That is just insane. Do you mind if I ask what your background in studying the Middle East is?
That must be why Iran has achieved domination of the Middle East in the past 20 years. :rolleyes:
What is insane about my comment? Other than the fact that you seem intent on misunderstanding me and throwing up strawmen.
I am not saying that oil and Israel have nothing to do with the history of the Middle East. I am not saying that they are not divisive issues. I am saying that terrorist networks are often used to advance political and ideological goals with the object of bringing the sponsoring/leading group increased political influence in the area.
**
I said seek to, not succeed in.
“terrorist networks are often used to advance political and ideological goals with the object of bringing the sponsoring/leading group increased political influence in the area.” If taken at face value is a true statement. But, earlier you didn’t say “influence in the area” you said “domination of the region,” which is not the same and not true. It’s a semantic distinction, but your earlier remarks imply something other than merely gaining political influence, which all activist organizations, militant or otherwise, try to do.
Hezbollah, the example you alluded to in Syria and Lebanon has two clearly stated and demonstrated objectives – the reform of Syria and Lebanon into Islamic theocracies, and the reform or destruction of Israel. cite They are not attempting to place the region under overarching, imperial rule… perhaps you have them confused with the United States.
In addition to being wrong about the nature of terrorists groups themselves, you have made the classic error of assuming the Middle East is a homogenous monolithic bloc where it is even possible to lump huge swaths of people together under an amalgamated governance. Shi’ites don’t get along with Sunis, Persians don’t get along with Arabs, no one gets along with the Kurds, and on top of that you have fundamentalists, pragmatists, moderates, and rural villagers with few political opinions or aspirations, and a dozen other factions that are equally divided. Of course there are exceptions to every generalization, but suffice to say the tribal tradition in that region has lived on in some respect, and with the exception of OPEC most attempts at unity in the region have failed miserably. Right now the most prominent unifying goal in the Middle East is the downfall of US.
Lastly, please offer a cite that Iran has been seeking domination of the Middle East in the past 20 years, noting that supporting terrorism, which they do, is only proof that they want Israel abolished and America out of Middle Eastern affairs.
Please show how I have assumed the Arabs are a monolithic block? I have done no such thing, and I’m willing to bet I understand the religious-ethnic divides present in the Middle East a lot better than you do.
You have made the classic error of, once again, throwing up a strawman only to knock it down. Please stop.
As for Hezbollah’s stated aims, I’m aware of them. But you don’t find it funny that a terrorist group with Iranian backing is seeking to transform Syria, Lebanon, Palestine into an Islamic state modelled on Iran? And you don’t find it entirely possible that once these stated goals are achieved that they would branch out to attempt to cause trouble in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, etc.? And even looking at their stated aims, you don’t find Hezbollah’s stated aims as a means for Iran to set up what they hope will be an Iranian puppet government in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine proof that they seek political domination of the Middle East? How is the Iranian-backed Hezbollah’s goals of reforming Syria and Lebanon into Iran-like Islamic Republics proof only that they want Israel destroyed and America out of Middle Eastern affairs - or do you believe that al-Assad is an American puppet?
However, if you actually study history you realize that there are very few groups who, once having gained political control of one or two countries, do not then continue to try and export the revolution to their neighbors in an attempt to dominate the region. In this thread, when I speak of gaining influence, I mean in the sense that US-Soviet proxy wars during the Cold War were about gaining political influence in a region.
The world is full of naysayers and doubters. You can catch them 24/7 in coverage of the “peace” protests.
Instead of telling us what will not work, enlighten us with something that can.
If all you bring to the table is criticism and doom, you have contributed nothing.
Not necessarily. If I see someone pour gasoline into his lap and reach for the matches, I will yell “Stop that, you fool!”. I am not obliged to offer an alternative course of action, I am obliged to urge that he cease and desist, at once. We can discuss the wisdom of other actions when the immediate crisis of stupidity has passed.
Quite right, elucidator. I may not know what the right course of action, but it is perfectly reasonable that out of a range of actions I can pick those that for sure won’t work without stating which ones will for sure work.
One voice that seems to be missing from this (and all other war/anti-war threads) is that of Joe Blow from Iraq. We can wring our hands and thump our chests and spin our cherry-picked facts to “prove” our points and demonize whoever doesn’t agree with us, but the only argument that would carry any weight, as far as I am concerned, will come from someone at the eye of the storm.
How come no one from Iraq has weighed in on this? They have electricity, right? I assume there are computers and telephone lines. So why the deafening silence?
