Middle East

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think it is time to have a separate thread on this subject where we can collect things.

First contribution

Note that these embassies/consulates are simply closed, not withdrawn. Precautions like this should not be necessary, but with the "provocation", things have come to this.

The lessons of freedom have not be learned by many people. We all know that freedom comes only from within.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, what do you expect? These people have never lived in a society that allowed free speech. Its a pretty foreign concept to them, and thats why its hard for them to understand that in the west, you can say whatever you like and not get the secret police kidnap you and torture you in some basement.

That said, just because they get so violent should not be a reason for us to get all careful about the things we say. Self censorship is just as bad as censorship, and Muslims need to stop throwing such tantrums about these things and grow a thicker skin.

This case was a little vile though. The guy cut up the original movie and dubbed it to make it seem anti Muslim and then claimed to be a Jew as well...

  Edited September 16, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I don't think vile is strong enough, but I can't think of anything stronger suitable for this board.

I really don't expect much from the people of the middle east. Freedom is something they haven't had in any measure since Christ was a carpenter, literally. What between this Sultan and that King, they have been thoroughly conditioned to be subservient to anyone who might even possibly be their superior.

Now along come the Americans with ingrained ideas that "all men are created equal" and the "freedom" is an innate right. This undoubtedly drives their "leaders" nuts. It must be very hard on authoritarian clerics who now find that they are not immune to questioning and dispute. Reaction is what we've got.

Consider it growing pains. It is too bad they are so heavily armed and so easily misdirected.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If it are growing pains we have to remember our own history, which was extremely violent as well. But, progress demands sacrifice and it is naive to think that we can effectively introduce democracy in an area that misses the two thousand year road that it took us to reach the point where we are now.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Democracy is like freedom. It cannot be bestowed but must grow from within. In the history of mankind, kings are more likely than parliaments.

[Easy Bakes 253]

thicker skins indeed,they are still upset about the crusades,rightfully so, but 1000 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

[IL. 1,043]

Meh, what do you expect? These people have never lived in a society that allowed free speech. Its a pretty foreign concept to them, and thats why its hard for them to understand that in the west, you can say whatever you like and not get the secret police kidnap you and torture you in some basement.

That said, just because they get so violent should not be a reason for us to get all careful about the things we say. Self censorship is just as bad as censorship, and Muslims need to stop throwing such tantrums about these things and grow a thicker skin.

This case was a little vile though. The guy cut up the original movie and dubbed it to make it seem anti Muslim and then claimed to be a Jew as well...

 

I have to agree with you, but it's not as harsh as you mention it, it's like we don't know what democracy and freedom means, it's just, we didnt practice alot of freedome before.

Funny thing that we used to study about democracy, freedome and human rights in school and high school, while we live a dictatorship. 

 

If it are growing pains we have to remember our own history, which was extremely violent as well. But, progress demands sacrifice and it is naive to think that we can effectively introduce democracy in an area that misses the two thousand year road that it took us to reach the point where we are now.

 

I'd like to comment on that, it's true that the islamic world, or to be more precise the arab countries had many bad situations and periods in their history, but it's not a 2000 years black-out, things have not been always bad, you forgot that when europe was in dark ages, the islamic world and china have been living their golden ages.

It's like saying that people in the dark ages of europe have been living very badly, and dirty all the time and all what the movies shows, but the truth they weren't living as bad as they show them to us, but they were indeed very much under-developed in science and technology (as they had more important thing to deal with like wars and the church rule).

The arab world today, is living their dark ages too.

 

What the arab world need is, to know it's history, and learn from it's mistakes (you can notice that many events happened again and again in the arab world history), but today is a turning point indeed, and time will tell.

 

One more I must agree with you is that, you can't bring democracy and freedom upon people, they have to gain it by themselves, and learn it in their own way (that keeps reminding me of the USA democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least that's what they say but I'm sure it was never about democracy, that's the last thing the west wants the arab countries to have).

thicker skins indeed,they are still upset about the crusades,rightfully so, but 1000 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

 

huh, idk what you mean by that, history is history..

