The Sailor in question was traveling without a passport. Many countries allow the entry of Active Duty United States military personnel with just the DD Form 2 and presentation of orders; this includes Leave Orders and Passes. Note: it’s not the member’s choice to present a passport in lieu of the DD Form 2 and orders; the member is required by treat to show them and not the passport for these countries. Since the Sailor did not have a passport, but did have a valid travel document (the aforementioned DD Form 2) which identified him as US military, the hijacker knew he was military.
A handy reference for which countries require US military to show what documents are required for which category of travel is available from http://www.bupers.navy.mil. I don’t recall off-hand the instruction number or exact title; however, the thing is a s l o w l o a d i n g site–just look for “foreign travel” in the search window in a couple of hours after it’s completely loaded.
Er, make that “…required by treaty…” and not “…required by treat…” above. Well, unless you’re traveling somewhere they give you a candy bar for showing the right documents.
Thanks for this. It sounds like the Saudis making the best of what they would consider a bad situation. The important thing here would not be whether Jews were actually in the country or not, but whether they could be PROVED to be in the country. Appearance is much more important than reality in most cases.
Exactly what part of my posting above did you not understand? The US government doesn’t determine religious preference for issuing passports and it is the Saudi government which requests that on the visa form. The applicant is required to tell the truth, at least according to the form.
Anyone care to provide a legitimate cite as to a government requirement otherwise?
Actually I understood all of it. Having spent 6 years on active duty during which I was never issued, or asked, for a PP. So, been there and done that. I also know something of the requirements for a Saudi visa, been there and done that as well.
Actually, I didn’t need an excruciatingly detailed list of the information on a US PP and application for same, the simple fact that no religion is listed would have been adequate.
TomNDeb had referred to “military PPs” and I used the same terms to inquire about them. Just being polite and trying to find out what they were referring to instead of turning it into a discussion on the requirements for a US PP. I would suggest that the “military PPs” under discussion were probably those of civilian DoD employees of which there were quite a few around here during the war.
p.s. I’m still waiting for a valid cite from anyone showing that either the US government has issued a lawful order to Jewish military personnel or diplomatic personnel heading to Saudi Arabia to place “none” for religion on the visa application or a valid cite from anyone showing that the Saudi Arabian government has issued a proclamation declaring that Judaism is not a religion, thereby directly contradicting the Koran.
I’ve done a few websearches and have gotten naught. One guess what that leads me to believe.
I’m unsure why you’re you’re looking for something showing that there was a “lawful order” from someone in the US government to lie on their visa forms. Two reasons:
a) Any order to lie about religion would NOT be a lawful order in the US military.
b) Anyone smart enough to be in charge would probably know this.
Likewise, the Saudi gov would NEVER publish an edict saying Judaism is now a non-religion. As you say, that would contradict holy writ, something bordering on unthinkable here.
So, as you repeatedly mentioned above, DoD civilian employees are not in the military and therefore there were no “military PPs” issued. I would suspect that the civilian employees who happened to be Jewish probably just lied on the visa form. (without orders) If I were Jewish and needed to get into the Kingdom to do a job, that’s what I would do. Those who DIDN’T lie probably got a visa with either “none” or “Christian” in the religion block.
Anyway Monty, you are correct, more-or-less, about whatever we’re debating now.
In those conflicts involving Muslims and non-Muslims, is one side more at fault than the other?
What is meant by a “civilisation” here? African tribes, I take it, are considered one civilisation? And are compared to the civilisation of Islam, which includes millions of people in many different countries?
What is meant by “the West” here? America, Canada, and Western Europe?
I completely object to this statement. Most Muslim countries are situated in Third World regions (as it happened Islam sprung up in Saudi Arabia) and due to the violence which abounds in Third World regions it is necessary to have a strong military.
I’m not sure exactly how “force ratios” and “military effort” are measured, but as far as the ratio of military personnel to civilians is concerned, there is no longer a need for large armies in countries such as the U.S. which are technologically advanced enough to wage war from afar with limited risk to their own personnel.
