The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[omariqy]

IS have been killing plenty of Muslims and as Awol says they are not keen on the Palestinians.  I'm pretty certain Palestinians would not want IS in charge of them.  I don't think many Muslim countries do.  As someone said earlier, Saudi seem to be involved with IS and may be funding them.  IS obviously seem to have heavy funding as they started out as a small organisation and are growing at a ridiculous rate if reports are to be believed. 

 

Someone (I think Rugeley or Ikantcpell) asked where is this hate and anger coming from.  Although not justified at all, I think it is pretty obvious why there is anger in the Muslim world for the west.

[TrentVilla]

Although not justified at all, I think it is pretty obvious why there is anger in the Muslim world for the west.

 

Actually i think some of the hatred is fully justified at times, what isn't is the actions.

 

The topic of the view of the West by the Muslim world is an interesting but vast one and to be honest I don't think it is even remotely possible to define one because, despite what some would have us believe, the Muslim world is so varied and disparate that it really doesn't have a collective identity or outlook.

 

Clearly for some the anger is the result of Western involvement in the Middle East, for others it is specifically about the support of Israel for others it is more fundamental and religion led in that they dislike the very way of life of the West.

 

What seems inescapable though is that the actions of the West in many ways are simply fueling the flames of extremism in the region with the current collective foreign policy and acting as the prime driving force in these groups recruitment.

 

But the difficulty is that at the same time the West can't, or at least I don't think, turn a blind eye to the slaughter of innocent people and that goes for Muslim, Christians, Yazidis et al.

 

The roots of this go back 50 years or more, not just to the removal of Saddam and other nations in the Middle East such as the Saudi's have their share of the blame.

 

I do though suspect that even if Western foreign policy were entirely different and had been for 20 years, some of those within ISIS would still be acting or trying to act as they are now. The West haven't created these people, what they've done is add to their numbers, motivate and unite them and create the vacuum which they have filled.

[blandy]

 

Although not justified at all, I think it is pretty obvious why there is anger in the Muslim world for the west.

 

Actually i think some of the hatred is fully justified at times, what isn't is the actions.

 

The topic of the view of the West by the Muslim world is an interesting but vast one and to be honest I don't think it is even remotely possible to define one because, despite what some would have us believe, the Muslim world is so varied and disparate....

Good post.

I think though that it's perhaps also the case that "the West" is also despite what some would have us believe...so varied and disparate...."

 

The grouping together of vast regions and peoples as the "Muslim world" or "the West" is a basic and fundamental mistake, whoever does it.

[CrackpotForeigner]

The US only has to say the word and there'll be two states, settlers out of the West Bank, and (at a bit of a stretch) world peace overnight.

 

Maybe I should clarify what I said here seeing as nobody seems to agree with it so far:

1. Israel is entirely dependent on the US for its existence.
2. Therefore the US is in a position to dictate what Israel does (Theoretically. Obviously in practice, arseholes like Joe Liebermann get in the way)
3. The occupation of Palestine and construction of settlements is unfair, and allows the perception that Israel and the West care nothing about perpetrating injustices on muslims.
4. Although the fallout from the Iraq invasion (and other historical wrongdoing) is still ongoing, the Palestinian question is the single remaining point of US foreign policy that allows Islamists to paint it as anti-Islam.
5. It is something which adds a lot of fuel to the fire of militant Islamic radicalism.
6. And when you add fuel to a fire, it burns hotter.
7. Conversely, when you remove fuel from a fire it makes it smaller, cooler and safer.
8. So, although it is (as I said) a bit of a stretch, a lot of righteous anger would be gone overnight, and it might be enough to create peace between religions and ideologies. It would certainly help.

If anyone disagrees with these points it would be nice to have a debate along the lines of:

 

"I disagree with that, because..."

 

As opposed to along the lines of:

 

"That was an idiotic thing to say, nobody thinks that..." (proceeded by willful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the points above)

Edited November 19, 2014 by limpid
fixed formating

[Ads]

Islamist is too broad a term though and is like describing Westerners as Capitalists. The answer is yes, but the specifics are a lot more nuanced. A settlement to the Israeli and Palestinian question would be as beneficial to the region as settling the Turkish and Kurdish conundrum, but it is still merely a smaller feature of a wider sectarian problem that would be waged regardless. This is a local problem that requires local solutions.