Effcorse muslim people will be sad or hold a grudge about those dark times in history (not only the crusades, even the inner wars that arab countries had between each other during the history, it is sometimes a part of the population memory, or the group memory).

[LexusInfernus 908]

I have to agree with you, but it's not as harsh as you mention it, it's like we don't know what democracy and freedom means, it's just, we didnt practice alot of freedome before.

 

Funny thing that we used to study about democracy, freedome and human rights in school and high school, while we live a dictatorship. 

 

 

 

You can learn about those things, look at how they work theoretically, but like you said, without practice it won't work like the wonder medicine the West sometimes pretends these freedoms to be. 

 

It took us more than a 100 years in the best cases to give voting rights to everyone. Before that only smaller groups of people were allowed to vote. While you guys try to go from dictatorship to voting rights from everyone in about one year.  Its unreasonable to expect for it to work out perfectly the first time. 

I'd like to comment on that, it's true that the islamic world, or to be more precise the arab countries had many bad situations and periods in their history, but it's not a 2000 years black-out, things have not been always bad, you forgot that when europe was in dark ages, the islamic world and china have been living their golden ages.

It's like saying that people in the dark ages of europe have been living very badly, and dirty all the time and all what the movies shows, but the truth they weren't living as bad as they show them to us, but they were indeed very much under-developed in science and technology (as they had more important thing to deal with like wars and the church rule).

The arab world today, is living their dark ages too.

 

What the arab world need is, to know it's history, and learn from it's mistakes (you can notice that many events happened again and again in the arab world history), but today is a turning point indeed, and time will tell.

 

One more I must agree with you is that, you can't bring democracy and freedom upon people, they have to gain it by themselves, and learn it in their own way (that keeps reminding me of the USA democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least that's what they say but I'm sure it was never about democracy, that's the last thing the west wants the arab countries to have).

Im not saying it was all bad. We had our own dark ages in that period, but that is just a learning experience. You guys have a 2000 year learning experience, however your society constantly moved into different directions than in the West. The important thing is that democracy should be the natural process of forces within Arabian society. These things must come from below, from the people, and not be dictated or imposed from above. Mind you, it can still work if it is dictated, but the adoption process will be much slower and more painful. 

 

Also, the West wants the Arabs to have democracy as long as it means that people vote on the guys the West likes. 

[jacobhinds 36]

thicker skins indeed,they are still upset about the crusades,rightfully so, but 1000 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

let me just tell you that the crusades meant absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of history - they weren't unusual at the time at all, and at first the Muslims couldn't care less that a small corner of their territory was being taken by these unwashed, pale barbarians from the other side of the eastern roman empire. for about 800 years after the crusades nobody could remember what they were.

 

then you get hack historians from both europe and the middle east in the 20th century who spout nonsense about "clash of civilizations", "racial war", and compare the crusades to iraq in 2003, and all of a sudden everyone remembers what was a tiny, run-of-the-mill invasion.

 

I'm sorry but when people see the crusades as anything other than a few barbarians hired out by the eastern roman empire, it annoys me greatly.

 

the reason they were there for so long (1095-1291) is that the Muslims just didn't care. in fact the word "crusade" and for that matter "jihad" and all their connotations were invented far later.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I would not call the Crusades 'Run of the Mill invasions'. It does not happen often that Europe unites a single army (sort of) and invades some place. Especially since in this case, it was done under the authority of the pope, rather than secular leaders. Furthermore, the Muslims did care. Its not like the Crusaders just walked in the Muslims just shrugged and looked the other way. Wars did take place. It took them a while to get it all back, sure, but wars couldn't be fought very quickly back then. Besides, it wasn't just one big crusade, but several smaller ones, with quite a bit of time in between them. Which is another reason why the period of the crusades takes about 200 years. 

 

I agree though, Samuel Huntington was a fraud. Sadly, he was a fraud with influence and now you have all these idiots yelling about the clash of civilizations and how the West should take up arms against the Muslims. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is unfortunate that western civilization is in a decadent phase while at the same time the Muslim world is going through a convulsion that history says will eventually lead to a renaissance.  The internal schisms in Islam at the moment must eventually become (grudging) respect for each other if any kind of internal peace is to be gained.  At one time there was considerably more literacy in the Muslim world, but after the dissolution of the Moorish Empire things have descended to a nadir of warring factions.  The west, having its own problems, is not in a position to assist the flowering of a new Islamic age.  As for the extremist bandits who take the name of Islam in vain, these wolf-heads simply need to be dealt with as harshly as needs be.