I notice that this is your opinion and not a quote from Huntingdon, which is not surprising as there is actually some sense to it. You’re right, Western society nowadays, evidenced by all those things that you mentioned, is more tolerant than many Islamic countries. That is blatantly obvious to anyone who has traveled extensively. So is another fact - the standard of life in most of these countries is much lower than that in Western society. Many of these people live the same way their ancestors did two hundred years ago. Most Third World “civilisations” in which this is the case display similar disregard for human rights and similar tendencies toward violent conflict (this conflict being often political, and not religious, in nature). This is not to excuse such behaviour nor to condone it. Nor do I believe that the West has some moral duty to help these nations progress.
However, I also do not believe that intolerance is inherent to Islam, that Islam is the only religion whose members have exhibited such intolerance, and that there is some “Muslim propensity to violence”.
Sorry I should have explained: Huntington’s main argument is that the world is divided into “civilisations”, consisting of the West (Europe, North America and Australasia), Russia and Orthodox Europe, Islam, Sinic, Japan, Latin America, and reluctantly Africa, and that conflict between these civilisations is ongoing and somewhat inevitable.
Pennylane: I think your comment
has to be set in comparison with other Third World countries, which do not have the same degree of militarisation (per Huntington) for example, any of the countries in Indo-China, and are less prone to violence according to Huntington’s survey.
You comment about “fault” is a good one, and I had to think about it. Tell me if I’m wrong with this, though:
international disputes should be proportioned evenly across the planet. This is because countries tend to share between 2-3 borders with other countries, or are near other countries (eg. France and England, Australia and Indonesia), and countries tend to quabble more with their neighbours than anyone else. A big assumption, unsupported by any stats, but intuitively it makes sense;
a higher proportion of disputes turn into conflict with Islamic countries than any others, because other countries solve their problems with diplomacy, whereas Islamic countries per Huntington’s proposition, are more likely to resolve their dispute with violence.
Anyone else want to have a crack at what Huntington says? I’d be interested to read other comments because while emotionally I disagree with it and find it even a little offensive, intellectually I find it very hard to refute.
Pennylane - you sound as though you think that these countries are lagging culturally “200 years” behind the West, by saying that we need to help them “progress”. Isn’t the argument not that they are not lagging behind the West, which implies cultural inferiority, but that they are culturally different but equals? This also accords with something else Huntington says in his book: to paraphase, “Islam considers itself culturaly superior to the decadent West, and is frustrated by its technological inferiority”. (As a parallel, certainly Aboriginal culture in Australia could not be regarded as “inferior” simply because it was staic for 40000 years - the fact that it was static for that length of time shows that it was stable and worked.)
If these countries are at the current height of their devlopment as individual cultures, not to be measured in an incorrect comparison with the very different West (different in cultural roots etc), then isn’t the intolerance an intrinsic part of their society, rather than a symptom of immaturity in that incorrect comparison to the West?
I am looking for this because you recently posted this:
indicating you, apparently, believed that it’s true that the US government and/or the Saudi government require Jewish personnel to lie about their religious affiliation.
Exactly.
Also exactly.
And again, exactly.
Actually, since there is absolutely no such thing as a “military passport,” what the civilian DoD employees received would be either (a) an Official Passport (maroon in colour), or (b) a Diplomatic Passport (black in colour); depending on what the treaty requirements are for the position to which assigned in the Kingdom.
Those who lied? I am still waiting on what’s known in these parts as evidence that this alleged practice occurs.
I take it the African civilisation includes only non-Islamic African nations? And also, I don’t understand why Islam is considered a civilisation. But then I guess I don’t understand why Judaism is considered an ethnicity either…
As far as militarisation is concerned, I agree that the comparison should be between different Third World countries. Even then, I believe that different cases have to be considered on an individual basis. For example, India and Pakistan are historic enemies and both nations sadly feel the need to direct much of their resources towards a strong military. However, India being a much larger nation than Pakistan with a much larger population, but sharing the same border, would not need as high a ratio of military personnel to civilians as Pakistan.
Even if this statement is true, I believe that it is due to the fact that most of these countries are more primitive than Western nations. In my experience, educated Muslims do not support or condone violence. Uneducated and illiterate Muslims are easily roused into action. I have also noticed that less-educated Americans are more likely to call for carpet-bombing and nuclear attack of their enemies. But almost all Americans today have a high school diploma and are capable of reading and forming intelligent opinions. This is not the case in most Islamic nations. And in the days when it was not the case in Christian nations, most Christian nations were guilty of the same ruthlessness.
