Nearly half of British Muslims back Bin Laden

[mhendo]

tsunamisurfer wrote:

To borrow on your phrase, your stupidity transcends all possible boundaries, but that’s grist for another day, another OP. (Do people smirk at you when you talk? I bet yes.)

As grienspace says:

I had someone else in mind for king of the personal attacks outside the Pit, but this tops them all. This is called debating?

Well, unfortunately, for tsunamisurfer, the answer to grienspace’s question is apparently ‘yes’.

The only part of your diatribe (that is, of the part not consisting of ad hominem attacks) that is of any real merit is your quote stating that:

“Most of the 19 hijackers, perhaps all of them, spent time in Osama bin Laden’s Afghan training camps, investigators now say…”

Now, i’m not going to ask you what your source is, because that’s irrelevant. I believe you, and i checked a few sources for myself to make sure. But this revelation does not, to use your words, make my argument “embarrassing” for me. All it shows is that the information the US has, and which is being made public, is increasing.

The only “embarrassment” i feel is that i failed to look at the most recent news reports before posting. Hey, i’m sorry. The last time i looked at this particular issue (no more than a couple of days ago), the news sources i checked still gave no indication that the hijackers had been linked to Afghanistan. If i am guilty of something here, it is merely of not being completely up to date. Well, i cry “mea culpa” and place ashes on my head, to use a poor mix of self-abnegation metaphors.

And, apparently unlike you, i actually acknowledge my errors and make the attempt to assimilate new information and adjust (or not) my arguments accordingly. And i still don’t believe that current US actions are the best way to address the problem.

You say:

No one denies civilian casualties, my starry eyed friend, but collateral damage/deaths are part of war. The U.S. government has done everything it can to minimize civilian casualties but, ultimately, war cannot be totally sanitized. Of course, you being a believer in radical, yet bloodless, transformation of the United States cannot imagine that.

and

Um, no, your argument holds nothing but my singular amazement. The real point is that civilian casualties are inherent in war. That said, the U.S. is taking every precaution to minimize such casualties.

Well, i’m definitely not your friend for a start, and patronising language doesn’t do anything to strengthen your argument.

Your assertion that the US is taking every precaution to minimize civilian casualties completely ignores the observations of various aid distribution agencies that the war, as it is currently being conducted, will certainly lead to large numbers of deaths from exposure and starvation during the imminent Afghan winter (on top of the normal number that a poor country like Afghanistan could expect). Civilian casualties don’t just result from poorly-aimed bombs.

I don’t accept that civilian deaths are inevitable in this case. Not because i think that they are easily avoided, but because i do not believe that the current strategy of bombing Afghanistan is the way to solve the world’s problems with terrorism. Civilian casualties are “inherent” in war because of choices we make, not because of some God-given or Natural (depending on your beliefs) force. We choose to bomb areas of civilian concentration because bombng those areas might advance our goals in the longer term. Now, there are times when i believe that such choices might be justified, and times when they are not. Where each person draws the line depends on a whole bunch of moral and intellectual imperatives governing that individual.

Anyone who has read anything about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII knows that questions of dead Japanese civilians versus the potential deaths of US servicemen weighed on those who took the decision. These questions also form a key part of the arguments of both those who think the bombings were justified, and those who believe that they were not. You can find similar arguments over the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Vietnam, Cambodia etc., with people taking different positions based on what, for want of a better term, are their own “cost-benefit” analyses.

Even in circumstances where i (and i speak only for myself here) might believe the benefits of a particular campaign might outweigh the costs in terms of civilian deaths (and those occasions, for me, would be very rare), i concede that taking such a position means that i am saying, at a certain point, that it “OK to kill innocent civilians”. I’ve already conceded on another post that people who support the bombing are often still troubled by the civilian casualties, but they still see those casualties as an acceptable cost of the “war against terrorism”. In this case, i don’t agree because i don’t think the strategy is the right one.

The interesting aspect of your argument is that it can (against all your intentions, i’m sure) be used to justify the events of September 11. Bin Laden, as frequently reported, declared his war on the US quite some time ago, well before September 2001. Could those who support him, then, not just argue that the deaths of Sept. 11 were collateral damage resulting from an attempt to knock out key US financial and strategic locations? Now, i find such an argument morally repugnant and totally unsupportable, as i’m sure most people would. But if you accept that civilian casualties are an inevitable side-effect of war, and if you accept that Bin Laden has considered himself at war with the US since before September 11 (and the US knew his attitude), then the difference between that argument and yours becomes one of scale rather than of substance.