Not really. This would be a classic example of drawing water from a poisoned well, there would be no way of determining if we are being told what JoeBlow really thinks, or what he thinks we want him to think. The same with the Admins maudlin emphasis on Iraqi’s greeting thier liberators. If I see armed foreigners marching through my streets en masse, I would probably think it wise to be courteous. Then again, I am a craven coward who does not wish to get shot.
Also, just because he’s there doesn’t necessarily mean that much. Being smacked in the head with a rock doesn’t make you a geologist.
In this very post you once again make the absurd assumption that Islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah has plans to gain control of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq. If that’s not a description of conglomerization on a monolithic order I don’t know what it is. As I’ve repeatedly stated, not only is that an entirely unsubstantiated claim, in fact I’ve never even heard it before now, and not only is that not Hezbollah’s intention (which was cited in my previous post), its probally not even possible due to the cultural heterogeneity in the Middle East which you claim to understand but obviously do not.
However, there is a common denominator in the actions of all terrorist organizations: they all want Israel gone and the right to freely self-determine their own governments. It just so happens most of these nations have Islamic majorities, and that most terrorist movements are fundamentalist in nature like Khomeini in Iran, naturally that’s the model they would aspire to follow.
I’m still waiting on that cite showing Iran is trying to “dominate the region.”
That’s the silliest reply from you yet. Once again, you seem not to be able to understand simple things without twisting them out of context. Now, I’ll go through this slowly with you.
From your own post:
So, we both agree that it is a Hezbollah goal to establish control of Syria and Lebanon. Yes? No?
Now then, with this in mind, I merely commented on the likelihood that should Hezbollah succeed in this transformation of Syria and Lebanon they would then turn their attention to their neighbors. Note that I did not say that it was a stated goal of theirs at that time. I based this on the historical tendency of ideological groups to desire to export that ideology to their neighbors once it has been established in their initial country.
You can see it throughout history in Christianity, Islam, communism, democracy, etc., etc., etc.
Are you with me so far, or should I slow it down?
The reason you have not heard it before is that you employed a torturous interpretation of a fairly simple concept to get there. I did not state that Hezbollah’s currently has any intention of branching out into the neighbors. I stated that once they had achieved their goal in Lebanon and Syria of transforming them into a fundamentalist Islamic state based on Iran, it would be likely that they would then export the revolution to others.
Now how would they do that? Not direct conquest. But through the funding of groups with similar ideologies in other states. Similar to what Iran has done with Hezbollah. Note the similarities between this and the US and Soviet behavior during the Cold War. The US and the Soviets would fund insurgencies and counterinsurgencies of ideologically favorable groups in an attempt to expand their international influence. The same thing is occurring with some terrorist groups in the Middle East.
Moreover, looking back we have this little exchange earlier that I’d like to revisit. In response to this post from me:
You responded with:
Except your own cites prove your own statement wrong! We see that gaining political control and establishing a regime based on their own set of Islamic values is precisely what Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon.
I stated that terrorists would seek to establish regimes based on their own set of Islamic values. You implied that this was absurd, yet your own cites show this to be the case with Hezbollah and Lebanon and Syria.
Moreover, you can look at Palestine. You can see the competition between Hamas and the PLO. Ostensibly, they should be extremely cooperative - since they both have the goal of freeing Palestine from Israel. But they don’t. Why don’t they? Because they are in political competition with each other. The PLO is a secular organizations while Hamas is a fundamentalist organization. They don’t cooperate because they are playing a very calculated political game with the future of the yet-to-be-established Palestinian state. Hamas would like to set up a fundamentalist Islamic state while the PLO does not. Any guesses as to which one receives funding from Iran? Is it the one that adheres to their own political ideology?
Neurotik, this will be the third time I’ve asked for a cite to back up your claim that Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah and/or Iran intend to “dominate the [Middle Eastern] region.”
I stand by my cite and its assertion that Hezbollah is interested in achieving the annulment of Israel and the growth of self-determined, Islamic theocracies, not political “domination,” and certainly not imperial expansion, which is what you are describing (possibly without even knowing it).
You can piss and moan all you like about how you think I’m purposefully misinterpreting you. Just get a cite already, put up or shut up.
hmmm…good point. Um…I’ll get back to you on this…
Bizzwire walks away, smacking himself in forehead for not having thought of this.
The information is not hard to find. And any person who has studied even a little bit of current politics in the Middle East realizes Iran’s political intentions in the area. But here you go:
http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1995/950602-393922.htm
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/03/22032001120511.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Summers.htm
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/227
Shall I go on?