No, I said that we don’t need to help them progress. And my estimate of 200 years was not for all Muslim nations. Generally, those in which the standard of life is closer to Western nations are also less prone to violence.
But Dave, why is it “Islam” which considers itself culturally superior to the decadent West? I don’t know of any culture which does not consider itself superior to all others. In addition most conservative cultures consider the West decadent and immoral. Why is Islam singled out here?
You’ll notice that as Islamic nations become more technologically advanced and economically successful, they tend to adopt certain attitudes which are currently more common in developed countries but which are not contrary to the teachings of Islam.
Would you say intolerance was an intrinsic part of Western European society in the Middle Ages? Or in America two hundred years ago? (genuine question - not sarcasm)
It seems to me that all humans started off intolerant and ignorant, but are headed towards some bright age of enlightenment in the distant future in which we will have rid the world of poverty, bigotry and violence. It does seem to me that the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe are closer to that ideal than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. But I don’t agree that Islam is a primary factor in this.
Well, I lack time to demolish that drooling moron Huntington presently, but give me a little while to get caught up in work.
In general, his work is perfect example of poorly concieved statistics with bad data and gerry-mandered time series. One of the first lessons one learns in re stastics is to question why the author chooses a particular time series.
Let me restrain myself until I can come back with substantive remarks.
Muslims societies in general? That’s a yet another idiotic, bullshit claim. But I’ll have to reread the trash when I get a chance.
It is a ludicrous assumption. LUDICROUS. There is no reason to propose that in any given time period that (violent, obvious) conflict will be evenly apportioned across the globe. NONE, nada, zero.
Different time periods and regions will have different mechanisms for dealing with tensions.
E.g. Europe until this century (to be more precise since the last World War) was well-known for staggering levels of violence and inter-nation warfare. At other times, the Muslim world was well-known for its relative peace (people being people).
Bloody hell, it bloody simple to refute.
Well, as I should get my work done, I shall have to come back to Huntington. As much as it will pain me to have read that shit again, I may enjoy tearing apart.
First, the categories - They strike me as singularly unhelpful and silly. The “West” comes closest to having utility as a cultural shorthand, though even that is over broad. But…
Russia and Orthodox Europe - Is he including Catholic Poland and Hungary?
Africa - It seems he recognizes the silliness of this one. Where is half-Muslim, half-Christian Nigeria? How is Ethiopia part of the same civilization as Malawi? Is Liberia really that close to Zimbabwe? I could continue on this one for a whole page.
Islam - I have a hard time lumping Albania, Mali, and Malaysia into a single civilization.
Sinic - You seem to be missing a chunk of Asia. Is India supposed to be Sinic? Is Burma? Does he think Indo-China has had more cultural influence from China than Japan has ( he’s nuts if he does )?
Japan - Well that works fine, since it’s a single country . But see above under Sinic.
Latin America - Does this include English-speaking Jamaica? French-speaking Haiti? Is cosmopolitan Buenos Aires ( which might as well be a transplanted city from Europe ) really that similar to San Salvador?
Second, the time period analyzed - You already said it. Too short. Smacks of selective data massaging. We take grab samples at my job to track and tweak the process. But all the formal reporting is done with long-term composites .
Third, militarization indices - Seems Judaism is the most violent by this standard. Israel has perhaps the highest proportion of their populace under arms in the world. Switzerland is pretty darn high as well, as soon as we get past conventional standing forces . The figure for Yugoslavia, pre-breakup, was 200,000 regulars and 2,000,000 on-call reservists - 10% of the population. Indonesia’s military ( at least around 1980 - I don’t have the latest figures ) was around 250,000 ( plus a “militia” of 100,000 ) and little in the way of organized reserves for a population ten times Yugoslavia’s size.
This is a dumb measure of aggression. Local factors ( politics ) confound this far too much. Morocco’s military grew steadily in the 1960’s and 1970’s to deal with the counter-insurgency problem in the Spanish Sahara ( a relict of European colonialism, not Islamic aggression ). Libya had loads of money and a megalomaniac ruler. Algeria and Tunisia felt threatened by Libya. The highly unique Israeli problem ( and Cold War rivalry ) accounts for the massive swelling of militaries around that core. Iran was deliberately built up by the United States ( in conjunction with a “toy-happy” Shah ) to be a friendly, regional superpower. Pakistan has been in an arms-race with India. Etc, etc. Meanwhile Westen Europe is sheltered by geography, wealth, and an interlocking alliance system, including the backing of a superpower. If France and Germany were in an arms race, as pre-WW II, their militaries would be vastly larger ( as pre-WW II ).