 

There is also a more Machiavellian point that Israel encroachments into Gaza, as an example, benefits Hamas by keeping it popular. It remains in power out of that popularity and is therefore able to keep the peace for Israel and keeps the lid on less desirable groups like IJ. Gaza needs head chopping Takfiri Salafists running the show like it needs another hole in its backside.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Ads

[CrackpotForeigner]

Islamist is too broad a term though and is like describing Westerners as Capitalists. The answer is yes, but the specifics are a lot more nuanced. A settlement to the Israeli and Palestinian question would be as beneficial to the region as settling the Turkish and Kurdish conundrum, but it is still merely a smaller feature of a wider sectarian problem that would be waged regardless. This is a local problem that requires local solutions.

 

There is also a more Machiavellian point that Israel encroachments into Gaza, as an example, benefits Hamas by keeping it popular. It remains in power out of that popularity and is therefore able to keep the peace for Israel and keeps the lid on less desirable groups like IJ. Gaza needs head chopping Takfiri Salafists running the show like it needs another hole in its backside.

 

No argument: Islamists is a broad term. But at the moment it does seem to include a lot of people keen to castigate the US for its support of Israel.

 

I would argue that settling the Turkish and Kurdish conundrum would benefit the Kurds, rather than benefit the region as a whole on the level that settling the I/P issue would.

 

Your twisted and evil Machiavellian point is an interesting one, but you have to hope that the Salafists would have fewer recruits if the population didn't feel hard done by. Personally, I believe that peace is ultimately achieved through fairness.

[maqroll]

Sadly Crackpot, if an aspiring congressman from Thinkoutsidetheboxville, USA ran on a platform that included divestment from Israel and the support of a free and sovereign Palestine, AIPAC would swoop in and crush him. They are so entrenched in the system that they will render you an instant no hoper if you try to buck it. And if you shut up about Israel and get elected, you cannot then go on a crusade against them while you are in office, because party leaders force you to toe the line.

 

I wrote to my senator, the "progressive" Elizabeth Warren, at the height of the Gaza bombing, imploring her to get on the right side of history, denounce Israel's actions and be a true advocate for a sovereign Palestine. The "progressive" Warren wrote back about 3 weeks ago, with a cookie cutter line about supporting Israel's right to defend itself, while working for a lasting peace. Bullshit, essentially. And she is considered the left wing of the democrat party.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Sad to hear that about Warren, she usually talks a good deal of sense.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Sadly Crackpot, if an aspiring congressman from Thinkoutsidetheboxville, USA ran on a platform that included divestment from Israel and the support of a free and sovereign Palestine, AIPAC would swoop in and crush him. They are so entrenched in the system that they will render you an instant no hoper if you try to buck it. And if you shut up about Israel and get elected, you cannot then go on a crusade against them while you are in office, because party leaders force you to toe the line.

 

I wrote to my senator, the "progressive" Elizabeth Warren, at the height of the Gaza bombing, imploring her to get on the right side of history, denounce Israel's actions and be a true advocate for a sovereign Palestine. The "progressive" Warren wrote back about 3 weeks ago, with a cookie cutter line about supporting Israel's right to defend itself, while working for a lasting peace. Bullshit, essentially. And she is considered the left wing of the democrat party.

 

Yep, I know how it is. There's a reason Kerry picked Liebermann as his running mate. Thing is, if Israel would just GTF out of the West Bank I think a surprising number of people (certainly me included) would support Israel's right to defend itself. As it is, though, to defend Israel is to defend West Bank settlements.

[maqroll]

Most reasonable people think that Israel has a right to defend itself. But when those words come from a politician, it usually means they think Israel has the right to be homicidal.

[Awol]

Hamas has a pretty narrow and nationalistic agenda, far removed from the regional/global ambitions of the salafists/Takfiri inspired terror groups.

The thing that separates Hamas from the likes of the Provo's is their genocidal intent - i.e. the destruction of the Israeli state and the extermination of the Jewish people.

