Optional

Well, using this argument you'd have to say that drugs are tied in with authoritarianism too. The assassins were, after all, actually known as the Hashashim, root word hashish.

So, communism, religion, drugs...

Somehow I don't imagine your friendly neighborhood stoner would enjoy being lumped in there...

-me

Grumpy

McVeigh was nominally Catholic, but was non-religious, and sometimes described himself as agnostic. His attack was not religiously motivated. Terry Nichols, I don't know about.

If you want to peg the start of the current war at some date other than Sept. 11, 2001, I'd pick Feb. 23 1998, the date Osama bin Laden issued his fatwah against all Americans, civilian and military.

John Hancock

David

I just don't see any delineation between an old and new war based on technology the fortunes of war have shifted with time but it's the same clash of cultures.

Martin Buber

Optional

Of course, another way of looking at it is that the war is now almost a century old. It was started when 'the west' won a world war and hacked up the mid-east into bite sized pieces, and then most emphatically did NOT allow the governments and culture and people to grow and develop in their own way and time.

Possibly one of the major battles won by the west would be the installation of the Shah in Iran by the US because the previous government was thinking about nationalizing their oil.

I could go on, but I expect you know most of the arguments, and get the general idea of what I'm trying to say.

-me

David M. Payne

Ut, I'm pretty unhappy with the role religion plays in our lives now even if countries like the US and Israel, let alone the Islamic nations. But religion is fading out in the west, but seems to be getting stronger in the Islamic nations. Religion divides humanity and keeps it at its own collective throats, not a good thing in this day and age, and religion is something we should leave in the dustbin of history IMHO.

Ut said;
I think the ones we have to really worry about are Ut. The ultimate goal of both fundamentalist Islam and Christianity is a one-world religion. And that would be a de facto One-World-Order if either side could bring it about, because it would entail a theocracy to keep that order intact. There are many who would love to die trying to bring it about, as 9/11 demonstrated. A theocracy is near and dear to many fundamentalist religious types, as well as more than a few of the moderates. It isn't the religious moderates we have to focus on, though they do legitimatize and to a degree support the existence of the fundamentalists by saying that religion is good, and their delusion about the Existence of God is not a delusion. It's the wackos who hear God's messages in their heads that are the scary ones for our long-term survival. We really have to worry about the Bin Laden's and the David Koresh's of this world. I think one of them will eventually find a way to use their religious power to gain some real political/military power and try to bring about the Apocalypse, for our own good of course.

David

David M. Payne

Optional, I think the conflict is as old as the religions, with hot and cold phases throughout history.

MB, I think technology does make a difference. Look at the SARS virus for example. It is probably a natural virus, but it could be a man made mutation too. You can set up a lab in a house to produce enough biological weapons to kill millions today, and that wasn't possible until the technology was developed to accomplish that goal. Technology is absolutely vital to the very long-term survival of the human race, as we will eventually have to leave this planet when the sun dies out, but it is a two edged sword.

David

Ut

Sure, I'd also love religion to be left in history's dustbin. But the fact is there is a billion Muslims right now and they aren't going to turn into agnostics or atheists anytime soon. Our luck is that religion is a very malleable construct, notwithstanding anything theists may tell us to the contrary. Bin Laden says that Koran commands Muslims to slay the infidels (i.e. Westerners) and that if you don't, you are not a "true Muslim". Some Muslim scholar will reply that Islam is a "religion of peace" and those who engage in terrorism are not "true Muslims". Both of them are absolutely sure that they know the "true meaning" of the Koran and that they act according to the "true will" of Allah, and they each have plenty of theological arguments and quotes from the Koran to make their case.

In the end, whatever is written in the Koran becomes irrelevant and each of them acts according to his personal, cultural and political values. It's just on the mostly trivial stuff (don't drink alcohol, don't eat pork, pray toward the Mecca) that they end up agreeing. Of course, too many Muslims are beginning to agree with more problematic stuff ("stone adulterer women, cut the hands of thieves"), but I think the Jihad thing remains unpopular.

Now I love it. That "fundamentalist" qualifier makes all the difference in the world.

Many, but not that much. Despite repeated fatwas during both the War of Afghanistan and the War of Iraq calling all Muslims to go and "defend Islam", there was at most ten thousands, out a billion Muslims, who showed up to defend Bin Laden or Saddam. Constrast with the situation at the beginning of America's War of Independance, when the Continental Congress could muster 60,000 men out of a population of 1-2 millions.

That's it! The wackos of the likes of Al-Qaeda are a danger that cannot be left unchecked and must be stopped dead in their tracks.

However, what about the semi-wackos that are Islamists? I'm thinking about the ones that are more like Khomeyni. The ones who would just bring about in their country a State based on the Koran with a law based on the Sharia. I'm wondering if there could be a way of giving them just enough rope to hang themselves with it. Let them have a little power in their country, but not enough to do extensive damage and certainly not enough to reshape the political system so that they seize and keep all the power. The strength of Islamists comes from being excluded from politics, so that they claim that they are "pure" and would do so much better than all these corrupt rulers. Just let them some space in the political system, force them to compromise around the clock and to constantly water down their proposals. Then, hopefully, people will realize that Islamists are just as corrupt as everybody else.

I'm thinking about the way fascism and communism was handled in various countries. How not to do it is Italy 1922, Germany 1933 or Russia 1917 when extremists seized all the power and clung to it. How to do it is the Spain of the 40's or the France of the 80's where respectively the fascists and communists had to occupy a minority position in a coalition and ended up being sidelined.

About the "true moderates", the ones who are neither Bin Laden fans neither Islamists, we of course do not need to take any action against them, but we could try to help them or bolster them. Well, that's easier said than done.

David M. Payne

I asked the members of another BB that is run by Muslims if Islam is a one world order type of religion on this thread, and got this reply among others. Thought you might find it interesting.

David

Ut

A quite interesting forum you've linked there.

Though, to be fair, it should be pointed out that this the forum of Faith Freedom International: "created by ex-Muslims to help Muslims leave Islam". This is a kind of Secular Web for Muslims. While the SecWeb is an excellent place to have an idea of what rabid, fundie Christianity looks like, the liberal, moderate and modern Christian point of view is less represented.

Therefore, to balance the picture a little bit, here is an article from a liberal Muslim: Islam without Islamic law

David M. Payne

The problem with the Abrahamic religions is that there are many voices that speak for God Ut, and they all have different interpretations of just what it is that God says. In a secular society that is no problem, for the secular government has control of the power. In a theocracy the religious authorities control that power, and the government ends up being authoritarian, and that is no different than what Marx and Hitler among others brought us. Even the moderate Muslims that I work with all feel that the world would be a better place if we could just get rid of all the other religions and institute Islam everywhere. And many "moderate" Christians have the same attitude, for they may tolerate the existence of other religions, but they all feel deep down inside that their cult, sect or denomination is the "true" one, and the world would be better off if everyone followed their lead. This attitude is what will ensure continuous religious strife in the world. In the end humanity needs to get rid of the God/religion biz and live our lives in the world of a democratically run secular reality. If that ever happens we might have a chance as a species to survive long term, perhaps as long as the dinosaurs did.

As long as we have these religious Zelts pushing their philosophy on everyone they can, there will be conflict, as 9/11 and the attack in Saudi Arabia yesterday showed us.

David