Further, states with large populations require smaller percentages of their populations for defense, even in hostile areas. The Netherlands is, acre for acre, just as densely populated as the most crowded districts of China ( it’s just a hell of a lot smaller ) - But it’s military needs, thanks to NATO and modern military technology, are less manpower intensive than Jordan. Vietnam’s army is considerably larger than Syria’s. But their population is a lot larger still ( sparsely populated, near-desert country vs. intensively cultivated tropical nation ). They simply require fewer recruits as a proportion of population to see to their ( significant ) military needs.
Same with money - the rich West doesn’t have to spend as large a proprtion of their budget to achieve the same level of force as poorer nations. As pointed out in another thread, Japan’s modest-sized ( relative to populace ) military is in the top five in the world in terms of budgets. But it’s still a teensy part of their overall budget relative to Iraq.
Fourth, violence. I don’t have the time to look through all of the cites of current conflict. But a few comments:
No way. Not if we look at a larger time-scale. Vietnam was born out of imperial conquest, was at war most of it’s independant existance, rebelled repeatedly under the French pre-WW II, was at war post-WW II to 1976, subsequently fought a border war with, then occupied Cambodia, was “invaded” ( very large-scale border wars involving up to 300,000 Chinese troops ) by China two or three times. Still has tense borders.
We know about Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge ( still only barely settled ). Sparsely populated Laos and the Pathet Lao.
Outside of Indo-China ( narrowly defined )Thailand has had ethnic rebels in remote regions most of its existence - They’re simply too difficult to eradicate short of tribal genocide and they don’t threaten the central government. Happily Buddhist Burma is another conquest state ( founded in its current configuration in the mid-18th century ) that originated in warfare, expelled Eurpean trade posts ( the British at Negrais ), repeatedly invaded and briefly annexed Thailand, fought off four Chinese invasions, fought three wars with the British ( the first occasioned by a Burmese invasion of the Assam ) before final annexation, and since independance has ben about the most repressive, war-racked ( tribal AND ideological ) state in the world.
Latin America? Argentina was pretty quiet. Other then that aggressive invasion of the Falklands ( oh and arms races with Chile and Brazil and death squads). Brazil has a wonderful release valve in their Amazonian frontier. 'course it’s about as law-abiding as the wild west, with occasional near-genocidal clashes with local Indians. And I don’t recall poor children being slaughtered in the slums of Cairo, like they were in Rio de Janeiro. Columbia? Latin America’s Burma. Guatemala? El Salvador? Honduras? Nicaragua? Southern Mexico? Border wars between Ecuador and Peru? The charmingly brutal dictatorship of Stroessner in Paraguay? I seem to recall that Cuba is pretty heavily armed by both population and wealth .
Cost Rica’s pretty nice, though .
Africa? Ick, where do we start? Biafra? Katanga? Rwanda, Uganda? modern Zaire? Rhodesia/Zimbabwe? Angola? Mozambique? Liberia? Sierra Leone? Ethiopia? Equatorial Guinea?!?! I can keep going .
No it doesn’t . Not to me. Some areas due to geography, culture, history, politics both local and international, and what have you, are going to be more volatile. The world is not a uniform place and Quemoy and Matsu are a lot more sensitive than the Tarim Basin.
I think Huntinton is a big goober who’s talking out of his ass . Even if this were 100% true, you couldn’t necessarily pin it all on Islam as there are just too many other confounding factors.
Disagree . My opinion of Huntington remains unchanged .
Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - As far as Judeo-Christian religions go, I think Islam is the most militant. It was born in the midst of a war and that colors some of its teachings. But I think it is just way too black and white to call it inherently violent or, in historical context ( or examining the overall breadth of ALL of its disciples, not just the wackos in Islamist movements, but the liberals and moderates as well ) significantly more intolerant than other Judeo-Christian religions ( which are all intolerant by definition as far as I am concerned ). The actual truth is a lot grayer, more ambiguous, and highly variable.
