikke alltid forteller sannheten, det slår nok ut i begge retninger, men vi har ikke så mange alternativer om man ønsker å holde seg noenlunde oppdatert.

Om ikke Israel hadde vært så sterke som de er militært, og om de ikke hadde vist vilje til å gå drastisk til verks når det trengs, tror du de hadde eksistert i dag, med tanke på hva deres naboland ønsker ( utslettelse av staten)?

Jeg er heller ikke enig i at skillene mellom kristendommen og islam ikke er så store. Greit nok at de har en del felles punkter, og felles profeter og sånn sett felles bakgrunn, men hele tankegangen er sånn som jeg ser det totalt forskjellig. Mens Jesus fokuserte på nestekjærlighet, tilgivelse og “godhet” så fokuserte Muhammed i mye større grad på å bruke voldelige metoder for å oppnå det man ønsker og å straffe andre. Han var selv en kriger og han er i dag det store forbildet til mange muslimer. Bare det at det mange steder er dødsstraff for å forlate religionen er jo mer enn ille nok.

Man kan jo si at “de” lever i middelalderen mens “vi” er kommet videre men vi lever side om side i en ikke alt for stor verden, og om de skal ha tilgang på all verdens avanserte våpen og teknologi så er dette en farlig kombinasjon sammen med en gammeldags og menneskefiendtlig tankegang.
Og når “de” også flytter til vesten og tar med seg disse tradisjonene uten å vise vilje til å endre seg, f.eks med sitt kvinnesyn, så vil det på sikt få konsekvenser for oss som bor her med redusert frihet. Vi har allerede sett eksempler på at vestlige kvinner blir oppfordret til å kle seg mer tekkelig, for å ikke “provosere” frem voldtekt, er dette noe vi bare skal måtte leve med?


Hvis du har en boktittel Pink P skal jeg gjerne lese den...

 

[Pink_Panther]

 


Hvis du har en boktittel Pink P skal jeg gjerne lese den...

Jeg har nok ikke det. Jeg vet ikke om det er utgitt en slik bok engang.
Men du kunne jo skrive en bok med tittel "Mitt helvete som kristen" og gi den ut på arabisk. Du blir garantert søkkrik ;D
Bare sørg for å få med noen sterke scener fra f. eks. voksendåp, liten mulighet til utøvelse av religion (gudstjeneste kun annenhver søndag) og slikt.

 

[karl]

Anbefalt av Thomas Hylland Eriksen: Ernest Gellner: "Postmodernism, Reason and Religion", men da må du orke å lese det på engelsk.