# Muslim Solidarity and Its Implications **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2001, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732 "2001-10-11T03:56:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Saxman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f6c823/32.png) [@Saxman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saxman)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/21 "2001-10-11T19:03:32Z")
On a somewhat related note, here’s a piece on an interesting _fatwa_ (Islamic jurist opinion) just issued: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html) Basically, it refutes the idea of “Muslim solidarity” when it comes to stopping self-proclaimed Muslims from wreaking havoc. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/22 "2001-10-12T05:03:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > Clearly it is time for the US to declare itself a Muslim nation. If those who distort Islam as much as the Taliban can be considered Muslim there is obviously no standard for what constitutes a Muslim nation so the US can continue to act as it always has yet have the wonderful solidarity of being Muslim brothers. Glib and somewhat amusing, but useless to this discussion. The Taliban is perceived as legitimately Muslim by some because of their communication efforts, and because much of their audience simply don’t know any better. > [@](#): > > There are some fifty plus training sites for Bin Laudin’s group inside Afghanistan. The Taliban know quite well what these sites are for and by allowing them to exist are condoning attacks by groups based inside their nation upon other nations. Of course, but there is a big difference between a training camp on your soil and knocking down the WTC. I do not wish to make excuses for the Taliban, rather I am trying to explain to those who have little desire to understand _why_ some popular sentiment actually supports the Taliban. > [@](#): > > One of the reasons is that Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt find it easier to allow their press to cook up outrageous fabrications of what the US is responsible for in the Middle-East or to blame Israel for every tragedy in the world, including the WTC attack, rather than face head on the problems that these incompetent governments are causing. The US is blamed for not helping the Palestinians by the same Arab governments that refuse to take any Palestian refugees in. While communication is an extremely important tool-set used by all governments, you oversimplify to an embarrassing degree the various tensions in the Middle East. I do not deny the existence of anti-Americanism at all, but I do question such blanket statements as you make. > [@](#): > > Only two cities in Saudia Arabia are considered holy and US forces are not stationed anywhere near them. The grievence that US forces are defiling holy land is just an excuse for anti-Americanism. Refer to the Muslim Guy for more info. I see no support for these statements. And Saudi Arabia _is_ holy land, whether you recognize the sensitivity of the matter or not. While two of its holiest sites are indeed cities, that does not mean that foreign soldiers stationed in the rest of the country are not infringing. > [@](#): > > I also find your comparing the US, which has laws concerning extradition, to the Taliban which has a judicial system based on whims and bribes, quite insulting. \*\* Don’t bristle. I qualified that illustration as both “obtuse” and “ridiculous” in my earlier post, and had hoped most would be able to see it for what it was. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/23 "2001-10-12T05:19:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > I think what some forget in thinking of the Muslim countries is that they are all autocratic countries and so the governments are less reflections of popular will than shapers of the will. There is danger in blanket statements. I am assuming that by “Muslim countries” you mean nations where islam is the dominant religion? In that case I don’t think all Muslim countries are autocratic, consider for example Egypt. > [@](#): > > Every autocratic country needs an enemy to justify the level of repression they have on their own people. That sounds like a half decent aphorism, but it does not apply at all to this situation, unless you are suggesting that all Muslim countries engage in this kind of activity–in which case I suggest you learn a bit more about the Islamic world, its many philosophies, and its various problems. > [@](#): > > The one the Arab countries use is Israel and its backers the USA. The governments try to keep the people’s anger focused on Israel and the US so the people never ask why they are saddled with a corrupt and oppressive government. Simplistic nonsense that does not even constitute a semblance of an argument. While there is a small grain of truth in what you say, _Middle-Eastern countries have very serious non-fictional problems with various US policies and with Israel_. If you insist on ignoring these fundamental problems please don’t waste my time with pseudo-racist generalizations. > [@](#): > > Having convinced their people that Israel and the US is evil, how can they turn around and attack those who are fighting the US in the only way available to them? The arab countries are not really against terrorism they are against anything that threaten their regimes. So it is better for them for OBL to be in Afghanistan plotting against the US than for him to plotting the overthrow of their regimes. \*\* Even more bullshit demagoguery. In these times of tension and war, this silliness is the last thing we need. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/24 "2001-10-12T06:51:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > After reading your post I seriously doubt you have made any such effort. You are entitled to your own opinions. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Generally speaking a Muslim nation taking up arms against another Muslim nation is bad not only for morale but for basic existence as well. Islam is a brotherhood that trascends [sic] (supposedly) all races and nations. Muslims are commanded to defend their brothers in Islam, especially if the brothers are attacked from the outside. You seem to ignore my point that the Taleban have voided any validity to their claim as Muslims. This is not just my opinion, it is directly indicated by their own violation of the basic tenets of their religion. Their putrid interpretation of the Koran is an insult to the Islamic faith. The Taleban are not being “attacked”, they are undergoing reprisals for their deep complicity in the functioning of a terrorist network. That they have brought such revilement upon the rest of the Muslim world with their misogynistic and backwards autocracy should serve as some sort of indicator of how important it is for other Moslem nations to distance themselves from them in a vivid fashion. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Abe_ > Evidence please. Well gosh, **Abe** , you want evidence of Muslim on Muslim violence? Lets start with the Iran-Iraq war, how many thousands of young Iranian boys were killed being used as human minesweepers in advance of the Islamic guard? How many Iranians were cooked alive in the swamps of Basra when Saddam Hussein laced the bogs with high tension power lines? How many Kurds have died at the hands of Hussein as he persecutes their population in Northern Iraq with chemical weapons? I’ll cite a post from another thread at these boards; (From:[Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996)](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hunting.htm)) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > I’m back, with the promised quotation from Huntington’s book, at pp 257-8: > > > [@](#): > > > > "Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world’s population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in inter-group violence than any other civilisation. The evidence is overwhelming. > > > > 1. Muslims were participants in 26 of 50 ethno-political conflicts in 1993-1994 analyzed in depth by Ted Robert Gurr [in International Studies Quarterly Vol 38, Sept. 1994, pp347-378]…There were in short 3 times as many intercivilisational conflicts involving Muslims and non-Muslims as there were conflicts between all non- Muslim civilisations. \*\*The conflicts within Islam were also more numerous than those in any other civilisation, including tribal conflicts in Africa. In contrast to Islam, the West was involved in only 2 intracivilisational and 2 intercivilisational conflicts. \*\*Conflicts involving Muslims also tended to be heavy in casualties… > > > > 2. The New York Times identified 48 locations in which some 59 ethnic conflicts were occurring in 1993. In half of those places Muslims were clashing with Muslims or other non-Muslims. Thirty-one of the fifty-nine conflicts were between groups from different civilisations, and paralleling Gurr’s data, two-thirds (twenty-one) of these intercivilisational conflicts were between Muslims and others.[New York Times, Feb. 7, 1993, at p1, 14] > > > > 3. In yet another analysis, Ruth Leger Sivard identified twenty-nine wars (defined as conflicts involving 1000 or more deaths in a year) under way in 1992. Nine of the twelve intercivilisational conflicts were between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muslims were again fighting more wars than people from any other civilisation.