First off I apologize for snapping at you earlier. You’re response was a lot more civil than I expected, and I thank you for that. That said…
Trying to get your “voice heard,” seeking greater influence, or even seeking superiority is not the same as attempting to take possession of the Middle East, which is what you claimed Iran and Hezbollah are trying to do. Here’s your quote that started it all, “So they don’t seek to take political control of states and establish regimes based on their own set of Islamic values?”
Terrorists are not trying to take over the Middle East, they are trying to reform it, and take power away from a corrupt and despised elite of plutocrats, monarchs, and dictators. Iran doesn’t intend to make Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Kuwait into colonies. They are trying to increase their own influence and support Islamic movements. Including terrorist groups that seek to depose the autocrats that owe their allegiance only to themselves, international oil customers, and patrimonial channels of nepotism, not their oppressed populations.
The autonomy and authority of any state, rentier or otherwise, is dependent on its revenue sources. Democratic nations which place a substantial burden of taxation on its population are accordingly beholden to voting contingencies (although one can make the case that in the US, corporate dollars are playing an increasingly influential role). However, a state that does not require the financial support of its citizens (due to natural resources in this case) has far less motivation to acquiesce to public opinion. For example many African states watch the masses suffer while they grow rich off diamonds. In Latin America agriculture, particularly bananas, have played a comparable role. A less straight foward example is Israel, which can afford to ignore its rapidly growing Palestinian population because the Jewish population, domestic industries, and US aid are its main revenue sources.
But, the social unrest that arises from these situations is getting out of hand. Hell, even leaders of states without oil often put their own interests, their cronies, and their creditors before the indigenous population. For example, Egypt saw better treatment from the IMF in its structural adjustment thanks to its support of the United States in the first Gulf War. A decision, among others, that has chagrined the Islamic majority in that country to say the least and has helped Islamic radicals gain mainstream support. Algeria, likewise, has benefited from its pro-Western, French aided, military coup to remove the democratically elected FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) government resulting in its own anti-regime movements domestically. In the current conflict, Turkey is making a strong effort to resist the allure of US economic aid and debt reduction due to its vocal Islamic population.
The truly sad thing is that these IMF interventions have only proved successful in a handful of cases none of which are in the Middle East, like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore in Asia and Chile in Latin America. The problem really is oversight in my opinion. The key feature of structural adjustment policies is spending cuts, austerity programs. Too frequently foreign supervision fails to scrutinize the makeup of a cutting program. Cutting military expenditures has far less negative impact on income distribution than cuts in basic services like education and health, but few regimes are apt to reduce their militaries especially if they are in active use. Escalating inflation, unemployment, and socioeconomic inequity become fertile ground for further unrest.
The massive Islamic revival we are seeing now has political cultural and political economic roots both internally and externally. It’s actually the subject of my undergraduate thesis. I’m up to my neck in books from all sides of this thing. And there is simply no evidence, not even a hint of evidence, to support an assumption that Hezbollah or Iran have regional or world conquest on their plate. They are just getting by as it is.
P.S. If you haven’t already read it, you would definitely love Bernard Lewis’ “What Went Wrong.” He covers your point of view extremely well. I think he’s an advisor for Bush in the war too. However, if you’d like to read something a little less in tune with your current outlook try Edward Said’s, “Orientalism,” a contentious book, and not without its flaws but still a seminal discourse on the Middle East.
I feel I have to speak out against some ridiculous suggestions I’ve seen on this thread. If I remember correctly, a mole of kittens would be 6.022 x 10^23 kittens. Even if you could torture one per second, it would take 20 quadrillion years to finish. What happened to the war being over in two weeks?! If asterion can get everybody on earth to help torturing kittens, it would still take something like 3 million years, and, realistically, not everyone has the same kitten-torturing prowess as asterion. It may take them longer than one second per kitten, or they may want “sleep” and “food” breaks from their torturing duties. No, I’m sorry. I just don’t think much of this plan.
This is the 21th century, man. We can automate the process. Get me a massive cat harem, a conveyor belt, and a shitload of cattle prods and I’ll get you a mole in under a century or your money back… minus a nonrefundable deposit and the cost of kitten disposal.
Yes, but could you guarantee that all tortured kittens would be killed, as well as others among their litters and sympathizers? Otherwise we’d run the risk of creating an Osama Bin Kitty. There’s a concept too horrible to even imagine.
You’re right it’s a risk we can’t afford to take. And come to think of it why waste perfectly good kitten meat? We could make hundreds of tons of General Tao’s “beef” and brocolli and distribute it to the poor.
Not only will we be doing our part to create world peace, we can stamp out world hunger at the same time. We are killing two birds with trillions of dead kittens.
It’s just so crazy, it might work…