Unlike you, the military doesn’t possess a magic wand capable of painlessly transforming corrupt regimes it regards as a threat. (In our case, that would be the Taliban. In your case, we’re talking the United States.)

and

And this is just the declassified/unclassified information. (Of course, you no doubt think this is yet another Amerikan lie.)

and

No, we’re all idiots and war mongerers here in the U.S., just breathlessly awaiting your detailed plan of bloodless radical Utopianism. My, the radical destruction and rebuilding of American institutions without the shedding of one drop of blood. Amazing!! You are a brilliant, brilliant boy!

Well, the last sentence speaks for itself regarding your definition of what constitutes a reasoned and reasonable debate. But your sarcastic abuse is no big deal.

By painting my argument as unreflective anti-Americanism you might score points with others who are as selective as you are in looking at what i actually say, but you demonstrate a total lack of understanding (or a wilfull misreading) of my position. I don’t consider myself anti-American, despite the fact that i would like to see some fundamental changes in the way that American society operates. Nor do i think that all Americans are “idiots and war-mongers”. You took that label for yourself, so i can only assume you feel comfortable with it, but i wouldn’t attribute these characteristics to most Americans. I believe in a certain universalism among different nationalities, so am not surprised to find that, in my experience, Americans are no more or less intelligent than people elsewhere, and no more or less bloodthirsty. You adopt a strident nationalist defence against an argument i never made.

As i said in an earlier post, there are aspects of American society and politics and culture for which i have profound respect and admiration. Even one of the strongest critics of American domestic and foreign policy, Noam Chomsky, concedes that this is, in many fundamental ways, still the freest society in the world. And i agree with him. I was raised in Australia, and have spent time living in Canada, the UK, and now the US - all Western democratic societies, and all having much to recommend them. Your post showed absolutely no willingness to engage with my references to non-violent protests and civil disobedience as a way to effect change. Ask Rosa Parks if it can work; ask the four young men who sat down at a Woolworths counter and demanded to be served. Ask Ghandi. I’m not so starry-eyed as to believe such struggles are easy or that they work quickly, but neither am i prepared to get up each day and don the rose-coloured glasses before i go outside to look at the society that i live in. The fact that America, all hoopla and jingoism aside, is one of the greatest countries on earth to live in does not mean that it’s perfect (as sailor and others with whom i have differed are willing to accept). And i really believe that some of the changes would actually bring the US closer to what its ideals are so often said to be.

In the meantime, international news reports detail bin Laden’s and al Queda’s feverish attempts to secure nuclear arms from Russian mafia/Pakistani sources, and have devoted considerable time/effort in weaponizing anthrax, smallpox, dengue fever, etc.

Wait–I forgot! You don’t believe the Amerikan media, do you? Which media and government do you believe?

Well, on the first point, maybe the US would use its resources better if it actually made efforts to help those countries secure ther nuclear weapons against possible theft, as it recently promised to do, for Pakistan at least. And maybe if America hadn’t been so backwards in its attitude to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and various other attempts to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and if it had combined a “lead by example” attitude with an exertion of its (considerable) influence on countries such as Pakistan and India, then maybe there would be fewer spare nukes around for terrorists to get their hands on.

And there is no such thing as a monolithic “American media”. There are many levels of media, many types with many barrows to push. Interestingly, even though i have many problems with the large networks and newspapers, i actually believe that much of the news they give us is fairly accurate and believable. So to that extent, i do “believe” them on many levels and on many issues. But i also believe that the very issues they concentrate on, and those that they ignore, often demonstrate institutionalised biases. I am also extremely skeptical when then stop giving news and begin to call their coverage “analysis”, because that is where some of the most problematic conclusions are reached. Some “analysts” are much better than others, and i don’t just mean that some are more left-wig than others por anything like that. Some, left and right wing, actually attmept to provide comprehensive detail and consider a multitude of possibilities, whereas others (again, from all parts of the political spectrum) start with the blinkers on and just get narrower.

Your post indicates that you are an American, but your constant reifying of your own nation into some monolithic whole with a single “media” and a single set of characterstics (even if you do this using sarcasm at my expense) shows a dreadful lack of appreciation for the amazing diversity of your own country. I don’t believe you are unintelligent enough to actually believe such stuff, so can only assume that you are just using it as a rhetorical device to make me appear anti-American.

[Dave_Stewart]

I was reading with interest a newspaper article recently in which Arab media and their reaction to the war was examined (sorry no cite - I threw it away). I recall the general gist of it. I thought at the time that it provided some insight into the way the moderate Muslims, at least in the Middle East and particularly Egypt and Jordan, perceive the current conflict.

The hypocrisy of which many non-Westerners accuse the West was lampooned by one commentator: Syria supports the US in its attacks, but is on the list of countries which the US will target for supporting terrorism. He asked whether the US is Syria’s friend or foe, because the US didn’t seem sure.

Osama bin Laden is pretty much ignored in mainstream Arab media. The feeling appears to be that the US attacks have given him more credence that what he deserves.

The overall gist was pretty much as pennylane put it: the attacks were terrible, but why should the Afghan people suffer for it?

Going now to India, another newspaper report stated recently that moderate Muslims there seem irate that extremist Muslims are asked to express their views in the media, simply because its sensationalist. Moderates are asking for better representation in the media of mainstream Muslim views.

Finally, in Indonesia, I read a report that many moderate people there simply do not understand the extent of the destruction and death in New York, and seem to view the US attack on a Muslim nation as disproportionate.

So moderate Muslims in Britain, by way of a rough generalisation on my admittedly hopelessly incomplete but possibly indicative data, seem to me to share the same perspective on the conflict as their moderate counterparts in non-Western countries.

British Muslim support for Afghanistan seems to be a common phenomenon amongst at least Muslim third generation immmigrants: a sense of identity with people of their faith. Don’t forget - only Westerners view themselves as “American”, "French, “Swiss” or whatever first, and then Christian or Western second. Muslims view themselves as “Muslims” first, and then “Jordanian”, “Sri Lankan” or “Filipino” second. This doesn’t mean that they’re not patriotic, any more than it means you aren’t Christian (if indeed you are). I can provide a cite for this, at least, but not today (my book is at home). Its a cultural perception: national patriotism and faith are not mutually exclusive - they’re just prioritised differently to Westerners. So, I’m not at all surprised by the OP.

[quarx]

Er … tsunamisurfer? Speaking as an American who supports the bombing of Afghanistan, you need to dip into your savings and buy a clue. MHendo made some pretty damned good points, which you seem quite unable to refute. Granted, even after following your threads in this discussion, all I have been able to gain from your arguments is that you have the debating skills and dexterity of a Three-Toed Sloth stoned on blotter acid, but I suppose that’s all one really needs to know about you, isn’t it?

May I advise returning to the Japanese literature you apparently find so impressive in your profile and re-reading what the Samurai had to say about grace under pressure?

[Sam_Stone]

The overall gist was pretty much as pennylane put it: the attacks were terrible, but why should the Afghan people suffer for it?

You know, this type of handwringing is pointless, unless you are prepared to offer an alternative.

The answer to the question “Why must the Afghan people suffer for the attack?” is because their OWN government is using them as a shield. This is the fault of Bin Laden and the Taliban, and not the United States.

In WWII, the German civilians had to pay for the actions of their government. So too did Japanese civilians, and British civilians, and civilians in just about every other country in the world.

It’s easy to lose your way intellectually when you start clouding your mind with a lot of emotional images. No one wants innocents to be hurt in any way, but it really is counterproductive to let that emotional weight get in the way of doing what has to be done.

The equation is as follows: Osama Bin Laden has declared war on the United States. Explicitly. He has followed through on that declaration with at least one major attack on the U.S. that had the destructive force of a tactical nuclear weapon. He is probably responsible for the Anthrax attacks, in which case he is using weapons of mass destruction.

The Taliban is aiding and abetting him in return for funding. That makes him an arm of the ‘official’ Afghan government. They refuse to turn him over to authorities. He continues to launch attacks, and threatens more.

If the U.S. does not retaliate, it sends a horribly dangerous message to other fanatics throughout the world, that the U.S. is too morally weak to defend itself. Do nothing, and the number of terror attacks on the U.S. will increase dramatically. In the meantime, Bin Laden becomes a hero and help to raise a whole new generation of fanatics who are just dying to help destroy the United States.

And in the meantime, he makes continual progress towards attaining and using even more horrible weapons of mass destruction, such as Smallpox and Nuclear weapons.

He is clearly a major threat to the lives of American citizens (and many other citizens in the world). He flatly states that he will continue with his attacks. He must be stopped. There is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

The primary responsibility of any nation’s government is to protect the well-being of its citizens. If the U.S. government were to do nothing in the face of continual attacks against its citizens, it would be grossly negligent.

Now, since Bin Laden must be stopped, you MUST face the uncomfortable fact that he is in Afghanistan, and that therefore some innocent people in Afghanistan will die in the effort to stop him. No one likes this, except for perhaps Bin Laden himself and his Taliban puppets. But it simply can’t be helped. There is no way around it. Therefore, it is not immoral as long as reasonable efforts are made to limit collateral damage as much as possible. Which the U.S. is doing.

You can obfuscate the arguments as much as you want with talk of peace and love, and you can trot out the laundry list of supposed offenses against Muslims that the U.S. is guilty of, and even if it were all true it STILL wouldn’t change the fundamental nature of this conflict. Bin Laden must be stopped, and only a war can stop him. And people die in wars.

[Dave_Stewart]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**

You can obfuscate the arguments as much as you want with talk of peace and love, and you can trot out the laundry list of supposed offenses against Muslims that the U.S. is guilty of, and even if it were all true it STILL wouldn’t change the fundamental nature of this conflict. Bin Laden must be stopped, and only a war can stop him. And people die in wars. **

I think fundamentalist Muslims would agree with you, on that last point. Faced with the technological supremacy of the West, fanatics viewed the attacks of 11 September as the only way to exert leverage in achieving their aims.

But all of this misses the point. You may view the conflict as you do. I may view the conflict as you do. A vast number of Muslims, in Britain or wherever, do not view the conflict as we do. I don’t think peace and love come into it. What comes into it is this sort of perception: that the US does as it likes in Muslim lands, fundies blow up some buildings and kill some people in NYC (big deal, Palestinians get killed by US back Israeli troops all the time), and then the US pounds a Muslim nation into dust, killing innocents, in response.

You see the cause of this as the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. They see the cause as a response to ongoing US assertiveness in a region which the US should not have any business.

I personally see why the US has involvement in the region (hint: he has a big moustache, doesn’t like UN weapons inspectors, and in his spare time annexes neighbouring countries), but I also understand that the man on the street in Damascus, Islamabad or Cairo might not. Or, to get back to the OP, why a Muslim in Bristol might not.

The US government seems to have recognised this, in recently meeting a bunch of Hollywood types (including Sally Fields?!)to discuss the problem of how to change non-Western perceptions of the US. I’m not quite sure how the Flying Nun can help out on this one…

[London_Calling]

FWIW, I largely agree with you Sam Stone and Dave Stewart but I think I’d put it a little differently for the benefit of waning (Western public support) and for Muslims. In my view, the war aims are:

• OBL

• Defeat the Taliban

• **Replace the existing authority with something that restores Afghanistan to its people **(it also has to be West-friendly, pipeline friendly and no longer a haven for indigenous terrorists as well as a training ground for external terrorists, but we’ll overlook those for these purposes).

That bolded (above) part is not being emphasised at all (as far as I can tell) yet it is the aspect that is likely to gain the greatest sympathy amongst Muslims.

For sure it’s dangerous territory (the West shaping an Islamic society) but the positives of the campaign for the people of Afghanistan are not being spun out.

We should (at least) try and push the ‘Liberation from oppression’ angle because the ‘It’s not a war against Islam’ message appears, to me, to project a defensive/negative posture.

We are losing the PR war, IMHO, and urgently need to shape up.

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**
We should (at least) try and push the ‘Liberation from oppression’ angle because the ‘It’s not a war against Islam’ message appears, to me, to project a defensive/negative posture.

We are losing the PR war, IMHO, and urgently need to shape up. **

I agree entirely. If the West wants to avoid more terrorist attacks, this should be a fundamental objective.

[system]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
The hypocrisy of which many non-Westerners accuse the West was lampooned by one commentator: Syria supports the US in its attacks, but is on the list of countries which the US will target for supporting terrorism. He asked whether the US is Syria’s friend or foe, because the US didn’t seem sure.

Yes, the Syrians specialize in such tedious attacks, all well and good for a regime that has not hesitated to shell one of its own cities during an internal uprising. Without prior warning or evacuation.

Osama bin Laden is pretty much ignored in mainstream Arab media. The feeling appears to be that the US attacks have given him more credence that what he deserves.

Pretty much ignored? In what sense? That does not match my sense of press from reading the actual Arab press, following the actual radio etc.

Does the press focus on the sins of the West, yes.

Bad Arab habit, a strong cultural tendency to externalizing blame.

However recent meetings reported in al-Hyaat give some sense that some internal criticism is beginning to take place.

As for the claims ObL is getting more credence than what he deserves, sure there have been some things along those lines. It’s rank hypocrisy.

The overall gist was pretty much as pennylane put it: the attacks were terrible, but why should the Afghan people suffer for it?

Yes, lot’s of commentators in the Arab press have made such arguments. Of course, again, it’s filled with rank hypocrisy.

Going now to India, another newspaper report stated recently that moderate Muslims there seem irate that extremist Muslims are asked to express their views in the media, simply because its sensationalist. Moderates are asking for better representation in the media of mainstream Muslim views.

Well, that is a better complaint. Part of the problem here is the fairly thin reporting from the American media on what’s going on in the region. On one hand, as I said, I am …. disturbed by some of the things I am hearing from some people, on the other hand your lack of hearing about moderate Muslim rejection of Osama bin Laden is partly a function of poor reporting and a lot of navel gazing on the part of Western and above all American media.

That’s very much a function, in my humble opinion, of the fact that the American media has never been terribly good at overseas reporting and has let what assets they had atrophy. Far too much of what you’re reading depends on reporters who are utterly dependent on translators or the Arab etc. version of Washington’s “chattering” classes.

If you read French, consult this.
http://www.lemonde.fr/dh/0,5987,3210--6435521,00.html

For those of you who may read Arabic, consult this:
http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2001/11/11-4-9.htm

Finally, in Indonesia, I read a report that many moderate people there simply do not understand the extent of the destruction and death in New York, and seem to view the US attack on a Muslim nation as disproportionate.

There is such a thing as deliberate, self-serving ignorance.

Now as to this:

British Muslim support for Afghanistan seems to be a common phenomenon amongst at least Muslim third generation immmigrants: a sense of identity with people of their faith. Don’t forget - only Westerners view themselves as “American”, "French, “Swiss” or whatever first, and then Christian or Western second. Muslims view themselves as “Muslims” first, and then “Jordanian”, “Sri Lankan” or “Filipino” second.

Certainly this is what the Islamists what everyone to think and the viewpoint they push and push and push. Al-umma.

Reality is a lot more complex.

There is certainly a theological call for this, pan-Islamic solidarity. A normative construct. It’s never existed and doesn’t exist.

Of course a bunch of alienated kids fed a highly idealized mythology of Islamic history are not going to know this. And not living among a Muslim majority where one sees that, e.g. Moroccans certainly have conflicted feelings about supposed Islamic brotherhood with Algerians, that Egyptians see themselves as Egyptians (musr, umm ad-dunya and all that) as much as anything etc etc etc, they suck it up in contrast with a society which may be less than welcoming.

In the context of the complex evolution of nationality in the Muslim world I see no way to make the sweeping statement your author made, except in a sort of highly theoretical way which will give way to other loyalties when push actually comes to shove.

Such that I would startled were I to read this say about Egyptians about Egypt:

68% value their faith over their British citizenship.
…
40% believe that Britons who fight for the Taliban are
justified.

(Substituting some appropriate substitutes such that their Egyptianness was specifically contrasted to some enemy of the state.)

What this is is not some essential Muslim position vis-a-vis nationality but the cry of people, rightly or wrongly marginalized.

This doesn’t mean that they’re not patriotic, any more than it means you aren’t Christian (if indeed you are). I can provide a cite for this, at least, but not today (my book is at home).

Do. I find it to be a highly normative statement.

Its a cultural perception: national patriotism and faith are not mutually exclusive - they’re just prioritised differently to Westerners. So, I’m not at all surprised by the OP.

You’ve sadly misread the data, those opinions are indeed saying faith trumps nationality which is reflective of a lot of issues I am sure.

Now in re the PR war:

Dave where did you see this about Hollywood? Good lord, I dearly hope not. The messages need to be crafted by people who understand the style and idiom, not by more Westerners.

[Milossarian]

Quirm:

**If the reaction the moderate muslims face from their communities when they voice their opposition to Bin Laden and the 11 Sept. attacks is anything like the vitriol often aimed at US and UK citizens who dare to criticise the bombing in Afghanistan, then I’m not surprised that they are being less than vocal with their views.

One need only look on these boards to find examples of posters who have been taken apart for suggesting that the US retaliation is poorly thought-out or politically motivated or whatever - even MPs here in the UK have faced the wrath of Government whips when they have voiced their reservations.

And this is all from supposedly “civilised” and “free-thinking” individuals - if this is how “we” behave it’s not hard to imagine the opposition a moderate muslim cleric might face from the “hard-liners” in his own community were he to criticise Bin Laden; I think I’d keep a pretty low profile too…

**
What I’ve seen on these boards I wouldn’t characterize as vitriol, but rather as people aggressively challenging the assertions of those who think bombing Afghanistan is wrong, and pointing out that in light of what’s occurred in the USA, who did it, where they are, and what needs to be done to try to prevent such things from happening again - their ultra-pacifism doesn’t hold water logically.

I’d like to see someone win a debate about how it was justifiable to hijack and crash of commercial jetliners into office buildings and kill thousands of civilians. This is a debate moderate Muslims, particularly clerics, should have no problem winning.

Those people could have the most positive effect of anybody, in stamping out those smouldering embers out there in the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East but even in Western nations, that Osama bin Laden is a hero and what happened Sept. 11 in the USA was a good thing.

[Dave_Stewart]

Collounsbury- I’ll find that pesky book and quote it to you tomorrow…I had thought the desire for pan-Islamic state was a fundamental yearning for Middle Eastern Muslims, but I only know of this from academic readings, whihc no doubt have their own agendas to push.

The article about the US government going to Hollywood to solve their public image problems was in the South China Morning Post late last week. I’ll see of I can find anything more on this and post it to a new thread - I find it fascinating that they’d go to the people responsible for Godzilla to sort out their problems.

The SCMP was the source for the balance of my info (China Guy has previously warned me off it).

Millosarian

I’d like to see someone win a debate about how it was justifiable to hijack and crash of commercial jetliners into office buildings and kill thousands of civilians. This is a debate moderate Muslims, particularly clerics, should have no problem winning.

As abhorrent as I personally found the events of 11 Sept., I could probably make a shot at it, on an intellectual level. In fact, I sort of did, in setting out what I assumed was the perspective of the man on the street in Damascus, above.

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
Collounsbury- I’ll find that pesky book and quote it to you tomorrow…I had thought the desire for pan-Islamic state was a fundamental yearning for Middle Eastern Muslims, but I only know of this from academic readings, whihc no doubt have their own agendas to push.

More I think a yearning among certain western-educated Muslim intellectuals ( including a good deal of the political class ) in the post-WW II era. Sort of rose-colored look back to the supposed halcion days of the Caliphate and ( more proximately ) the Ottoman Sultanate. How widespread it was among the populace was never very clear to me, but I’m inclined to trust Collounsbury’s instincts on this.

Millosarian

**
I’d like to see someone win a debate about how it was justifiable to hijack and crash of commercial jetliners into office buildings and kill thousands of civilians. This is a debate moderate Muslims, particularly clerics, should have no problem winning.
**

As abhorrent as I personally found the events of 11 Sept., I could probably make a shot at it, on an intellectual level. In fact, I sort of did, in setting out what I assumed was the perspective of the man on the street in Damascus, above.

Bit of a hijack, but I might as well post this link here as well as in IMHO, since it has some bearing on the above comments.

http://web.utk.edu/~warda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm#_ftnref1

It’s a very rough-looking rough draft, but I though it was interesting. Basically it’s an analysis of the Islamic contents ObL’s statements, including his possible line of reasoning and some of the potential flaws therein.

• Tamerlane

[system]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
Collounsbury- I’ll find that pesky book and quote it to you tomorrow…I had thought the desire for pan-Islamic state was a fundamental yearning for Middle Eastern Muslims, but I only know of this from academic readings, whihc no doubt have their own agendas to push.

Well, there’s yearning for an idealized past and there’s reality.

This just not an issue which one can make clear pronouncements on.

I’d say, yes, many Muslims – above all Arab Muslims – clearly have some vague sympathy for the romantic idea of a pan-Islamic Caliphate. Oddly especially among the educated. An easy solution to problems.

And that has some basis in standard theology.

Now, practically speaking, loyalties are a whole bizarre can of worms.

I have no problem with a statement that there is reservoir, often deep, of sympathy for pan-Islamic solidarity, sometimes phrased in “Muslim first” kinds of language.

That’s not quite the same as putting religios identity before national or other identities. Above all when one moves from the theoretical “survey question” or the highly normative stance of some significant portion of the ulema to actual choices.

As a general statement, I just don’t see mhendo’s statement as being operatively correct or accurate. Above all as a general statement.

But this is a terribly difficult thing to tease apart, as lots of people --and this of course is true everywhere-- hold contradictory beliefs. So I’ve heard people assert that they’re for an Islamic Caliphate (if the perfect Caliph were found) ** and ** representative democracy.

I think the best one can say is that which identity trumps which depends on a lot of things and is still being formed in much of the MENA region.

There is where a US backed propaganda campaign comes in. To help head off the terrible emmergence of a substantive (as opposed to vague romantic) consensus for the pan-Islamic Caliphate is ObL’s wet dream.

The article about the US government going to Hollywood to solve their public image problems was in the South China Morning Post late last week. I’ll see of I can find anything more on this and post it to a new thread - I find it fascinating that they’d go to the people responsible for Godzilla to sort out their problems.

Oh my, my head hurts. This strikes me almost as horrible as a statement I got at a lunch meeting with some fellow from the P-gon (coincidence, friend of a friend together for lunch) – this jarhead crew cut fool comes out this the following:

“I don’t see why [something about some policy P-gon is implementing on upping relev. lang skills] is necessary, I think those Arabics [yes, this mid-level officer was incapable of using the proper plural] should put more effort to speaking and adapting our culture.”

Direct quote to the best of my recollection. I did my best to restrain myself in pointing out how stupid this statement was. Don’t be having lunch with him again.

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
[BOh my, my head hurts. This strikes me almost as horrible as a statement I got at a lunch meeting with some fellow from the P-gon (coincidence, friend of a friend together for lunch) – this jarhead crew cut fool comes out this the following:

“I don’t see why [something about some policy P-gon is implementing on upping relev. lang skills] is necessary, I think those Arabics [yes, this mid-level officer was incapable of using the proper plural] should put more effort to speaking and adapting our culture.”

Direct quote to the best of my recollection. I did my best to restrain myself in pointing out how stupid this statement was. Don’t be having lunch with him again. **

Reminds me of the second last US ambassador to Australia (a political appointment), quoted in the press as being sure glad that he was in a country where they spoke American.

[pennylane]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
If the U.S. does not retaliate, it sends a horribly dangerous message to other fanatics throughout the world…

I agree with you about this, which is why I refrain from criticism of the air strikes although I feel that there is some validity to concerns that they may be ineffective.

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
In the meantime, Bin Laden becomes a hero and help to raise a whole new generation of fanatics who are just dying to help destroy the United States.

The question regarding this point, for many people, not only Muslims, is whether the air strikes will really prevent this. I feel that the situation is problematic, but that is the intention of anonymous terrorists. They aim to place powerful victims in a moral quandary, unable to react or to retaliate against a known enemy. I believe that Usama bin Laden’s intentions were to incite the U.S. into retaliation against innocent civilians. However, that does not make the civilians themselves any less innocent. It is a similar situation to that of the sanctions on Iraq. In that case, I opposed the sanctions for the harm they did to innocent civilians. But like most of those who opposed the sanctions, I don’t support Saddam Hussein in any way.

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
I’d like to see someone win a debate about how it was justifiable to hijack and crash of commercial jetliners into office buildings and kill thousands of civilians. This is a debate moderate Muslims, particularly clerics, should have no problem winning.

They don’t have any problem winning that debate, Milossarian, it is the other debate - the debate on whether the air strikes are justified - that poses a problem. Muslim clerics did speak out regarding the terrorist attacks, notably Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi from the Sunni community and Ayatollah Sayyed Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah from the Shia community. But they are not as eager to support what many see as an ineffective and unjust retaliation.

As mhendo indicated, while media reports are usually accurate, they are also often biased in what they choose to emphasise and what they choose to ignore. In the days following September 11th, clips of Palestinians rejoicing made better news than clips of Palestinians shocked by the horror of the terrorist attacks. But now some international media sources have abandoned footage of World Trade Center rubble in favour of images of wounded Afghani children. BBC World is rife with clips of Afghani babies with their faces badly burned, lying in Pakistani hospital beds. Grief over innocent American victims has subsided and focuses instead on innocent Afghani victims. Personally, I feel that the air strikes are justified. But I find it hard to win this debate with the Muslims I know.

[Balduran]

pennylane

But they are not as eager to support what many see as an ineffective and unjust retaliation.

This seems to be a major challenge of the PR campaign. While many people may see this as a retaliation (and I’m sure there are many elements of this), this is not the primary purpose of the US lead strikes. The primary purpose is to dismantle terrorist networks before an even larger attack occurs. If you look at it from this perspective and not revenege, it changes the outlook on what is acceptable in this campaign (not touching on the arguments of effectiveness).

[London_Calling]

I’m not entirely convinced of that, ** Balduran**. The switch away from bombing population centre’s last week (to the Taliban front line and supporting forces), indicates a change of tactics as well as a PR opportunity that hasn’t been seized.

Whether the motivation for that change was increasing pressure from those concerned about Muslim public opinion is difficult to judge. However, the timing is curious. It could have just been coincidental with moving into Phase Two of the campaign (which itself is looking more like an effort at demoralisation rather than a pro-NA gambit – meaning: Why not incorporate it with Phase One which had (largely) the same goal ?).

However, it’s a whole lot easier to justify the B52 phase of this war than it was the opening weeks. But yet again, I see no hurry (by our politicians) to emphasise the shift from civilian areas to bombing the hard-core Taliban (the front lines having a high percentage of imported Arab and Pakistani troops not overly concerned with ‘liberating’ the country).

With the benefit of hindsight and if Phase One and Two were pre-planned to be distinct, it was a mistake, IMHO, to disregard Muslim opinion in favour of Game Plan Serbia (revisited). But that’s easy to say now…

BTW, besides the PR disaster, I’m not convinced our Islamic advisors (whoever the hell they might be) are up to mustard.

[TwistofFate]

and this thread is over a poll conducted by The Sunday Times?

This paper is about as Journalistically adept as The Sun (which, incidentally, is also owned by Overlord Rupert).

Milo asked where are the moderate muslims? Simple. they’re just as outraged as you are. But Moderate Muslims dont sell newspapers.

[owlstretchingtime]

To get back to the OP re British Muslims. This is a group I have a great deal of (professional) experience of and I can see where such sentiments may come from.

The majority of British Muslims are Pakistani or Bangladeshi, from rural areas (or descended from same) as such they don’t have the academic traditions of some of the other asian brits, to which they are often, unflatteringly, compared. Mainly their antecedents came here to work in the cotton or catering trades, poorly paid hard work.

They themselves don’t see a direct comparison with, for instance, the Ugandan Asians ( a middle class elite) but with the afro-carribeans who they perceive have an easier time in Britain.

They also believe that one of the reasons that this is true is that the black community rioted, fought and generally asserted itself extremely strongly to get to that position. They feel they now have to do the same.

However this is about the worst thing that they can do. The British National Party (far right) got good percentages of the vote in the areas where these riots occurred. They will get higher percentages in the local elections and in some towns (burnley and Preston for sure) will have councillors. This will impact on the provision of services making an angry, marginalised group moreso.

Do 40% of British Muslims support Bin Laden? Yes if you stand outside a radical mosque, ask the self selecting sample who will talk to you, ask them leading questions and allow for the peer pressure effect.