Dave Stewart: Damn! Lost part of my post! Oh, well - It was a minor chunk. Right before the lines where I disagreed that “Huntington’s collation backs this up”, goes this:
That’s it. I also forgot and left out some stuff I was thinking about at the time ( very slow, crappy typist - my head races ahead of my fingers, then forgets where it has been ), but I’ll let that go for now.
Pennylane: That’s very sweet of you . But I think there are a number of nice, intelligent people here.
Well, lots of comments while I’ve been sleeping, for which I’m grateful. I have my own work committments to meet (this board is a distraction!) so I’ll try and keep this concise. With that in mind, if I haven’t answered what any of you have said, you can take it that I’ve conceded it.
Yeah, he separates northern Islamic Africa from the balance. He gives some brief thought to the idea of Judaism being its own civilisation, as an aside, but for various reasons I won’t go into decides that it isn’t as such within his model. Countries like the Ukraine, which is half Orthodox and half Christian, and Sudan, which is half Christain and half Muslim, are “split countries”. I’ll leave furhter explanation of his model at that, as this drifts away from the OP.
Its a big call to say that Islamic countries are more primitive than Western countries! You only really look at education…you don’t mean culturally?
Which was my point - you either say that there is a evolutionary incline upwards for societal development, and the West is further up the incline than Islamic countries and therefore the West is “superior”, of you say (my preference) that the societies have fundamentally different starting points and evolutionary factors which shaped them, and that a societal or cultural comparison is unhelpful and inaccurate. Therefore, if Islam is more prone to violence, this is a characteristic of Islam, not a characteristic of an “inferior” society or culture.
But Dave, why is it “Islam” which considers itself culturally superior to the decadent West? I don’t know of any culture which does not consider itself superior to all others. In addition most conservative cultures consider the West decadent and immoral. Why is Islam singled out here?
[/quote]
That is an exceptionally good point, which I can’t refute. Every society I’ve encountered is ethnocentric and believes the sun and moon revolve around them.
Is that true? The non-Western countries I’m familiar with are China and Japan. As they technologically progress, I do not see attitudes similar to Western countries developing here (China) nor there (Japan).
Would you say intolerance was an intrinsic part of Western European society in the Middle Ages? Or in America two hundred years ago? (genuine question - not sarcasm)
It seems to me that all humans started off intolerant and ignorant, but are headed towards some bright age of enlightenment in the distant future in which we will have rid the world of poverty, bigotry and violence. It does seem to me that the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe are closer to that ideal than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. But I don’t agree that Islam is a primary factor in this. **
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is part of your concept of societal evolution, which I understand but with which I don’t agree with, because it makes the West seem culturally superior to other countries, which I don’t think is true.
Collounsbury-
Why is it ludicrous? Territory and trade are the major causes of war. Neighbours tend to share the same territory, and trade with each other. Therefore, wars are more likely between neighbours, than not (laughing as I write that, because it translates right down to domestic disputes, too). Everyone has neighbours.
You are right when you say that some countries have better mechanisms for resolving disputes than others - but these mechanisms are a relatively modern phenomenon. You point out that Europe has been fractitious in the past, and is not now - this was a conscious effort post WW2 to avert another European war (there was a move towards a United States of Europe post WW2 derived from Kants’ idea of the Perpetual Peace, as an aside, scuttled by the French National Assembly in 1954). The point is that this -plus Mercosur, ASEAN etc is all modern. I guess the answer to that, thinking ahead, is that Islamic violence is a modern phenonenon, too.
Tamerlane -
Briefly explained above, but I missed out another civilisation in the model - Hindu. The civilisations overlap (especially in India), without clear boundaries.
I actually agree that Indo-China has much more cultural influence from China than Japan, and I can assure you I’m not nuts
On the Carribean, he points out that despite a number of efforts, the Anglophone and the Hispanic island nations have been unable to integrate into a regional union.
Yeah, it is short, but it could be argued (weakly) that the violence in the region is a modern phenonenon and so should be measured only over the past decade. The more I think about that, the more it is wrong, though, because if you are looking at Islam as a whole as a “violent culture” you need to go back to its roots, and do a survey over that period - and take into accout its evolution.
Very nicely put, and you’ve convinced me.
Can’t disagree with that either.
I still don’t know about that, but I’m going to think about it a bit more, and I’m running out of time…
. But see above under Sinic.
.
.