Is a Western Civilization-Islam confrontation inevitable?

Great Debates
101

Not as far as I could tell. Sam started out saying that “One side is organized, widespread, violent, and promises more violence. They number in the millions.” Then he backpedaled to “There are millions of Muslims who support the actions of the extremists”, which he later expanded to “tens of millions”, based on opinion polls about general statements on the legitimacy of violent actions.

Nowhere, ISTM, did he explicitly “correct” his first statement or acknowledge that it’s misleading.

I don’t think it’s possible to prove definitively either that “al-Qaeda got [Spain] to flee Iraq”, which is what you said (without any proof, btw), or that “the bombings had no effect on the elections”, which is not exactly what I said.

I said that I don’t think the 3/11 al-Qaeda bombings caused Spain to “flee” Iraq. But if you can prove your assertion that they did, then feel free to show us your proof.

Which is true, as I already acknowledged, so I’m not sure why you’re repeating it.

102

It bothers me that I sense a barely-contained glee among the people proclaiming an imminent clash of civilizations. As if they can hardly wait.

103

[QUOTE=Kimstu]

[Quote=Shodan]
I assume you can prove that the bombings had no effect on the elections.
[/quote]
I don’t think it’s possible to prove definitively either that “al-Qaeda got [Spain] to flee Iraq”, which is what you said (without any proof, btw), or that “the bombings had no effect on the elections”, which is not exactly what I said.
[/QUOTE]
Polls throughout the period Autumn 2002 through the election showed that the Spanish populace was overwhelmingly opposed to an invasion of Iraq. (Some opposition figures were as high as 90%) Nevertheless, in the week before the bombing, the ruling party was showing a lead of between 3% and 6% in the polls (which was generally indicated as within the margin of error). A poll that had been scheduled to be published on the morning of the bombings showed the race as a dead heat between the ruling party and their primary opponents.

When the bombings took place, three days before the election, the ruling party declared that it was the work of the Basque Separatist ETA, even before any evidence had been discovered and despite the statement by the ETA (who generally takes responsibility for their attacks) that they had nothing to do with it.

As evidence did emerge, it became clear that the ETA was not responsible and the Islamist terrorists probably were.

The reaction by the Spanish populace was overwhelmingly to condemn the ruling party and give them the boot.

Spaniards have dealt with ETA terror attacks for over thirty years without either surrendering to the terrorists or throwing away their democratic principles.

In context, it would seem that the Spanish people were already seriously considering rejecting the Iraq invasion, but that it was the blatant lies of the government (rather than fear of Islamist attacks) that caused them to change governments.

Here is one analysis of the election. Here is a different one. A timeline noting the anti-government anger against the lies, not the war in Iraq.

104

That seems predicated on the belief that, if the Spanish government had been completely upfront that the Madrid bombings were al-Queda, then they would have been re-elected.

Which I doubt, but is unprovable.

Regards,
Shodan

105

[QUOTE=Shodan]
That seems predicated on the belief that, if the Spanish government had been completely upfront that the Madrid bombings were al-Queda, then they would have been re-elected.

Which I doubt, but is unprovable.
[/QUOTE]
The polls were running 43% - 38% between the PP and the Socialists right up until the election. The Socialists took the election with a reverse of those numbers, so we’re only talking about a 4-5% swing ether way with the PP never holding a majority of the citizenry. Clearly, the PP held on to most of their base and there was no overwhelming, massive surge to vote some fear of terrorism, (given that even among the PP the voters, most were against the war in Iraq, all along, and only favored the PP for economic issues even before the attack).

106

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Not as far as I could tell. Sam started out saying that “One side is organized, widespread, violent, and promises more violence. They number in the millions.” Then he backpedaled to “There are millions of Muslims who support the actions of the extremists”, which he later expanded to “tens of millions”, based on opinion polls about general statements on the legitimacy of violent actions.

Nowhere, ISTM, did he explicitly “correct” his first statement or acknowledge that it’s misleading.

I don’t think it’s possible to prove definitively either that “al-Qaeda got [Spain] to flee Iraq”, which is what you said (without any proof, btw), or that “the bombings had no effect on the elections”, which is not exactly what I said.

I said that I don’t think the 3/11 al-Qaeda bombings caused Spain to “flee” Iraq. But if you can prove your assertion that they did, then feel free to show us your proof.

Which is true, as I already acknowledged, so I’m not sure why you’re repeating it.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what the criteria should be then. When I said, “They number in the millions”, I meant supporters of radical Islam, or Islamists. People who hope Bin Laden and his ilk succeed. How many of them are actively involved in the fight? Who knows? But when you count financiers, people who harbor terrorists, and the terrorists themselves, it could easily number in the millions. You’d have to include in that group the military wing of Hezbollah, large swaths of the people in Hamas, the Taliban, many, many people in the tribal regions of Pakistan, the insurgents in Iraq, terrorists in Indonesia, Chechnya, and other smaller pockets of terrorists and supporters throughout the world.

A much larger group is openly sympathetic to their goals, at least in the abstract. Whether they would change into actual supporters or even join the ranks of terrorists is hard to determine.

In any event, the larger point I was making is that we’re facing a much bigger problem than ‘19 guys in planes’, or even ‘a bunch of bad apples that can be brought to justice through law enforcement’.

107

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Israel is the excuse. Do you believe that if Israel was gone, the Middle East would suddenly turn into a bastion of peace and stability?
[/quote]

Nope but they might not be on a collission course with western civilization as the OP fears.

Its the wellspring from which all this anti-western sentiment flows, sure other reasons have developed and been manufactured but if there wasn’t this initial factor htings might be different today.

108

I live near the largest Arabic population outside the middle east. It has been so a long time. When they first started moving here thet brought some customs that conflicted with our legal system. In most cases the arabic neighborhoods were under internal conflict with the westernizing of their communities. It is clear that our culture was winnig and they were getting more and more Americanized.This attack against Iraq has galvanized the people who saw us as bigoted haters of them. Their strident speeches became more persuasive to many of them. There are more Burkhas now than before in my estimation.I see in this case at least that it made them see themselves as Arabs first.
Previously they would talk about the other Arab countries with some disdain. The Lebonese didnt like the Syrians who didnt like the Iraqis who didnt like the Iranis.They had histories that separated them. We have succeeded in bringing them together.
Still the militants are talking to very few. Many have businesses and are part of the system. The overwhelming majority is still just trying to get by just like we are.