[jacobhinds 36]

I oversimplified a lot, looking back at my post. but what I'm saying is that nowadays, the main source of anger about the crusades (among extremists) is that the crusaders massacred the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099, when in reality it was fully within the rules of combat. plus as far as I'm aware the Muslims did look the other way; heck some even allied with them against other Muslims.

 

the fact is that nobody wants the levant, it's an unstable, weak region between Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia and it's virtually impossible to set up a core power base there, hence the hundreds of crusader castles. plus at the time of the first crusade there was no such thing as a "united Muslim empire", so besides a few preliminary battles the crusaders were actually ignored. a couple of dynasties (the Zengids and Ayyubids) launched some attacks but never finished the job; they were too busy fighting other Muslims. it was only when the Mamluks actively sought to destroy the crusader states that they finally fell, and it took them only a few years to do so.

[LexusInfernus 908]

There never really was an united European army either. Like the French and English would ever work together like that for so long. Really the Crusaders were just rabble as well, with notable exceptions here and there. 

 

That aside, the Crusades are not really the main source of anyone's anger. They just fit in nicely with this negative self image that persists in the area. This image of 'everyone is out to get us' which if you look at the history, is kind of understandable. Colonized by Europe, then controlled in secret by the US with varying degrees of success, having to watch helplessly as the West creates a new country right in their territory (Israel) which subsequently beats the Arab forces multiple times over the course of just a few decades. And then 9/11 which caused two wars specifically aimed at Muslim countries, and where Muslims were painted as a bunch of terrorists. 

 

Its easy to see why they feel they are constantly getting run over by forces that are outside of their control. 

[IL. 1,043]

You can learn about those things, look at how they work theoretically, but like you said, without practice it won't work like the wonder medicine the West sometimes pretends these freedoms to be. 

 

It took us more than a 100 years in the best cases to give voting rights to everyone. Before that only smaller groups of people were allowed to vote. While you guys try to go from dictatorship to voting rights from everyone in about one year.  Its unreasonable to expect for it to work out perfectly the first time. 

 

 

Then watch and learn

Also, back then, there was no other democracies, so there have been no other working examples to learn from their mistakes, it was a complete new step in politics and deplomacy. 

 

Im not saying it was all bad. We had our own dark ages in that period, but that is just a learning experience. You guys have a 2000 year learning experience, however your society constantly moved into different directions than in the West. The important thing is that democracy should be the natural process of forces within Arabian society. These things must come from below, from the people, and not be dictated or imposed from above. Mind you, it can still work if it is dictated, but the adoption process will be much slower and more painful. 

 

Also, the West wants the Arabs to have democracy as long as it means that people vote on the guys the West likes. 

 

You should be aware that there have been many periods in the islamic world when women had almost equal rights as men (been able to work, devorce, universities, even in politic domains like mayors, courts, ministers, even sometimes queens.

The arab world to be more precise, never really fell intill the 18th century with the fall of the othman empire (even that it had some bad sides), before that, they were having a continuing decline, internal wars (between the arab world countries and kingdoms) pretty much like europe at some time, and in the same time, europe was having a continuing rise and flourishing.

 

So you can't just say, that we were having a 2000 years (actually that's ~1600 years) old learning experience to get democracy and such, you have to know that the arab world and the islamic world lived a continues falling at some parts and rising at other parts, intill the last killing fall.

Sayin a 2000 years learning experience is like saying that the arab world have been living continous wars and conflicts during all that time.

The turning point in the arab world was, the consecutive fall of Baghdad (during the Manghol attacks), the fall of Andalusia, crusades, internal wars as mentioned before, burning all the libraries and the all past glory, leaving nothing but some remainings, and enclosed societies surviving from the shock.

 

 

But I still agree with you about the source of democracy and freedome.

