You won one war Mr. Bush, can you win one more?

Remove all ads!

Well, he has won the war against Iraq, but can Bush bring his war against terrorism to a close? If you haven't noticed, after the takeover of Iraq, there has been a major increase in terrorist activities.

 

There has now been two attacks this week.

Since they both bear the hallmark of being a synchronised part perhaps even of a bigger campaign, it is not bloody likely that these have not been in the planning for months.

What I will say is this though, the war in Iraq was generally rejected by the Arab world moderates, the current campaing will swing most muslims back to support for the US led campaign against terrorism.

Contrary to much bad press, most muslims abhor these actions as much as we do in the west. And they certainly do not want to be associated with actions like this which are clearly against everything their religion stands for.

 

Has there really been more 'terrorist' attacks?
Or has the media just been focusing more on them now?

 

I agree with that. But the problem is still nationalism. Nationalist arabs tend to connect their nationalist mythology with "religious" wording. Arab Nationalism sure will get stronger in the future. And, as I stated before, I see troubled times coming. Well, not that the past wasn't troubling. Just an increase in trouble, not a decrease.

 

No, because last week there were multiple attacks on American connected buildings all over the Middle East. In fact I think its more linked to the fate of the Bali bomber rather than the Iraq take-over.

 

Yago,
I disagree on the arab nationalism thing. Arab nationalism was a primarily secular thing and it has lost quite a lot of support since the end of the cold war. The gvt's in the middle east are corrupt and repressive to any opposition - islam is seen as an alternative.

So islamism IMO is not a belief of a couple of militant maniacs but a reaction on circumstances in their respective countries. In palestine it may be nationalism goldplated with religion, not so with the Al Quaida: The islamists want a state ruled by islam, nothing less - Al Quaida is focusing on Saudi Arabia. The palestinians want a secular country ruled by themselves, religion only serves as an additional motivator. You have to make a difference here.

 

Ragusa, I disagree

There have always been two kinds of nationalism: The secular one, which is weak now, and the islamist one.

I think, we both agree, that islamism is no problem, becuase in our countries, we parties like CDU/CSU and the CVP and FDP in mine. Islamism thereofore is nothing strange or bad in itself.

Second. The connection between religion and nationalism has always been strong in ex-colonies. It was needed, to make the "stubborn farmes" to nationalist. -> British India is the most important and still most influencing example.

The Hindu-nationalims -> Ghandi/Nehru and the at the same time developed Islam-nationalism. (Can't remember the name of the leader, at least it was a docter hmhmhm). It was a too strong movement for the British. They were kicked out. But religious nationalism had a bad side, which lead to a bloody civil war. This lead to the split of India into India/Bangladesh/Pakistan.

So, Islamism has always been strong nationalistic. They argue mostly strong nationalist, but do not use a secular law speech, but a religious law-speech. The message is still the same nationalist. The come with god and country. In the end, it does not matter, on which law-founding you claim soil. The important point is, you claim soil.

Infidels = Foreigers.

Example Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was put together through the Sauds. They needed a kind of religious-nationalism to melt Saudi-Arabia together. The same religious-nationalism that some say, demands infidels/foreigners to leave their "holy" soil. And islam-nationalism can be used to get different islamic movement to work together, like German-natioalnism was used, to unify different German-nations.

So, yes, secular Arab nationalism is dead, religious nationalism is still alive and kicking.

I personally think, the Arabs want the same, what India and China got, former colonies who developed to strong and independent states. In the case of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh with the help of strong religious nationalism, whereas in China the sakular nationalism (communism) of Mao prevailed. China is a success story. The former humilated colony is free of Japanese and the "white devils".

Of course, nationalism is a dangerous fire and a lot of people will get burned. It does not matter, if it is sakular or religious one.

Edit: Found a nice quote:

And one day, I will even learn the English spelling of "secular".

[ May 17, 2003, 16:10: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Don't go blame Bush that he can't stop terrorism, nobody can stop terrorism. As long as there are human beings on this planet, there will always be terrorism.

The Spanish government can't stop the bombings in their country, the British government can't stop the bombings in Northern Ireland, The Russians can't stop the chechnian attacks, and Bush can't stop Al Qaeda attacks. You can hurt the terrorists, by freezing their assets, and arresting a few cells from time to time, but you can never completely whipe them out.

