This is a 1000 year war

Great Debates
1

I like many of you am struggling with an understanding of who the enemy really is and what would be an appropriate reaction to the September 11 attack. In this endeavour I have searched various websites on jihad and islam and have come away with a fearsome understanding of the root cause of militant Islam. Fear of undermining the male superiority in a society whose hope in the afterlife is the attendance of perpetual virgins. Male sexual control guaranteeing his sexual satisfaction.

Canadian and European countries struggle to maintain a national culture in the face of the onslaught of American television and entertainment. It is a losing battle. For the middle east muslims however, America’s civil liberties particularly with regard to women is a very real threat. Hence when an American steps on middle east islamic soil, the reaction is much more severe than when jayjay and Esprix walk into a church (all the way to the first pew)presided by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, holding hands and wearing nothing but shortshorts.

The “war” that we now all face started way back with the Shah of Iran. The civil liberties for women made great gains under his rule regardless of the lack of his active participation in that pursuit. His sin was not suppressing the trend. This upset the mullahs and imams who are the real leaders of middle east islamic nations. Normally, to avoid the burdens of administration, these clerics are quite happy to allow others to rule, but when their control is threatened by the erosion of male dominance, a pillar of islamic faith, then a Jihad had to be declared. Iran subsequent to the fall of the shah, immediately put their women in their place. The Shah was the first casualty.

Next came the Gulf War,and what did Americans do. They sent thousands of unveiled women to do battle against muslim men.
What a message. The most powerful country on earth sends its women to fight muslim men." Well lets have a good look at the Quaran and the Hadiths. Oh, the unbeliever has invaded islamic soil. She must be destroyed." Hence bin Laden and the mullahs and the imams declaring Jihad on America. Islamic fighters who die in the name of Allah go directly to Paradise, no stopping at Go (waiting for Judgement Day). And Paradise everyone, involves having your wife at your side while you are constantly copulating with virgins who get re-hymened each time. Its also said that you will be attended by young good looking boys whatever that means. Now for the islamic fighters who don’t die, they continue to fight for paradise on earth. Something which surely the American way of life is in the way of.

Certainly the Palestinian conflict is a separate item. From the very beginning the issue was land not culture. The freedom fighters such as Arafat were much better educated than the average muslim in the region.But in time, the suicide bombers, bred by Hezbollah and Hamas, under the control of clergy were unleashed, complicating Arafat’s program. Now Arafat is just another secular leader in the muslim tradition of tolerating secular leaders for administration although to control of the people is still in the hands of the imams and mullahs.
Like Pandora’s box, the fever of Jihad, the vision of paradise for mujahaden has been unleashed.The drum beat get’s louder and louder. For America to escape this scourge, she has to renounce everything she stood for. I see no basis for the resolution to this conflict, unless the borders are sealed and all embassies in the middle east are withdrawn. That will never happen. We are going to be in this for a very long time.

I think the Bush administration is thinking along these lines. They don’t have all the answers yet. But I do hope they are careful, because bin Laden is only the tip of the iceburg.

References:

Women’s Paradise, by Abul Kasem
Jihad Site
-also click to main page

2

Well, I personally have greater faith in the Power of Economics than you do, I guess. As in, “The East Germans got tired of watching all that yummy West German TV, and the Russians got tired of seeing their senior KGB officials have nice cars and Levis and not sharing them with anyone, and the Chinese are seeing that it might be nice to run your own little business and be members of the World Trade Organization.”

I think that eventually cooler, more economics-oriented heads will prevail and the jihad, or at least the most frenzied, militant version of it, will evaporate under the combined pressure of McDonalds and Walt Disney.

After all, it wasn’t so long ago that North Vietnam and South Vietnam were locked in mortal combat, and look what happened. They’re all in business together now, running tours out of Hanoi.

And–I’m sorry, but I don’t consider “Islam” to be the enemy, not even “radical Islam”. The enemy, IMO, is a psycho bomber named Osama Bin Laden. Just another Timothy McVeigh, writ large.

I must have missed something back in 1990. I don’t remember seeing any video clips of thousands of women in combat against Iraqi troops.

My understanding was that most of these women were actually in “combat support” positions, not in the front lines.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/femvetsds.html

So, the point you seem to be making is that Radical Islam is so horrified by Women’s Lib that they’ve declared a jihad? So the WTC and the current crisis is all the fault of the feminists?

3

That is a very optomistic view DDG. Bin Laden is the exeption to the rule? Take him out and we won’t be hearing of any more terrorist attacks in the USA ?