[World Military and Social Expenditures 1993, pp20-22]. > > > > Three different compilations of data thus yield the same conclusion: **In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup violence than were non-Muslims** , and two-thirds to three-quarters of intercivilisational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims… > > > > The Muslim propensity toward violent conflict is also suggested by the degree to which Muslim societies are militarised. In the 1980s Muslim countries had military force ratios (that is, the number of military personnel per 1000 population) and military effort indices (force ration adjusted for a country’s wealth) significantly higher than those for other countries. Christian countries, in contrast, had force ratios and military effort indicies significantly lower than those for other countries. The average force ratios and military effort ratios of Muslim countries were roughly twice those of Chiristian countries. “Quite clearly,” James Payne concludes, “there is a connection between Islam and militarism.” > > To be fair, Huntington’s analysis is based on data from a very small period of time – the early 90s. The analysis of force ratio also possibly overlooks the fact that many Western countries have large numbers of reservists… (_bolding mine_) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > No. The Taleban’s degree of complicity in the WTC attacks is unknown at present (if they were accomplices at all); they are being attacked for failing to turn over a known terrorist and because it suits the attackers, not because there is any concrete evidence (I doubt they would be so stupid as to take a direct part in such atrocities, but you never know). Secondly, the same way your _cultural_ background distorts your point of view and makes you post statements like the OP, the populations of countries across the Islamic world have their own distorted points of view and are expressing them just like you. Their point of view does not necessarily perceive the US as the good guys, for many, MANY reasons. Chief among those reasons are long-standing US support of Israel to the detriment of several Arab nations, and the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (which is holy land of course). Again, as noted by other posters here **Abe** , the Taleban are accomplices before _and_ after the fact. Their refusal to hand over bin Laden is the final act of involvement in his organization. Let’s see, bin Laden is the Inspector General of their armed forces and the equivalent of the Taleban’s CEO. Hard to see how the two of them aren’t in bed together. They did not have to take “a direct part in such atrocities” in order to become responsible for them. They have directly abetted the perpetrators of this criminal act and it is a regular feature of many legal systems to charge accomplices with the same crimes as those who commit them. However distorted my _cultural_ view might be, it is certainly not blinkered by an autocratic government’s propaganda. I would venture that I have much more knowledge about Middle Eastern affairs than most Americans whether you are willing to recognize it or not. That the US is perceived as the corrupter of religions that are often vehemently xenophobic and utterly intolerant of alternate views (especially religious ones) hardly discounts my own observations. You seem willing to lend an inordinate amount of validity to viewpoints that are much more heavily skewed than mine. While our support of Israel may be a thorn in the side of these Arab nations, more often it is Israel that has been attacked and not the other way around. I have no wish to be an apologist for the Israelis but at the same time it is the Arabs who are much more antithetic to the Israelis that the reverse. I would venture to say that Palestinians and other Arabs in Israel face much less persecution than Jewish people in other Arab nations. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Almost all nations have condemned the terrorist attacks, however blaming the Taleban for such terrorism is more difficult, because it is not yet known if they simply hosted terrorists or participated in acts of terror. The charge against the Taleban is that they are harbouring terrorists–a charge that may be applied to other countries in the coalition against terror. And WHY exactly, beyond political science for 3rd graders, are all countries forced to “actively engage in their ruination”??? It is hard for me to see how it is so difficult to blame the Taleban for terrorism when they are carrying out a genocidal program against half of their own population. The intense misogyny they have promulgated is nothing short of terrorism in my own book. Again, whether they have hosted _or_ participated in these terrorist acts makes absolutely no difference. “Simply hosting” a mass murderer and knowingly doing so is sufficient reason for their current difficulties. ‘And WHY exactly, beyond political science for 3rd graders, are all countries forced to “actively engage in their ruination”???’ Let’s try this on for size. BECAUSE THE TALEBAN HAVE ACTIVELY FACILITATED ONE OF THE WORST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE MODERN WORLD AND MUST NOW BE EXCISED FROM CIVILIZED SOCIETY LIKE THE MALIGNANT CANCER THAT THEY ARE! Does that answer your question? I don’t know where you live, but as an American citizen I am certainly not prepared to see the Taleban participate in ruling another country much less influence the thinking of another generation of Muslim youth. I will cheerfully contribute my tax dollars to the eradication of such a psychopathic element from our world. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Agree whole-heartedly. The Taleban were a problem when they rose to power in the mid-90s and the world ought to have acted as soon as these thugs took over all of Afghanistan by force and imposed a mockery of Islam on the country. Of course, it must be remembered that Islamic Fundamentalism in that region was propped up and encouraged by the West during the Cold War as a wave-breaker against Communism. And that is why I endured the brickbats of this board when I decried the way the current administration lent an iota of credibility or respectability to the Taleban by giving Afghanistan aid without attempting to moderate the Taleban’s power in any way shape or form. Sadly, Communism was an even more dire threat than the Taleban at that time. I hope that our military strategists have learned a lasting lesson about ends and means in treating with extremists no matter what the goal may be. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > The question to ask here is, what better way to piss off the general population in your country than by siding with the Americans and declaring war on fellow Muslims? Do you think that the general population across most of these countries realizes that the Taleban are (generally speaking) nuts? We are talking about masses of average people, and average people in ANY country tend to be ignorant. That’s the strongest argument against democracy, by the way. And I suppose another question might be, what better way to piss off most of the **entire world’s population** than by seeming to side (through willing inaction) with a regime that facilitates atrocities on a previously unknown scale? It merely reinforces the parochial nature of Islam as practiced by these fence-sitting nations if they are only focused upon the perpetuation of their own Autocracies rather than in the correct and proper dissemination of their hallowed religion. Whether the general populations of these countries realize that the Taleban are insane or not, their better informed governments (who, by the way, are responsible for informing their own people as well) _do_ know that the Taleban are nut-cases and only do themselves and their religion irreparable harm with their mealy-mouthed equivocations. As to what constitutes a strong argument against Democracy, I am not aware of _any_ valid argument against it. There are many expedient ones and many other corrupt ones but no valid ones. Representative government is an institution worthy of the greatest respect and the opportunity you enjoy here to argue the point stands in stark proof of that fact. Please provide a refutation to this if you would be so kind. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Now, the governments of, e.g., Saudi Arabia or Egypt _want_ to see the Taleban removed. Egypt in particular has no love for fundamentalists. Even Pakistan has said they want the Taleban replaced! The problem is that although the governments of these countries may have the necessary knowledge of the situation, the teeming millions of average people in the region retain their deep distrust of the US, and feel an obligation to help defend their Muslim brothers. It’s a difficult situation for everyone, but most especially for the governments of such countries, who have to struggle with their own populations while assisting the US. If they _want_ to see the Taleban removed then they had better do something highly visible about it. Their tepid responses and condemnations are unconvincing at best. Especially Saudi Arabia and its Wahabbi royal family. They have served to breed up the monster that is the Taleban and their cries of disassociation carry no weight with me now that the wolf is at the door. Do you not think that the “deep distrust” of America has been inculcated by these exact same governments (with their unshared “necessary knowledge”), that are now faced with the threat of Taleban facilitated terrorism? Pakistan’s wailings are the most hypocritical of all. It is in the “Islamic Schools” within their own borders that the Taleban took root. I will only be able to advocate the immediate overthrow of any Taleban based government in Pakistan. The thought of a Taleban administration with access to nuclear devices is enough to make the blood of every civilized person run ice cold. The “struggle with their own population[s]” that these countries must now tiptoe through is almost entirely of their own Theocratic making. While we are forced to deal with this utter mess, please do not ask me to feel much sympathy for such unforgivable conflation of church and state. This should serve as a permanent warning to all who dare consider the admixture of religion and government about the numerous and fatal pitfalls awaiting those who indulge in such lunatic fantasies. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > After all, their perversion of Islam disqualifies them as Muslims, does it not? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Unfortunately this is the view of the West and /or of the educated (note that the two terms are not synonymous). The average person in, say, Iran doesn’t really understand what the Taleban are doing (not to mention world affairs of the last decades, but they do know that the US brought a lot of misery to their country). They just hear that fighters of Allah, some of whom managed to whip the invading Soviets out of the country, have regained control of their soil and set up a government based on Islamic tradition. The people may disagree with what the Taleban do, but between Muslim brothers and “meddling, Jew-loving, Arab-suppressing, bully Americans”, can you understand how their sympathies might lean towards Muslim brothers? Ignorance is no excuse. The same governments who have held their people in darkness are now reaping the whirlwind of dichotomy that arises between using religion to propogate their own secular agendas and trying to avoid being perceived as perpetuators of now totally unacceptable terrorism. Again, I must disabuse you of this practice of referring to the Taleban as “muslim brothers”. Your willing confusion of the Taleban with devout Muslims only serves to discredit your extensive attempts to prove me wrong. The Taleban are psychopathic, genocidal, misogynistic tyrants and nothing else. Your swaddling them with even a vestige of respectability does grievous harm to your own credibility. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > The most important factor in any war is always propaganda. The Taleban do not impress me, but I have to admit they are playing their cards right so far, their propaganda is working. They are manipulating the entire world by tainting the perceptions of Muslims and non-Muslims. Actually I think this is not so much the Taleban’s communication skill as part of Bin Laden’s plans. If you call getting the crap bombed out of you and being deposed from power, “playing your cards right”, so be it. I see them as just plain moronic in their rabid antisocial ravings. I would say that “the most important factor in war” is the ability to prevail against your enemies and be the scribes of history. History is written by the winners. Ask all of the crushed civilizations whose ashes are scattered in the winds of time. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > I doubt more than a fraction of the population of such countries thinks the WTC atrocities were appropriate; even some of the 15% of Pakistanis in Pakistan who support the Taleban against the US probably agree that the WTC was an atrocity. The main objection EVERYONE has concerns the killing of innocents. Muslims will be especially concerned about the killing of Muslim innocents, given the concept of transnational brotherhood I mentioned earlier and the fact that according to Islam innocents should never be targeted in any war. > > And they have a good point. Among others, four Afghani UN workers were killed by US strikes gone wrong, no doubt the civilian death toll has reached three figures by now. It’s a shame. And it is the overwhelming majority of the nations on earth that will carry away from all of this a perception that Islamic fundamentalists are monster raving loonies never to be trusted with a fountain pen much less the governing a nation. If Muslims are so concerned about the “killing of Muslim innocents,” they should take better care not to support or facilitate the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocents in another country. That the predictable and correct response of the United States results in the deaths of Muslim innocents is child’s play to anticipate. I fail to see how anyone is surprised at this. Your mention of it is facile at best. Your additional mention of the UN workers being killed verges on Taleban apologism and is extremely repugnant. It is idiotic to think that there will not be some sort of unintended deaths that result from how many tons of bombs falling from the skies? Who made this necessary? THE TALEBAN! It is they who have imperiled all who reside within their borders. Mullah Omar has in as much taken responsibility for it in his declaration that he would rather see Afghanistan obliterated than to hand over bin Laden. If that does not constitute complicity, I fail to see what does. And yes, I am familiar with the concept of being forced to allow refuge to one who throws himself upon your mercy. I just happen to think that this does not apply to _mass murdering criminals_. If the Taleban wish to believe so, then it is up to us to change their minds, be it through forceful persuasion or a bullet in the brain. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > The fence sitting of the Arab countries is beginning to disgust me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Probably because you view it in a simplistic, even reductionist manner. Or perhaps because I feel it is time for the world to progress beyond stone age repressive religious mentalities that suppress basic human freedoms and endanger the rest of the globe’s security and stability. Call it reductionist if you like, but there is no way that I will allow the desire for Islamic Theocracies to enjoy an existence uninterrupted by the impingement of reality upon them to take precedence over the need for progressive civilization’s enshrinement of such important ideals as equal rights for women and freedom of expression. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > To feel any sort of sympathy [for] or solidarity with the Taleban is to outrightly condone their acts and thereby ally yourselves with them. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Really? Let’s see some logic behind that rather strong assertion. And by “their acts”, what ARE you talking about? The WTC attacks, or their attitudes toward women?? Have you also considered that the Taleban consists of officials ranging from the extreme to the rather more moderate? And how do you “moderate[ly]” suppress women in such a vile fashion? How do you moderately facilitate the aims of a mass murderer? There is no baby to throw out with the bath water here. The overall complexion of the Taleban organization is one of utter tyranny. Where are these Taleban moderates who decry the state of affairs in Afghanistan? All of this pales in comparison to the immediate need to quell this menace to the rest of the civilized world. I will mourn the passing of these so-called Taleban moderates _after_ they have been removed them from any position of further influence upon the Moslem world. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > It would seem far better to quickly and vigorously distinguish yourself from the twisted and utterly incorrect interpretation of the Koran that the Taleban have embraced. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > It would make more sense, but history tells us that interests and popular pressure exert more pressure than common sense. Welcome to the age of information. Common sense will dictate who shall prevail in the near term and (one would hope) for the remaining future as well. Again, the Arab nations are reaping the whirlwind of discontent that they have sown among their own people in order to propel their own petty agendas. None of this has truly served the greatness of their people _or their religion_. It has merely ensconced certain autocracies for a brief period that will be no more than historical footnotes to the further centuries America shall endure. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > To not do so rapidly becomes approval for what their crimes and puts the lie to any sincerity contained in Arab expressions of sympathy. I see it as incumbent for the United States to quickly and emphatically begin a shift away from oil dependency and eliminate the need to import Middle Eastern oil (but that is grist for another thread). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Right, as soon as Americans learn to survive without huge cars. And we have already discussed why the governments of these countries that are disgusting you so are not able simply to crush popular outcry against the US attacks. I vehemently advocate the utilization of advanced technology to obsolete current automotive transportation. To shed our dependence upon oil would best serve our interests in the Middle East now and in the future. I hold little hope of the Bush administration doing so even if they enjoyed eight years of power. Sadly, the role big oil plays in their decision making process literally prohibits such a notion. For yet another time I am obliged to point out that the “popular outcry” you continually bleat about is a direct byproduct of the self-serving propaganda these selfsame countries have spewed for decades. They have sown the Hydra’s teeth and now must face an army of discontent that is their harvest. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > The equivocal noises issuing forth from the Arab nations is neither convincing nor is it in concordance with their own religious teachings. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > What do you know about their religious teachings? And, for the last time, almost every nation on the planet, Arab or not, condemns the WTC attacks because they were fundamentally wrong AND against what every religion I can think of teaches. Arab leaders’ statements may seem “equivocal” to you because of the tightrope the leaders have to walk, but I suggest you study the game more closely. I have followed Middle Eastern affairs enough such that casual conversation with Iranian strangers on the street has resulted in them asking if I work for the state department. I have had social intercourse with Arab friends and colleagues for over twenty years and have devoted myself to better understanding of their culture. For yet another time I am forced to remind you that the “tightrope” being walked is a direct result of ingenuous political scheming that is no fault of the United States. While our track record is far from perfect, it is exemplary in comparison to any other superpower’s in history. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > This seems to be the height of hypocrisy and needs to be examined closely as we begin a fundamental realignment of our foreign policy in the region. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > In order to screw things up worse than they already are? When it comes to foreign policy the US is not exactly the world leader, particularly this administration. There are so many factors to consider here, I hope no one decides on a sudden radical shift in foreign policy to satisfy impulses such as exhibited in the OP. Your pessimism is duly noted. I am much more optimistic about our nation carrying away from this the important lessons that need to be learned about dealing with nations that are fundamentally repressive. Petroleum or no, we must find ways to disentangle ourselves from dependency upon such unreliable and questionable allies. Please feel free to describe the “sudden radical shift in foreign policy” that you have read into my OP, **Abe**. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > There is a distinct whiff of unspoken approval by the Saudis in their less than wholehearted participation in the current engagement against Afghanistan. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > What obligation are the Saudis under? They have already done quite a lot considering that they are **allowing** an attack by a predominantly Christian power against a deeply Islamic neighbour in a climate that screams out “jihad” and “crusade” (crusade and Jihad are not the truth of course, just a matter of twisted perceptions). The US attacks on Afghanistan would be impossible without the approval of the nations in that region. The fact that the strikes are going ahead with the approval of most countries in the region despite everything I have explained shows excellent support for the US. Although I’m quite sure that the Saudis don’t see it this way, they are more than a little responsible for their Wahabbist clerics breeding up the Taleban and all the religious intolerance that comes with them. Again, you attempt to lend credence to the morally bankrupt Taleban by saying that we are “attacking” them. Please remember that we are defending ourselves against a visious and repressive regime that had the lack of foresight to facilitate one of the most heinous crimes in all history. You are also insulting quite a few Americans (myself included) to refer to America in any way as a “predominately Christian power”. It is only the Theocratic aspirations of the current administration that lends any religious taint to which you refer. Our nation was founded upon the separation of church and state and your ascribing religious motive to it is reprehensible. The only reprehensible aspect of this entire campaign in the idiocy of the Bush administration to have ever called this a “crusade” of any sort. I will thank you not to twist perception of our self-defense in such a repugnant manner. You say that we have the “approval” of the countries in the region. I beg to differ in that the nature of the crime that the Taleban abetted is so heinous in nature and such an indictment of the Islamic faiths propensity towards violence that only direct participation in the immediate dismantling of the Taleban’s movement can serve as proper response to their culpability. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > I feel that this is due to the rather close association between the Saudi Wahabbis and the Taleban. Such a cozy relationship bears detailed scrutiny by our state department in its formulation of international relations subsequent to all of this. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > EVERYTHING in this situation requires close scrutiny, not just the agents you wish to demonize. When confronted with an offense to the sensibilities of humanity on a scale of this proportion it is safe to begin with a somewhat narrow focus. The immediate goal of eradicating the Taleban and Osama bin Laden’s network takes priority over all other considerations in order to assure the safety and security of the civilized world. After that we may indulge in the luxury of reassessing our other relationships in the region. And I cannot (without using foul language) think of a more apt term than “demons” to label the Taleban and Osama bin Laden with. They are creatures of a nether world seeking to set back the clock after centuries of progress away from the exact sort of dark ages Theocracy they seek to impose upon the world. Such a thing must not be permitted. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > The damningly faint praise we are receiving from the Arab nations for committing our troops to such a thankless task as this clean up of the Taleban should serve as a warning bell when we reassess our level of cooperation with these Middle Eastern countries. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > That’s right Zenster, get it all off your chest. As soon as you feel better please activate your brain. Perhaps the following obtuse yet humorous illustration will put things into perspective: Seeing as how mine is a free country, which you have repeatedly sought to belittle in your repulsive and repeated attempts to legitimize the Taleban’s psychotic tyranny, I will do exactly that. I am led to suspect that you are not an American citizen and can only wonder at your motives. As to your “obtuse and _humorous_ illustration,” it has little perspective or applicability and is specious reasoning in view of the overwhelming, damning and irrefutable [evidence](http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2001/10/05) against Osama bin Laden that has been assembled by the international community. You are again skirting dangerously close to being an apologist for the Taleban with such outright drivel. However much I detest such maggots as Fallwell and Robertson, I refuse to air your little tirade and refer others to its text in your prior post. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > The Arab nations should be held accountable for this willing solidarity with such murderers. To not have quickly and vocally distanced themselves from this blight upon humanity casts them in a similar light and should require vivd demonstrations to disprove this before they might reassume any air of credibility. Their horror at the atrocity in New York rings hollow while they continue to refuse any participation in the downfall of the Taleban. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Well, it’s painfully obvious from your choice of language and categorical assertions that you are pursuing your own agenda in this matter, and are more interested in split infinitives than the truth. Nice demagoguery, but no cigar. And it is painfully obvious that you are willing to attribute some sort of validity to the Taleban and their direct contribution to the execution of bin Laden’s dastardly plot. Your petty sniping at my grammar (which I am routinely praised for in many circles) is duly noted. Since I eschew tobacco, I doubt that I shall miss the repulsive prize you seek to deny me. Better luck next time. PS: **Tamerlane** , please show where I have even once refered to Afghanistan as an Arab nation and I will post an immediate apology to you. Your work to disspell myths and misconceptions here at the boards is nothing short of heroic. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/25 "2001-10-12T09:41:59Z")