Freedome and democracy can never come from somewhere other than the inside, and the path to democracy and freedome is harsh indeed, and not a smooth "Jasmin" path as you say (The Jasmin revolution, maybe it was called like that because there was almost no blood spilled and the least losses with a civilised way, that's a lesson to be told).

[IL. 1,043]

Also, getting what the west like, and what the people don't like, that's not democracy, but choosing the one's destiny (either for or against the west) is democracy.

One more thing, the arab countries today are in no shape to be against the west, but rather to deal with them with what is called, deplomacy, besides benefits and profits for both sides.

We still have alot to learn, alot, we ourselves know that we are way behind, and we are not satisfied or happy with that.

 

 

 

 

One thing we can learn from history, it was never about relegion, no matter what all the media try to say, history tell again and again, it was never about relegion, relegion was always a cover, like many other kinds of covers, as an example, during the fall of Andalusia, the different states of it allied with european kings and leaders, to fight their fellow states who share the same relegion and culture, same thing happened in different periods (not only in the middle east).

Even today, we still see that, Saudi Arabia as an example, extremists rulings the country, but they are friends with the west (wait, I thought the west hates extremists and only wants to destroy them and establish world peace and prosperity?), it is always about benefits and profits.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The course of freedom starts with the desire of people to be free.  This cannot be accomplished without education and popular will.  It also needs responsible leaders from the people seeking freedom.  Many people think this can be done only by revolution, but I cite the U.K. as one that has accomplished this by evolution. 

 

Is it strange that, after the revolution that took the head of Charles I, with the death of the Lord Protector (Cromwell) the country again decided that it wanted a monarchy.  This monarchy was never the same, especially because of religious strife at the time.  Research has hinted at Charles II was a Catholic and this, due to the rabid protestantism of the times, caused enough trouble.  Eventually we arrive with William of Orange (King Billy).  By this time Parliament was well entrenched. 

 

Magna Carta (1215) was the thin edge of the wedge that began driving the 'Divine Right of Kings' into what we have now.  As the Chinese say, great journeys are begun with a single step.

 

Oh, and skip all that blather about Robin Hood.  He was a bandit just like all the others but apparently had better PR, if he ever existed.  Sometimes the people generate such legends as a parable of hope when things are not wonderful.  Life at that time was short, dark and ugly.

 

I think we can now cite the current chaos in Tunisia as a good example of the unrest when a strong monarch (dictator) is overthrown by a popular uprising.  Will the people there finally find a system to allow the freedoms they want with the controls they can live with?  Let us hope for the best.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The UK is one example where it the evolution towards democracy started earlier, but it is just one example. The French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese and Russians all had their own evolution and it looked nothing like how the UK did it. There is not one path that results in a modern democracy. Every country will take its own path and will get there if they so wish to. 

[IL. 1,043]

True, every country can only have it's own path.

P.s.: The French, and Romanian revolutions, as example, were bloody as hell, you can't call that only evolution  

 

 

One thing that is certain about Tunisia is that it will find it's own path, and we will not go back to dictatorship (there's a small possibility for that if you ask me), if we are going to fall into chaos of civil war or dictatorship, that would have happened long before (there have been many occasions for that to happen but we survived), and let's all hope for the best. 

 

& I agree with A Nonny Moose, overthrowing a leader is not ennuf to get freedome and democracy, it needs education and time.

P.s.: Revolution, is not the event of overthrowing a learder, the arab world history is full of that, but rather a whole path to reach the desired goal. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, well, well.  The U.S. has almost stopped trying to herd cats.

 

Support for the Syrian rebel factions my finally get rid of the Assad gang, but will it improve things?  Probably not.  There are too many factions including Hezbollah and al Qaeda involved here.  If Assad goes will the fighting stop?  No.

[IL. 1,043]

Well, well, well.  The U.S. has almost stopped trying to herd cats.

 

Support for the Syrian rebel factions my finally get rid of the Assad gang, but will it improve things?  Probably not.  There are too many factions including Hezbollah and al Qaeda involved here.  If Assad goes will the fighting stop?  No.

 

& wich part of this we didnt know?