From what I recall, the men didn’t spend too much time in ground combat either. What I do recall is countless clips of mothers and women kissing their children and husbands good-bye as they boarded planes to go to war. That is the television image, providing the perception of of a powerful society where women stood beside their men rather than behind. This is satanic to the imams and mullahs who derive their power by their roles in declaring Jihad and edicts to support male supremacy.

Very simplistic but yes.

Please DDG give me some credit. The tone of the OP doesn’t even come close to being apologetic for American culture.

4

I think you’re oversimplifying, at least with regard to Iran. While religious leaders did speak out against Westernization, of which increased rights for women were only a small part, that wasn’t the main reason either the clergy or laypeople were upset. The Revolution in Iran didn’t happen because the Shah said, “Ladies, you can wear pants.” It was caused much more by land confiscation and redistribution by the government, the oil wealth of Persia going to fund the millitary instead of funding social services, an increased gap between rich and poor, and the stifling of any dissent.

5

Well let us look at the result of this Islamic revolution.

Changes.

1.Ladies, you can’t wear pants

Non changes:

  1. land redistribution --I don’t know, but I can’t recall any major land reform
  2. military funding----I doubt it has been reduced
  3. social services-----I doubt funding has increased
  4. rich-poor gap-------I doubt the gap has been narrowed
  5. political freedom—I doubt that dissent is more tolerated.

Captain Amazing, I can bring up lots of cites supporting my claim re what happened to women as a result of the islamic revolution in both Iran and Afghanistan, but I seriously doubt you can find support for any real changes in Iran that reflect your view of the causes.

6

**
Um, well, yeah, actually, at least, to the extent that it would be the end of well-organized, coordinated, funded attacks on the U.S. I understand that one can never discount the possibility of the occasional Mad Dog Bomber taking out the Sears Tower just for giggles, but yes, take out Bin Laden and the whole international terrorist organization that he founded, funds, and organizes would collapse, leaving its members, without his charismatic leadership, to scurry around and run for cover, like ants in a disturbed anthill.

He’s a One Man Show, Grienspace. Take him out and the whole thing falls apart.

Even Sherlock Holmes knew that to strike at the heart of the evil that afflicted London, he was going to have to take out Moriarty. :slight_smile: Take out Moriarty and his crime network, and London goes back to pickpockets, burglars, and the occasional Jack the Ripper (who was an Independent).

Um, it seems to me that this imagery would be reinforcing the exact opposite impression–that of submissive wives bidding farewell to their Lords and Masters as they go off to war. I doubt whether the mullahs would make much of a distinction between women standing “behind” their men, and women standing “beside” their men. Either way, the wimmenfolks is being left at the airport to tend the babies and cook the food and roll the bandages, whilst the menfolks get on with the real business, which is War.

And women did this during World Wars I and II, also, and I don’t remember any Islamic mullahs getting all up in arms about “uppity American women”.

I’m speechless. Here’s somebody you ought to meet. Reverend Jerry Falwell, meet Grienspace.

And yes, my point about blaming the feminists still stands then, whether or not the OP contains an apologia for American culture.

I’m not a trained legal mind, but this logic seems perfectly straightforward:

“The feminists were responsible for Women’s Lib.
Radical Islam is deeply offended by Women’s Lib.
Women’s Lib is a fundamental part of American Culture.
Radical Islam is deeply offended by a fundamental part of American Culture.
Radical Islam chooses to express its disapproval of a fundamental part of American Culture not via Kandahar newspaper editorials, or even by simply passing laws banning trousers on women tourists, like Saudi Arabia, but by supporting terrorists who bomb things. Specifically, American things.
The most recent strike by Radical Islam-supported terrorists at American Culture was the WTC bombings.
Therefore, the feminists are responsible for the WTC bombings.”

Anybody wanna check my math?

You can’t think of any other things about American Culture that might offend deeply religious people, besides Women’s Lib? How about, say, its materialism? Or how about its extreme emphasis on “the individual’s pursuit of happiness”, as opposed to, “the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few”?

How about its tolerance, relatively speaking, of homosexuals? I can’t recall the last time I saw the American Feds drag a gay guy out in back and shoot him, but the Taliban so far has executed several homosexuals.

How about its sheer wastefulness of Earth’s resources, the gas-guzzling cars, the new clothes every few months with the perfectly good old clothes simply thrown away, the refusal to recycle?

How about the just plain cocky attitude of American Culture, that we’re always right and we always know what’s best for the rest of the world?

7

grienspace wrote:

“Canadian countries”?