Zenster, in one month of extremist posts on these boards, yours is thus far the greatest effort. Let me spell it out for you: You advocate, repeatedly and consistently, massive retaliation against Afghanistan with no distinction between the Taliban, Bin Laden and his forces, the militia, and _civilians_. You show no tolerance or understanding for any position other than your pseudo-genocidal nonsense. You refuse to consider any mitigating factors for any group in or outside Afghanistan, choosing instead to lump all your perceived enemies into one group and annihilating them. In fact, you deserve a pit thread for your various posts of vulgar incitement and generalization over the last month. I advocate understanding WHY a regime like the Taleban is able to enjoy support in spite of their clearly deranged nature. When you look at these reasons the way I am trying to explain, you simply can’t hold innocent civilians responsible for the crimes of an illegitimate regime that installed itself through brute force and proceeded to market itself as a pious Muslim government. And, of course, knowledge is power–understanding such factors will only benefit the world in the long run. In no way am I “willingly confusing” the Taleban with other Muslims, or any of the other silly accusations you make. It should be VERY clear from my posts what I think of the Taliban’s legitimacy. It is also becoming clear that you hold a deep bias. Particularly suspect is the evidence you submit to support your assertion about the violent nature of Islamic civilization. I have not read the book in question, however just based on the passage quoted I think I can spot a number of problems. Arguing upstream or using false premises you can select data to support almost anything you want. Since its creation, the US has gone to war more than any other country. The US is of mostly Christian make-up. Therefore Christians are warlike. This idiotic syllogism is actually less nonsensical and inconclusive than Mr. Huntington’s quoted passage, in which he analyzes an infinitesimally small sample of history (as opposed to the much larger sample considered for US wars). It must also be remembered that different parts of the world, regardless of dominant religions, retain certain characteristics that are defined by various such factors as culture, history, geography, regional politics, government, ideologies, etc. It took Europe thousands of years of civilization and countless land and power shuffling to overcome “internecine Christian slaughter”. To focus on religion in such situations is not only misleading but very dangerous as well. Wrong conclusions tend to be made. One could very easily write a passage similar to Mr. Huntington’s, except one could change two variables: insert Christian instead of Muslim, and scan over a period of 2000 years instead of 3 or 4. The results, if taken seriously, will be most depressing for both Christians and Europeans, but that doesn’t mean a damn thing when using such methods. Please spare me this kind of nonsense. The issue is very simple and is summarized in the first half of this post. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/26 "2001-10-12T12:38:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > > Of course, but there is a big difference between a training camp on your soil and knocking down the WTC. But it’s a small one. Allowing terrorists to train on your soil and then harboring them in the aftermath of an attack are simply the first and final steps of the action. > [@](#): > > While communication is an extremely important tool-set used by all governments, you oversimplify to an embarrassing degree the various tensions in the Middle East. I do not deny the existence of anti-Americanism at all, but I do question such blanket statements as you make. Yet you fail to articulate those questions. And complaining that I oversimplify the tensions in the Middle-East in a single paragraph is a bit like complaining that I fail to walk on water. I was in no way attempting to explain the entire situation in my post. But here’s a quick debating tip for you, merely casting distain upon a point does not refute it. > [@](#): > > I see no support for these statements. And Saudi Arabia _is_ holy land, whether you recognize the sensitivity of the matter or not. While two of its holiest sites are indeed cities, that does not mean that foreign soldiers stationed in the rest of the country are not infringing. Infringing on what? The Quran makes no claim that the whole of Saudi Arabia is holy land. Indeed it does not because Saudi Arabia was not formed until 1932. It’s boundaries are not ordained by Allah. Only Makkah and Madinah are mentioned by the Quran. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/27 "2001-10-12T15:49:22Z")
**Zenster** : Didn’t mean to imply that you had made that specific comment. That example was intended more generally for readers that might be having trouble picking up on the differences between the “Arab world” and the “Muslim world”. It was triggered by you going back and forth between those two terms a couple of times. I wasn’t clear if you were synonymizing them or not ( which is why I said it was only a potential nitpick, not an actual one ), but I figured I’d take the opportunity afforded to clear up that potential misconception, which I have seen a few times recently. No harm, no foul, in this case. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2001, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/28 "2001-10-13T03:02:04Z")
**Tamerlane** , your spiritual agreement with me on this topic means a thousand fold more than the glancing blows of someone like **Abe**. **Abe** , that you have such a dim view of democracy and are able to express even a hint of disbelief at the Taleban’s complicity in the WTC atrocity speaks volumes to me. I think you’ve been swimming laps in Aberdeen harbor too often. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2001, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/29 "2001-10-13T05:02:33Z")
One last attempt, because --as I made clear in my posts–I feel understanding for the misguided. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > Abe, that you have such a dim view of democracy and are able to express even a hint of disbelief at the Taleban’s complicity in the WTC atrocity speaks volumes to me. I think you’ve been swimming laps in Aberdeen harbor too often. In addition to a general lack of debating skills, you are either completely lacking in understanding of any kind, or you are setting up more straw men for the convenience of your weak position. Democracy has very little to do with this argument, so kindly stop your knee-jerking. One more time: I have no problem with the punishment the Taliban are receiving. What we are talking about here is a matter of PERCEPTION. _WHY_ is the Taliban enjoying minority support of Muslims scattered across the world, and in particular across the Middle-East? That is the question I was trying to answer for you while you were busy inciting violence. If you really insist I will post both a point-by-point refutation of the nonsense you have submitted in this thread, as well as an analysis of your posts on similar topics over the last month. Continue on your illegitimate and low-brow attempts to invalidate my points and I will invest the time required. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2001, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/30 "2001-10-13T06:03:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > Allowing terrorists to train on your soil and then harboring them in the aftermath of an attack are simply the first and final steps of the action. Absolutely correct. But rememember the context in which we are discussing this particular issue is one of perception. To the average uninformed person in the Middle-East this case may seem like an attack against an institution that did not perpetrate the terrorist attacks. There is indirect complicity, in that the Taliban did aid and abet terror on its soil, and there is a degree of direct complicity in that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, but these issues become smudged in popular opinion, which is by definition not the most informed kind. The end result is a minority incensed by the tensions reported on the media. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Posted by Abe_ > > While communication is an extremely important tool-set used by all governments, you oversimplify to an embarrassing degree the various tensions in the Middle East. I do not deny the existence of anti-Americanism at all, but I do question such blanket statements as you make. > > _Posted by Blackclaw_ > Yet you fail to articulate those questions. And complaining that I oversimplify the tensions in the Middle-East in a single paragraph is a bit like complaining that I fail to walk on water. I was in no way attempting to explain the entire situation in my post. But here’s a quick debating tip for you, merely casting distain upon a point does not refute it. When the point in question is so poor, I sometimes make the mistake of using disdain. I did not provide insuficient refutation though. You said, “Saudi Arabia and Egypt find it easier to allow their press to cook up outrageous fabrications of what the US is responsible for in the Middle-East or to blame Israel for every tragedy in the world, including the WTC attack, rather than face head on the problems that these incompetent governments are causing”. First of all this is incorrect, unless you can find the cite that proves the Saudi Arabia and Egypt did not not make their feelings about the attack known right away (they did). It is also noteworthy that these governments have cracked down on in-country protests against the US. In spite of that, I immediately acknowledged your point by stating that “communication is an extremely important tool-set used by all governments”. That is by no means the whole picture though, as the US and Israel are indeed participants in the aforementioned troubles. For you to say that “this is more a question of incopentent governments encouraging the media to concoct demonizations of the US and Israel” is a blanket statement, which is what I questioned. If you did not intend to dismiss half a century of political tension, then please explain your point. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > [posted by Abe] > > I see no support for these statements. And Saudi Arabia _is_ holy land, whether you recognize the sensitivity of the matter or not. While two of its holiest sites are indeed cities, that does not mean that foreign soldiers stationed in the rest of the country are not infringing. > > [Posted by Blackclaw\* > Infringing on what? Infringing on popular sentiment. Do you not assume that a number of the holiest sites in Islam would assign the host country an especially high regard among all Muslims? This concept, by the way, is also one of the exact reasons why both Muslims and Jews in Israel and Palestine have been at each other’s throats since the beginning of the Israel-Palestine problems. Perhaps it doesn’t make the best sense, but it seems to be human nature. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/31 "2001-10-16T03:12:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Democracy has very little to do with this argument… > > > [@](#): > > > > We are talking about masses of average people, and average people in ANY country tend to be ignorant. That’s the strongest argument against democracy, by the way. > > I have no problem with the punishment the Taliban are receiving. What we are talking about here is a matter of PERCEPTION. _WHY_ is the Taliban enjoying minority support of Muslims scattered across the world, and in particular across the Middle-East? That is the question I was trying to answer for you while you were busy inciting violence. > > If you really insist I will post both a point-by-point refutation of the nonsense you have submitted in this thread, as well as an analysis of your posts on similar topics over the last month. Continue on your illegitimate and low-brow attempts to invalidate my points and I will invest the time required. \*\* Feel free **Abe**. Your little backhand at Democracy that I juxtaposed with your other mention of it speaks volumes. In fact, it smacks of royalist or fascist pronouncements. Your dim view of those who support Democracy is duly noted for the record. You have posted no proper refutation of Democracy’s validity. Neither have you refuted my points about Muslin-on-Muslim violence. Our debate deals with the here and now. However much the power mad aspirations of many Christian churches have also drenched history in blood, it is extremist Psuedo-Muslim fanatics that seem Hell-bent on deluging us a second time. Just to enlighten you, Democracy has _everything_ to do with this argument. Many of the countries in discussion here would not even allow this forum _or_ this very debate to occur. I feel that the vigorous defense of our nation from the attempts of those who would silence such debate is a very worthy thing. Just make sure that as you falsely accuse me of advocating genocide that you also show the _exact_ order of my posts. Did you bother to notice that when I suggested a series of one-for-one retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan (not the genocide [see the definition below] you libelously accuse me of), it was preceded by suggestions of **allowing cities to be evacuated prior to their being bombed**? Any mention of how the bombing of evacuated cities should be preceeded with a demonstration of might in a remote region? Did you bother to notice or, perish the thought, mention that I have repeatedly and directly expressed my own personal discomfort with the intense feelings I have had related to all of this? Instead, you seek out only the most salacious aspects of my postings without providing any of the balance that I have attempted to include in them. While you may be incapable of distinguishing between military reprisal and mindless irrational slaughter like **Kalt** and **Coppertop** purvey, I am not. From the very onset of this crisis I have been one of the loudest opponents of nuclear reprisal. However, I’m sure you just can’t bear to choke that one down. If you are unwilling to maintain a degree of perspective similar to that which I have attempted to show, then kindly bugger off. * * * From dictionary.com: gen·o·cide (jn-sd) n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. [Greek genos, race; see gen- in Indo-European Roots + cide.] * * * ---
**Author:** ![Super\_Gnat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Super\_Gnat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Super_Gnat)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/32 "2001-10-16T04:17:41Z")
What no one has really brought up yet, and I’m surprised at this, is that no Islamic country – no country in general – wants the US or anyone infringing on their religion or their sovereignty (sp?). U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War with the understanding that they would pull out eventually. U.S. troops are still in Saudi Arabia. Why is this?? In addition, say we decide not only to deal with Osama, but to deal with the Taliban (Taleban?) as well. We would be walking a tightrope that doesn’t exist, trying to balance out human rights with religion. Sample conversation: US:Your women should be educated and freed from the shackles of conventional dress (sorry, don’t remember proper word). Afghanistanis: We are protecting our women from other people, as it says in the Qu’ran. US: Uhhh… We need to remember that all of this is aimed at bringing Osama bin Laden to justice for his crimes. Anything involving the Taleban or Afghanistan in general should be a completely different program _or whatever…_. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/33 "2001-10-16T10:26:46Z")
Zenster, I’ll hit the worst points in this mess you call an argument, but this is becoming tiresome. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > You seem to ignore my point that the Taleban have voided any validity to their claim as Muslims. In spite of your valiant repetition and question-begging, I still don’t see how. You might as well say that Christian fundamentalists are not actually Christian. Sure there’s an argument for that when dealing with absolute knowledge, but this is a matter of perception. The Taliban are perceived as Muslim, and this perception (not absolute knowledge) seems to be a problem with you. Not everyone is gifted with clear and absolute knowledge, a point I made earlier. > [@](#): > > You seem willing to lend an inordinate amount of validity to viewpoints that are much more heavily skewed than mine. Arguing that millions of people are simply not in a position to know any better is, according to you, lending an inordinate amount of validity to skewed viewpoints?? > [@](#): > > It is hard for me to see how it is so difficult to blame the Taleban for terrorism when they are carrying out a genocidal program against half of their own population. The intense misogyny they have promulgated is nothing short of terrorism in my own book. False cause. It is not difficult to blame the Taleban for terrorism; blame, as we see from your lengthy rantings, is surprisingly easy to assign. Let’s PROVE IT instead, conclusively and to all parties involved. Also, misogyny, while revolting, is not terrorism by any means. You can, however, argue the Taleban are a terrorist regime because they employed some terrorist tactics to rise to power. > [@](#): > > BECAUSE THE TALEBAN HAVE ACTIVELY FACILITATED ONE OF THE WORST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE MODERN WORLD AND MUST NOW BE EXCISED FROM CIVILIZED SOCIETY LIKE THE MALIGNANT CANCER THAT THEY ARE! A very utilitarian and even ameliorative way of thinking, but one that has limited bearing on this problem. There is no world government; each and every nation will take its own decision on this matter regardless of your righteous thoughts. The decisions will be influenced not simply by moral obligation, upon which you seem to place so much emphasis, but many other factors. > [@](#): > > as an American citizen I am certainly not prepared to see the Taleban participate in ruling another country much less influence the thinking of another generation of Muslim youth. I will cheerfully contribute my tax dollars to the eradication of such a psychopathic element from our world. While I despise the Taleban just as much as most Americans, I recognize that meddling intervention in the affairs of other countries is a very complex problem. As an American, you ought to know that! I have never sought to protect the Taleban, however, and their downfall will be most welcome (they could hardly be replaced with a worse regime). > [@](#): > > And I suppose another question might be, what better way to piss off most of the **entire world’s population** than by seeming to side (through willing inaction) with a regime that facilitates atrocities on a previously unknown scale? This is too simplistic to be true. International politics is not the feel-good affair you seem to believe it is. In your opinion, which countries have sided with the Taleban in the recent month? Remember, neutrality is the right of every government. It is foolish