The only ones who can stop terrorism, are the terrorists themselves.

 

Nope, the only ones who can stop terrorism are the people who are giving a reason for terrorists to attack.

 

Yago,
I strongly guess our disagreement is based on a very different perception of the term nationalism. Nationalism for me is a purely secular thing. A religious motivation for conquest is a distinctly different thing for me.

Personally I make the difference where I perceive the focus in ideology. The pan-arabian idea was an arbian nationalist idea, Nasser, the egyptian president is the key exponent of it - it lead to the concerted arab efforts in the wars against israel. And there was nothing religious in it - the the pan-arabian countries were majorly secular socialists, in their ideology was little place for islam - as religion would challenge the secular regime.

When islamists in egypt protest against their gvt they of course speak out a demand for power - in their country. They protest against the "infidels" in their land, those who drink alcohole, allow their kids and weaman to live a western lifestyle - and those who are corrupt, injust and unfair. Islam as a system of rule and religion is an alternative approach - led by god it can only lead to justice. That has nothing to do with nationalism.

When Al Quaida bombs US facilities in iraq to make the US withdraw (what they amusingly actually do even, re-deploying their troops to Iraq instead - that can be seen as a late victory for Bin Laden who has always demanded that) from there that is also targeting the Saudi regime, not only the US. Not only as a result of that the saudi regime is weaker than ever before. Their people are unhappy with them.

Of course, nationalism can have a religious element - that's visible in iran and in the US even (god's chosen country ), however I thing the term islamic nationalism is an unlucky and misleading one as it IMO doesn't adress the phenomenon rightly.

 

Erebus,
my point exactly. I very much doubt that anyone is born somewhere in Afghanistan with a lust for American blood. The West-hating terrorist hate the west for a reason. They feel they are being occupied by a hostile force (USA) and I get the feeling that the Iraq-war will only light the furnace. Terrorist now have new motives...

 

@ Erebus

So you're suggesting the Spanish Government should give up an entire province of their country, just because some Baskish knuckleheads say so ? That doesn't make any sense, does it ?

And what about Al Qaeda ? They want the whole world to be islamic. Should we let them have it their way, just so they will stop being terrorists ?

I'm sorry dude, but that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard.

 

I guess you are right here. We have different views on applying the word nationalism. I personally think, that religious-nationalism is an appropriate term and it is correct, to use it on islamic-nationalism.

But I don't think, that it autoamaticly leads to the assumption, that "islamist" want to conquer the world with their believe. When the goal of independence and islamist-state is reached (like Iran), the movement will loose it's power and appeal. Why. Because a development like Iran is, in my view, unavoidable, a new genereation growing up, starting to make their own interpretations of holy scripture, saying:"loosen up folks, we need some rationalism here".

Hm, and I think huge differencese between Swiss and Germans come here into play. Switzerland (as the UK) used to be a theorcracy, back in the old days. With two theocratic strongholds, Geneva and Zürich. Presbyterians had the same plan, of conquering the rest with their religion. After about 50 years, they said, what the heck. It's not worth the fuss. We better start loosen up.

I think that's the point, in which my swissness has to heavily disagree. Geneva is the protestant rome, and Swiss still are recruited as bodyguards for the pope. Religious greed for conquer can still be found by minorities of protestant and catholic groups. But the real motor of conquest is money, money, money. Now, Europeans made a big part of the world christian. But it was only a side effect of conquering gold, money, gold, money, gold.

Conquering something without some material gain is pretty boring. That is not where those islamists get the drive from. Its independence, decent policiy (10 commandments -> Thous shalt not lie, Thou shalt not commit theft, that's the medicine in the Qurain for corrupt and cleptocratic goverments, which can be found everywhere in the middle-east) and national unity.

Iirc, the Nazis wanted to conquer land to distribute it under the Germans. That's conquest for material profit. The Nazi-Ideology was never the driving force. The Nazi-Idelogy alone would have made political changes in Germany. -> Just the land of the others, where some Germans lived, was claimed in the name of Nazi-Ideology and national-unity. In other words, the Nazi and their ideology, the strong military power and made them want to search a "Platz an der Sonne". At the cost of others material gain for the Germans. The Italians and Spanish, on the other hand, were aware, that they had not the military strength, to conquer new wealth in other countries. Franco was always smarter then Moussolini, which fell for victory.

And by the way, forcing people into another national-state, just because their language is perceived as "German" is an unbeliveable weird idea, which I still don't get.

[ May 17, 2003, 18:22: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Pac Man, you beat me to the punch! To elaborate...

Who can tell WHAT terrorists really want? Osama Bin Laden has a vey different perspective on American activities - governmental or private - than Americans do. When McDonald's opens a restaurant in Riyadh, Americans see it as supply meeting demand or a corporation taking advantage of an opportunity for expansion. However, Bin Laden sees it as evidence of an American conspiracy to wipe out all other cultures. While it may seem that way at times, I can pretty well guarantee that no corporate executives are actively trying to wipe out anyone's native culture. All execs want to do is make money. Really. There are no ulterior motives, just PROFIT. And I can't think of a worse way to impact profits than for a corporation to be perceived as actively trying to replace one culture's heritage with its own products. While McDonald's ads might say "our burgers are better than Wendy's!" you'll never hear "Our burgers are better than the falafel at Ahmad's stall in the bazaar!"

To get back on track, giving in to any terrorist's current demand won't stop their aggressions, it will only set a pattern. Enjoying its success, the group will simply go find something else to demand and the terrorism will escalate.

 

Rallymama. Is it so that McDonald's is the point of contention or is it the fact that there are military bases and foreign policies that undermine native interests? American and/or Western culture is more than just McDonald's and American Western influence and reactions to it are not based on McDonald's.

Pacman. Is it so that Bin Laden want's the whole world to be Islamic? or just the area that is supposed to be because there are muslims living there?

Flip the coin. If by stopping the world from becoming "Islamic" then what are you prepared to make it? "Western"? In Bin Laden's eyes should he allow you to make the world "Western" which is the goal of Americans and Westerners generally?

The above is not my opinion, I am just trying to be thought provoking by imagining the issue from the other side.

 

@Khazraj: Good point about the military bases. I was just using McDonald's as an example of the corporate perspective. I still believe, however, that - whatever difference of fundamental interests there may be between the US government and the countries where bases are located - that no one is actively trying to subvert local cultures and replace them with Americana. It's a side effect, but a major one that Americans (corporate, military, and otherwise) need to be more sensitive to.

A question for you - should a country be Islamic simply because Muslims live there? If so, then the US should be an Islamic state as well. But then what happens to the Christians, or the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Pagans, or the... you get my point.

 

That's a dangerous thinking-mistake. Terrorism will go on, until the underlying problem is solved. If the problem is not solved, than the whole thing will continue and continue and continue. The point is, terrrorist in South-Africa demanded end of Apartheid. As long Apartheid did not end, violence went on and on and on and on. Now, they've got still violence, I guess. But not at such a large scale like earlier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2589409.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1415234.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/842518.stm

Sidenote: What really confused me, that Laches essay on Anti-Americanism didn't involve Okinawa. If anywhere outside the US, reasons for Anti-Americanism are mentioned, the famous Okinawa problems are usually first on the list. Now, I don't doubt that Laches used dilligently the sources he had. I just wonder about the sources.

Rallymama, I am sure you know, that the Qurain (Sp? dam, I never know English spelling) states explicit tolerance and security versus sister-religions, namely Jews and Christians. And you know, while Jews were burned at stakes in Europe, Jews in muslim countries were save and sound.

What is with the countries, which have a cross in their flag, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Switerland, Norway. Do they oppress non-christan minorities ? What's with turkey (except kurds). The best example for me is still the Buddha statue, which was blown away by the Taliban. Afghanistan was muslim nearly a thousand years. But they never had the idea to destroy Buddha statues. What changed ????

[ May 18, 2003, 04:18: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Rally -- No joke, you are correct in citing McDonald's. The running joke about them is that they do no market research before they open a location. They could not understand why they were having trouble with their stores in India. Finally, after 8 months of no profits someone at Micky Ds figured out that Hindus don't eat hamburgers. It's not that they are trying to change anyone's culture. It's that they don't know what culture is.

 

Your wrong about that. Mc Donalds do do market research before opening a store. I had a friend who was paid by Mac Donalds to reseach different places in NZ on quiet a few occasions.

 

Did I say they should stop whatever they're doing? No, I didn't, I said they happen, because people give them a reason to attack.