What, you mean, like Canada? :wink:

8

DDG: You forgot to carry a one.

Whether or not you agree with the hypothesis, saying that the feminism of western society has resulted in conflict with the Muslim world is not equivilent to saying that the Feminists are responsible for the WTC attack. There’s a world of difference between saying that the psychopath singled out the pretty young girl because she was pretty, young, and female, and saying that the victim brought the crime on herself.

Anyhoo…I saw this guy on PBS 13 last night (actually PBS25 because I’m not getting most other TV stations now). He was quite brilliant. He fielded a number of questions from scared, angry New Yorkers questioning how Islam could permit such attrocities with grace and tact without getting defensive or trying to excuse those responsible.
He may be my new hero (subject to further research).

9

If you want to use analogies DDG in this regard, you are best served not to rely on fiction (Sherlock Holmes) to validate your assertion. In rebuttal, I suggest Escobar, the kingpin of the Columbian cocaine trade. Taking him out didn’t make one little dent in the war on drugs. Stick to reality.

I know you are a very prolific poster** DDG**, but try slowing down and comprehending what you are reading.The image I’m talking about is women kissing husbands and children goodbye. What do you think. Our male soldiers were taking the kids with them to go to war?

We didn’t have television/globalization back then. American culture had very little exposure on the ground in the middle east.

Can you kindly explain exactly how my assertion puts me in the same category as Jerry Falwell?

Your analysis is so one dimensional that you fail to see the big picture that the rest of us look at. Responsibility introduces the moral dimension, and in no way am I blaming women’s liberation, which on the whole I have supported. Responsibility rests with those who support the terrorists and the terrorists themselves.

Well, it seems to me you are now shooting from the hip. DDG, meet Archie Bunker. These American attributes and values are not very high on the conscience of the uneducated masses of radical Islam.

I won’t argue with this point. However this particular irritant for radical Islam in no way is as significant as the issues regarding women.

Sure , and why don’t you add violence on television, situation comedies and American football…WWF…

10

grienspace wrote:

Aha! That’s it!!

The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in order to stop American football! Apparently, it worked – all NFL and College football games previously scheduled for the weekend after the attack were cancelled.

Damn their nefarious plots!

11

I’d suggest:

Resistance to the Shah: Landowners and Ulama in Iran, by Mohammad Gholi Majd

which argues that the land reforms initiated by the Shah removed a number of the traditional rights that the Persian peasant had had, including some rights to water use and communal land use, and that this led to an alliance between peasants and the clergy who protested the new land policies.

If you look at military expenditures, remember that Iran fought an 8 year war with Iraq, mostly on Iranian soil, that required high levels of military spending.

The post-revolutionary Iranian government did invest heavily in infastructure, especially rural electrification and communication. It also embarked on literacy programs in rural areas, and improved the level of education, especially for rural women. It also made elementary school education mandatory for both boys and girls.

You’re right, a lot of rights for women that we’d recognize as fundimental human rights did go away, and not everything that led to the revolution was changed. However, it’s overly simplistic, and, I think, wrong to say, “The reason the revolution happened was because rights were given to women.”

12

The extreme Muslims cannot stop women’s lib. If they try to subjugate them now, with all the focus upon them, they will lose all of the women’s critical support to the West.

13

The extreme Muslims cannot stop women’s lib. If they try to subjugate them now, with all the focus upon them, they will deservedly lose all of the women’s critical support.

14

Oh, okay, you got me dead to rights. I must have been in such a hurry to pump up my post count that I failed to catch the gist of your post.

However, as I said, these women mainly served in support services, and I do credit the mullahs with enough sense to realize that, far from seeing thousands of unveiled women being sent to do battle against Muslim men, they were actually seeing thousands of unveiled women being sent to drive cars, cook meals, take dictation, run computers, and do laundry against Muslim men.

Removing Escobar didn’t make a dent in the drug trade because there were literally dozens of other drug kingpins around the world, all of whom were happy to take up the slack. The reality is that there are not dozens of Saudi Arabian billionaires organizing terrorist cells. There is only one. Like Moriarty.

Jerry Falwell also just said that feminists were responsible for this whole mess. To paraphrase him: “God is angry at us, because of the feminists, and He’s punishing us by having Osama Bin Laden bomb the World Trade Center.” Do you want a cite for the quote?