to mistake neutrality for enmity. The political process is not a straightforward one. > [@](#): > > It merely reinforces the parochial nature of Islam as practiced by these fence-sitting nations if they are only focused upon the perpetuation of their own Autocracies rather than in the correct and proper dissemination of their hallowed religion. You seem truly innocent of the entire political process I mentioned above. And, by the way, the first priority of any government is its perpetuation, so why state the obvious and make it sound like sun an evil thing? > [@](#): > > Whether the general populations of these countries realize that the Taleban are insane or not, their better informed governments (who, by the way, are responsible for informing their own people as well) _do_ know that the Taleban are nut-cases and only do themselves and their religion irreparable harm with their mealy-mouthed equivocations. So it’s OK in this case, as you have been advocating loudly and obnoxiously for a month, to make the general populations suffer? You are still not supporting this flimsy point you keep moaning about. I will also add that, yes, it is the government’s responsibility to inform the people, but _it is not the fault of the people when the government fails to inform them_. Ignorance is rampant everywhere, and the US–the most advanced country in the world–is certainly no exception. Information is not an easy task. > [@](#): > > As to what constitutes a strong argument against Democracy, I am not aware of _any_ valid argument against it. This is not important, I really did not intend to attack democracy, but ask yourself this: why should rule by the people and for the people be any better than, say, an autocracy? Who is to say that one million people are always better informed than a single person? Democracy is a good system to distribute the responsibility of decisions; it is not necesarily an ideal system to make the _best_ decisions. I refer you to Plato’s _Republic_ on this point: good decision are made by the informed, not necessarily the majority. There are some who think democracy is repulsive because of such glitches. I am not such a person, so find something else to sink your teeth in. > [@](#): > > If they _want_ to see the Taleban removed then they had better do something highly visible about it. Their tepid responses and condemnations are unconvincing at best. As I said before, it seems to me like most of the world is unified on this matter. It is. however, the right of every nation to have reservations on any matter. It is probably too much to ask _you_ to understand the considerations that go into every big decision, as you do not seem able to do anything except yammer. > [@](#): > > Especially Saudi Arabia and its Wahabbi royal family. They have served to breed up the monster that is the Taleban and their cries of disassociation carry no weight with me now that the wolf is at the door. Really? I may be wrong on this point, but it seems like the US government served to breed the monster that is the Taleban and the monster that is Bin Laden. This is yet another example why interventionist meddling is so dangerous, be it American or Saudi. Were I to use your logic I could say that the US is crying crocodile tears now that things have gone hideously wrong. But I reject that kind of logic. > [@](#): > > Again, I must disabuse you of this practice of referring to the Taleban as “muslim brothers”. As mentioned about a million times, we are talking about _perceptions_. No amount of whining on your part is going to change the fact that, unfortunately, the Taleban is still perceived as a legitimate Muslim government by some uninformed and highly vocal people (although we have seen, contrary to your delusional posts, that the Taleban has been condemned by religious and political leaders for their actions and “flavour” of Islam). Change the _perceptions_, and you will remove most if not all of the opposition to dismantling the Taleban. Not so difficult to understand really. > [@](#): > > Your willing confusion of the Taleban with devout Muslims only serves to discredit your extensive attempts to prove me wrong. The Taleban are psychopathic, genocidal, misogynistic tyrants and nothing else. Your swaddling them with even a vestige of respectability does grievous harm to your own credibility. Talk about harm to credibility. Once again, it’s a matter of _perception_. You are wasting a lot of energy (and I would add credibility but you have next to none) when you focus on attacking points that you _want_ me to be making. > [@](#): > > If you call getting the crap bombed out of you and being deposed from power, “playing your cards right”, so be it. As far as communications go, I did not expect such a successful campaign. With very few resources in-country, the Taleban (or Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in all probability) have managed to rally a surprising show of support across much of the world. Not from governments, granted, but from the ignorant and/or fanatical masses. Of course from a military point of view the Taleban are seriously outgunned and battered, but if you think that’s all there is to it you are (again) seriously mistaken. > [@](#): > > I would say that “the most important factor in war” is the ability to prevail against your enemies and be the scribes of history. Propaganda is probably the single most important factor in any war. “The ability to prevail against your enemies” is not a single factor at all, but a collection of several factors. > [@](#): > > If Muslims are so concerned about the “killing of Muslim innocents,” they should take better care not to support or facilitate the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocents in another country. Irrelevant point, unless you are saying that Muslims in general were aware that such an atrocity as the WTC would happen. At this point, little you say can surprise me anymore. > [@](#): > > That the predictable and correct response of the United States results in the deaths of Muslim innocents is child’s play to anticipate. Speaking in absolutes again. That’s a bad habit. And it’s callous. And, whether we are able to predict something has absolutely no bearing on the morality of the situation. Consider also that there are people out there saying, “that the predictable and correct response of the Al Qaeda network results in the deaths of Muslim innocents is child’s play to anticipate”. And they are saying it with as much categorical certainty as you utter your lines. > [@](#): > > Your mention of it is facile at best. Your additional mention of the UN workers being killed verges on Taleban apologism and is extremely repugnant. You find it repugnant simply because you are too obsessed and, indeed, fanatical about your demagoguery and particular brand of bigotry to understand simple arguments. I make no apology for the Taleban. The sooner they are removed the better. I will keep repeating this ad nauseam, so cease your attempt to twist this argument around. > [@](#): > > And yes, I am familiar with the concept of being forced to allow refuge to one who throws himself upon your mercy. I just happen to think that this does not apply to _mass murdering criminals_. If the Taleban wish to believe so, then it is up to us to change their minds, be it through forceful persuasion or a bullet in the brain. No argument there, as long as the targets are the Taleban, Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and not innocents (although your violent tendencies are extremely distrubing and deserve immediate correction). The argument here is against your repeated maniacal calls to obliterate innocent civilians; your crass generalizations of entire cultures, ethnic groups, and religions; your categorical, narrow-minded, and intolerant point of view; and your obtusity in the face of reason. [a lot of very general anti-Taleban surface nonsense and assorted vague tirades skipped because I’m getting tired] > [@](#): > > I vehemently advocate the utilization of advanced technology to obsolete current automotive transportation. To shed our dependence upon oil would best serve our interests in the Middle East now and in the future. My point was that categorical assertions go out the window when you are dealing with intricate interdependent systems such as international politics. Like it or not, the US needs the support of Middle-Eastern nations, for a lot of reasons. Therefore don’t go pissing them off, or you will make your task that much harder. Once again, this is not such a difficult point to understand if you know anything about how the world works. > [@](#): > > For yet another time I am obliged to point out that the “popular outcry” you continually bleat about is a direct byproduct of the self-serving propaganda these selfsame countries have spewed for decades. It feels like I am trying to explain physics to a maggot with attention disorder. Again, you are the victim of your disingenuous categorical reasoning. The “popular outcry” is _in part_ a result of propaganda, but it is also a result of (as stated before) other factors such as US intervention, support of Israel and subjugation of Arab states, hegemony, etc. You are free to disagree with the facts, but they are still the facts. > [@](#): > > I have followed Middle Eastern affairs enough such that casual conversation with Iranian strangers on the street has resulted in them asking if I work for the state department. Utterly irrelevant, and a classic example of _ethos_ in argumentation: you are simply trying to increase your standing with your audience by using an appeal to character and credibility, but most people around here are able to such cheap tricks. > [@](#): > > have devoted myself to better understanding of their culture. That is rather difficult to believe, in the light of your disjointed and uninformed arguments thus far. I detect practically no understanding from your camp at all. > [@](#): > > For yet another time I am forced to remind you that the “tightrope” being walked is a direct result of ingenuous political scheming that is no fault of the United States. Oh my good grief. And that categorical assertion, ladies and gentlemen, helps explain why anti-Americanism exists. Would that it didn’t, but with attitudes like yours it is a simple matter to become detested. > [@](#): > > Although I’m quite sure that the Saudis don’t see it this way, they are more than a little responsible for their Wahabbist clerics breeding up the Taleban and all the religious intolerance that comes with them. A similar argument can be made against the US, who, I remind you again, propped up Islamic fundamentalism in response to the Communist threat. The US’s excuse? “It seemed like a good idea at the time”. Probably the same excuse running through some of the Saudi clerics’ minds right now for all you know. Also, judging from your several posts in these forums, you seem to blame Saudi Arabia and Wahabbists for everything that went wrong in Afghanistan. Oh dear. > [@](#): > > Again, you attempt to lend credence to the morally bankrupt Taleban by saying that we are “attacking” them. It is bad enough I have to clean up the manure you leave in these message boards, but I will not tolerate a single more accusation of supporting the Taleban in any way, particularly not from someone with as weak and simplistic a grasp of international affairs as you. > [@](#): > > Please remember that we are defending ourselves against a visious and repressive regime that had the lack of foresight to facilitate one of the most heinous crimes in all history. Several days of heavy air strikes against Afghani targets on Afghani soil is supposed to be a defence? It’s not, no matter how you look at it. Not an important issue, but I wanted to point out how skewed your thinking can be. > [@](#): > > You are also insulting quite a few Americans (myself included) to refer to America in any way as a “predominately Christian power”. Live with it, at least until US dominant religious make-up changes to something else and the US administration make-up represents beliefs other than Christianity. The chief religious interests in the US are Christian interests; Christian dogma is still by far the most influential in the nation; the number of Christian fanatics in the US is, if anything, on the rise; and, as you point out, the current administration has a Christian zealous streak. Again, I raised this point because it is important to understand how Middle-Easterners _perceive_ this situation; I did not launch an attack against the US, but it seems that you can’t handle criticism unless you’re the one dishing it out in absolute terms (kill them, destroy them, eradicate them, etc.). > [@](#): > > Our nation was founded upon the separation of church and state and your ascribing religious motive to it is reprehensible. Words without meaning on something that is not the issue. I am not ascribing religious motives to US action, nor have I ever in this whole Afghanistan incident. You are really reaching. Go back and read what I wrote–and since I repeated it several times, do me the courtesy of reading it as many times. > [@](#): > > I will thank you not to twist perception of our self-defense in such a repugnant manner. I have twisted nothing, it’s all right here on black and white. You, on the other hand, have attempted to twist almost everything I have said, as demonstrated several times before this point. If twisting is the best refutation you can come up with, I can’t really blame you for your rabid approach. > [@](#): > > You say that we have the “approval” of the countries in the region. I beg to differ in that the nature of the crime that the Taleban abetted is so heinous in nature and such an indictment of the Islamic faiths propensity towards violence that only direct participation in the immediate dismantling of the Taleban’s movement can serve as proper response to their culpability. Wrong. See above on the right to remain neutral and also on the approval and support granted the US by almost every nation in the region. I have discussed this point to death and am tired of repeating myself. [removed a lengthy diatribe about “Demons” and civilization, and evil and whatnot. Very flowery if we ignore the grammatical errors, but of no substance] > [@](#): > > Seeing as how mine is a free country, which you have repeatedly sought to belittle in your repulsive and repeated attempts to legitimize the Taleban’s psychotic tyranny I warned you earlier, do not ascribe to me support of the Taleban. This is below even your low-brow debate tactics, as is the attempt to assign to me a position I do not hold in regards to attacking the US. > [@](#): > > I am led to suspect that you are not an American citizen and can only wonder at your motives. **My motives have been clear since my first post in response to your idiotic demagogic comments: to stop ignoramuses all over the world from inciting violence against the innocent.** Let me know if you still don’t get that. [cut some rubbish that did not pertain to the argument at hand] > [@](#): > > The Arab nations should be held accountable for this willing solidarity with such murderers. Covered this already, and your position is STILL not looking good. > [@](#): > > it is painfully obvious that you are willing to attribute some sort of validity to the Taleban and their direct contribution to the execution of bin Laden’s dastardly plot. No, it is not obvious at all, especially in light of all I have written. Your statement above is a painful fabrication to which you latch on in an attempt to invalidate points for which you have no better answers. > [@](#): > > Your petty sniping at my grammar (which I am routinely praised for in many circles) is duly noted. You are amusing. Your writing style is so verbose and self-important that it is difficult to reconcile it with several clumsy errors (both linguistic and factual) that keep popping up in your posts. When **Collounsbury** does something like this it is evidence of character; when you do it it just looks silly and pretentious. I thought I would alert you to it, a better service to you than praise from other circles, I assure you. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732/34 "2001-10-16T11:22:58Z")
Oh and by the way: > [@](#): > > _Posted by Zenster_ > Neither have you refuted my points about Muslin-on-Muslim violence. I have, it’s up there, too bad you seem bent on accepting only one sepcific data-set. I also find is suspect that the author correlates Islam with warlike tendencies. But what, if any, is your point on that matter in regards to the argument? > [@](#): > > Democracy has everything to do with this argument. Many of the countries in discussion here would not even allow this forum or this very debate to occur. Freedom of speech is one concept, democracy is another. While the two often overlap, that is not to say that other forms of government do not support freedom of speech. I thought this was irrelevant to the argument, but now I see that it may be your zeal for all things democratic that is firing you up even more. > [@](#): > > Just make sure that as you falsely accuse me of advocating genocide that you also show the exact order of my posts. Zenster, you have posted so much SHIT on these boards in the last month that before I even got into this unpleasant discussion with you I already had my suspicions. Fear not, I will shortly bring the evidence forward for all to see, as you have requested. > [@](#): > > Did you bother to notice or, perish the thought, mention that I have repeatedly and directly expressed my own personal discomfort with the intense feelings I have had related to all of this? Instead, you seek out only the most salacious aspects of my postings without providing any of the balance that I have attempted to include in them. Frankly I care nothing for your personal discomfort or intense feelings in this or any other matter. My only concern is that readers of these boards should be influenced by your output simply because it is the most visible and abundant (often a mark of inferor quality by the way). And a great many of your posts on this topic are offensive, not just “the most salacious aspects” of certain messages. Balance is definitely lacking in your posts, although I grant you gladly that I have read with interest such points you make as discouraging the use of nuclear bombs–but I see no need to hold your hand while I tell you why your thinking is on other matters is bunk. So yes, I have read and weighed all your posts on this matter. > [@](#): > > kindly bugger off. Leaving aside your propensity for _ad hominem_ attacks, not a chance. You can either retract your several bigoted statements (to be posted soon, probably in the pit), or you may continue posting the kind of rubbish we’ve seen so much of, in which case you are discrediting yourself for me (thanks for the help). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-solidarity-and-its-implications/86732.md?page=1)