However much one sympathizes with the Palestinian cause (which is just and fair), calling for the genocide of the Jews will only win support from truly extreme/disturbed.

By the way, for those who are unsure about this America doesn't control Israel, it's the other way around.

[peterms]

Hamas has a pretty narrow and nationalistic agenda, far removed from the regional/global ambitions of the salafists/Takfiri inspired terror groups.

The thing that separates Hamas from the likes of the Provo's is their genocidal intent - i.e. the destruction of the Israeli state and the extermination of the Jewish people.

However much one sympathizes with the Palestinian cause (which is just and fair), calling for the genocide of the Jews will only win support from truly extreme/disturbed.

By the way, for those who are unsure about this America doesn't control Israel, it's the other way around.

It's interesting in this connection to hear from Jews who oppose the Zionist project. It's very important to separate opposition to the racist Israeli state, and antisemitism. They are wholly different, and opposed, ideas.

[TrentVilla]

 

Hamas has a pretty narrow and nationalistic agenda, far removed from the regional/global ambitions of the salafists/Takfiri inspired terror groups.

The thing that separates Hamas from the likes of the Provo's is their genocidal intent - i.e. the destruction of the Israeli state and the extermination of the Jewish people.

However much one sympathizes with the Palestinian cause (which is just and fair), calling for the genocide of the Jews will only win support from truly extreme/disturbed.

By the way, for those who are unsure about this America doesn't control Israel, it's the other way around.

It's interesting in this connection to hear from Jews who oppose the Zionist project. It's very important to separate opposition to the racist Israeli state, and antisemitism. They are wholly different, and opposed, ideas.

 

 

Seemingly though far too many are unable to make that distinction.

[Awol]

link

Khalid Mahmood MP for Perry Barr suggests "at least" 2000 British Passport holders are fighting for IS in Iraq and Syria, saying that in Birmingham alone "it is a huge, huge problem".

For context that number is greater than 3 full strength Infantry Battalions, or slightly more than twice the number of fighting men than were deployed by the British army to Helmand in 2006.

Have not (yet) seen any rebuttal to the article by government spin meisters.

Glad to see the UK is doing it's bit in the latest phase of the Middle East conflict.

[bickster]

Theres also a story in the Observer today that two British Males are now known to be fighting on the side of the Kurds in Syria

[Awol]

Theres also a story in the Observer today that two British Males are now known to be fighting on the side of the Kurds in Syria

Good for them, probably both called Dave and give their address as 'Hereford'. Edited November 23, 2014 by Awol

[snowychap]

Theres also a story in the Observer today that two British Males are now known to be fighting on the side of the Kurds in Syria

There's also the following towards the end of it:

 

...Cameron was asked in September how volunteers with the Kurdish authorities ... could be identified when returning to the UK.

 

 

With apologies to the late, great Bill, I'd have thought the answer ought to be, "We'll look at their employment contracts."

[donnie]

link

Khalid Mahmood MP for Perry Barr suggests "at least" 2000 British Passport holders are fighting for IS in Iraq and Syria, saying that in Birmingham alone "it is a huge, huge problem".

For context that number is greater than 3 full strength Infantry Battalions, or slightly more than twice the number of fighting men than were deployed by the British army to Helmand in 2006.

Have not (yet) seen any rebuttal to the article by government spin meisters.

Glad to see the UK is doing it's bit in the latest phase of the Middle East conflict.

The enemy within and its truly the most terrifying prospect this country has ever faced.

Hopefully these 2000 never return to our shores again. Im sure there are 10,000's more from this country that have or will join IS

[Awol]

Well if you read the linked article it's clear that the efforts to control the flow of British Jihadis in and out of the country are hopelessly overwhelmed. 100's are already back in the UK and the outward flow appears to be increasing.

How these people are becoming inspired by what IS is doing defies rational analysis by a western mind. They are savages, no more or less.

[Ingram85]

At this rate I'm gonna move to a cabin in the highlands to ensure I survive the next 70 years. Whether that's west v me, ww3, cyber stuff or whatever. The world is plodding towards self destruction and if its ok with everyone else, I'd like to politely disappear and sit it out please.