Um, this is in fact the entire thrust of your OP, and you clarified it for me here:

How is it “shooting from the hip”, Archie Bunker-ish, to pinpoint some of the aspects of American culture that deeply religious people might find offensive? I am personally acquainted with a number of Fightin’ Fundies who are as deeply offended by these things as Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban are. Were you accusing me of being prejudiced against Moslems? Is that what you mean by the “Archie Bunker” remark? Or are you accusing me of typical American arrogance in presuming that I know what Radical Islam is thinking? If I’m arrogant and presumptuous, then so are all the commentators whose opinions those also are–that’s the same thing everybody says, that these are all the things that most irritate the rest of the world about America.

**
How do you know that? As a matter of fact, how do you know that it’s Women’s Lib specifically that has Radical Islam all upset? Have you got any kind of cite for that? Interviews with Moslems, etc.?

The Western world has a heavy emphasis on representative art. How do you know that’s not what’s making them angry? After all, they did destroy all those Buddha statues.

15

I do believe your view of women in the military is somewhat anachronistic. I do not pretend to be an expert on this, but I’m quite confident that women participate fully in the navy with the exception of operation of fighter aircraft in combat. In any event, the actual role of American women in the military is not the issue. It is the example of how women are accepted with respect to men and free that could corrupt the minds of their own captive women. That is why education of women has been severely curtailed in Islamic states. Remember,to them women are slaves, and just as the south fought a war of secession to maintain slavery and keep blacks from getting educated, so radical Islam fights to maintain this fundamental aspect Islam.

First of all, if you have been paying attention to the media, you’ll know that bin Laden is no billionaire. Whatever wealth he has has been inherited from his father, and he is chronologically way down the list of 50 plus siblings. Present intelligence suggests that significant funding for Jihad is obtained through some NGO’s. Furthermore, I would be surprised if some significant cash from secular governments to mollify the radical clery isn’t part of the scene. It is the mullahs that are the backbone of Jihad. They alone can convince the mujahdeen of their guaranteed reward in Paradise, if they die in the name of Allah. They alone can legitimize Jihad. The credibility of bin Laden and his leadership can easily be undermined if the mullahs so choose. Pay attention to what Bush,Powell et al are saying. This isn’t going to be over just because we neutralize bin Laden.

Damn it** DDG**, nowhere have I stated that God is punishing us in regard to this issue. If you want to insult me, you’ve certainly succeeded.

What I clarified is that Radical Islam is to blame, not feminism or radical feminism. Big big difference, and I hope you can finally discern the distinction.

That is the way I remember Archie. formulating his argument before he even understood the process, but certain of his conclusion all the way. That is the full extent of the reason for proposing the comparison in retribution for your sadistic comparison of my views with that of Falwell.

Did you read the links provided in the OP? The first link is authored by an Islamic woman.
Have I got a cite from a radical muslim stating that women’s liberation is the number one enemy of islam. Of course not. That would be like a son admitting he was masturbating when his mother knocks on the bathroom door and asks why it is taking so long. But if your teenage son is spending more than 5 minutes alone behind the bathroom door, you don’t need his word for it to figure out what is going on.
By a mile, nothing else in American culture is as starky different from radical Islamic culture as the treatment of women. One the one hand you have a society of women with more rights and freedoms than a patriarch in the other.On the other hand you have a society where women are slaves to be kept out of sight and to be beaten into submission by their husbands. These two cultures can not co-exist any more than southern slave culture could co-exist with the north.
The politics of sex is vitally important to radical Islam. Jihad depends on it.When an observer aboard the USS Cole reported the strange yet large smiles of the suicide bombers as they drifted in, it wasn’t anger for revenge that brought those smiles. On the other side of that huge explosion a comfortable chaise awaited each of them. Attending them would be an unlimited supply of voluptuous virgins (recycled) for sexual purposes and good looking young boys for whatever purpose I don’t know. Oh, his wives will be with him too. But trust me, they don’t nag. Now while the rest of good muslims have to wait till judgement day, to get into paradise, the martyr gets in right away. Do you think it was bin Laden who put that idea in their heads?

[

16
  1. The mullahs aren’t the ones who are sending terrorists to bomb Americans–it’s the Saudi Arabian millionaire :rolleyes: who’s doing that.

And I notice that this morning the official word is that the Taliban council of clerics has suggested that perhaps it would be best for everyone if Bin Laden left Afghanistan voluntarily. So much for the jihad, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.america.under.attack/index.html

So maybe they aren’t as revolted by Women’s Lib as you think they are. :wink:

**
Looks like they so choose. Too bad for Osama and his jihad.

  1. I didn’t say that you said that God was punishing us. I said that you said that the reason that Radical Islam is so angry at America is because of Women’s Lib and that therefore the current mess is the fault of Women’s Lib, and I said that Jerry Falwell is another person who said that the current mess is the fault of Women’s Lib.

  2. Er, my understanding of what Bush and Powell, et al, were saying was that they WERE focusing on Bin Laden. They use words like “mastermind”, and by definition, when you’re focusing on taking out a mastermind, that means you’re assuming that when you remove the mind behind the network, the network itself will crumble.

**
No, I suppose there will always be Mad Dog Bombers with grudges who will be blowing up buildings just for giggles. But removing the one psychotic mastermind who not only has a grudge, but also happens to have the bucks to back it up and the savvy to persuade a lot of people to go along with him, will go a long ways towards ending the “world-wide” terrorism problem. We’ll be back to the Provos and the Timothy McVeighs, not the “vast international network of terrorist cells”.

And the problem of “terrorism in America” will go back to being simply “crime”. It’ll be back on the plate of the FBI, not the Pentagon and the CIA and NATO. Watch if by Thanksgiving we aren’t seeing headlines dealing with the Harry Potter movie, rather than with “international terrorism”. I predict the whole worldwide coalition against terrorism, such as it is :rolleyes: , will slowly begin to crumble in the months after Bin Laden is “removed”, leaving Uncle Sam once again to carry on by himself, reviled by all sides as the Bossy American.

**
Yes, have you got one? No, I don’t agree that a Radical Muslim would be too ashamed to confess that he had a problem with American Women’s Lib. As as matter of fact, it was my understanding that many Radical Muslims are quite open in their disapproval of the way American women run around in trousers. However, I don’t remember hearing any of them state that Women’s Lib was the absolutely worst thing about America, the thing that makes them want to go home and clean their guns.

You claim to know what the uneducated masses of Radical Islam are thinking. How do you know that?

**
A cite by an Islamic woman isn’t relevant to your claim to know what the uneducated masses of Radical Islamic men are thinking.
5.

We have representational art; they don’t. To me, the difference between “art that features human beings” and “art that doesn’t because it’s thinks it’s a sin” is even more stark than the difference between women’s status in the two cultures.

And if you’re just going to shout and cuss at me, I’ll go find somebody else to talk to… :wink:

Besides, Grienspace, you’re starting to creep me out just a bit. It’s the drooling, I think. :smiley:

I’m sure if you wanted to convert to Islam, they’d be happy to have you, Grienspace. Then you, too, could have visions of re-hymened virgins waiting for you on the Other Side. :wink: Not to mention the little boys… :smiley:

17

I don’t find you funny at all DDG

18

**
Um, not really, unless you count “being invited to the party at all” as “participating fully” in it. The whole point of a war is shooting things, the same way the whole point of the prom is dancing. It’s nice to be invited to the prom, but if you’re not allowed to dance, I don’t think it can really be described as “participating fully” in it.

http://www.ewowfacts.com/wowfacts/chap19.html

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq48-3f.htm

So what “vital role” did the women in the Gulf War fill? The “vital role” of “support services”.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq48-3f.htm

**
Au contraire, it seems to me that " drive cars, cook meals, take dictation, run computers, and do laundry" sums it up pretty well.

Maybe I should have added “roll bandages”, and “tend children”.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq48-3f.htm

:smiley:

19

Hmm.

I know you’re fighting on the women’s lib front with the OP’er but I wanted to tackle this…

I don’t think economic forces can necessarily be used successfully in all cases. Hell, sometimes I wonder if they can even be used in most cases.

Cuba still has sanctions for no good reason I can see, and they are doing ok without us. Pakistan, however, is on the brink of economic collapse and can use all the help they can get, so they were willing to cooperate with the US in this most recent affair. Iraqi sanctions have done little but subject citizenry to adverse conditions.

In the end it is always the government leader(s) who decide the fate of their country, and if economic power doesn’t work and we really want something done, then brute force is pretty much the only option (again, assuming action must be taken).

I blame Hussien 100% for the condition of his citizens. I praise the prez of Pakistan 100% for doing something that will piss off 66.7% of his population but help 100% of them (so long as they don’t revolt) and himself. I am saddened by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict because I think they are both right, but they can’t live together in peace and so they are both wrong.

Economic power isn’t the only power, and it is very seperate from physical force. When we see that the economics don’t get things done, it is time to use more direct measures.

This will indeed be a long war, but only because we need to somehow garner US support-- even if it only means hating the US less than their own governments-- in an area which lacks it almost completely. We would like to bring education and some better standard of living to these people in an effort to accomplish that, but we’re not even welcome in the first place.

God, this situation is so fucked :frowning: