[americandream]

I am attaching an article from 2008 which discusses the last conversation with Afghan socialist Najibullah earleir in 1995 (last few paragraphs) where he issued a warning to the West on the serious risks in using Islam as a proxy in the Cold War and in the process elevating it to global influence. This is posted in light of the crisis we are currently facing and serves to remind us of just how we got in this mess and why.

http://www.vqronline.org/web-exclusive/ ... najibullah

[onlooker]

Yes I have to believe that the West has decided to unleash the forces of irrational religious fervor and that genie may not be able to be put back in the bottle. I appreciate the article but I am all too familiar with the reasoning from the vantage point of the West particularly the US. It is about projecting military might and in the process destabilizing the ME and thus creating a power vacuum which presumable will be filled by puppet regimes following the whims of the West especially to obtain that precious "Black gold". Also, in the process creating a worldwide police state intent of allowing the power structures to remain in place and the monetary rewards to continue accruing to the same beneficiaries. The one thing that the West did not account for is that these Islamic pawns would take seriously their Jihad and not bow to bribery or threats or whatever.

[americandream]

Yes I have to believe that the West has decided to unleash the forces of irrational religious fervor and that genie may not be able to be put back in the bottle. I appreciate the article but I am all too familiar with the reasoning from the vantage point of the West particularly the US. It is about projecting military might and in the process destabilizing the ME and thus creating a power vacuum which presumable will be filled by puppet regimes following the whims of the West especially to obtain that precious "Black gold". Also, in the process creating a worldwide police state intent of allowing the power structures to remain in place and the monetary rewards to continue accruing to the same beneficiaries. The one thing that the West did not account for is that these Islamic pawns would take seriously their Jihad and not bow to bribery or threats or whatever.

What the West failed to understand is history and she is a hard teacher and destroyer.

[onlooker]

I think AD, we are running out of chances to fail, the future may not allow more do overs.

[americandream]

I think AD, we are running out of chances to fail, the future may not allow more do overs.

Absolutely. But the objective man is not emotional. He merely acts according to the dictates of reason and reason dictates that we understand history, even in our last moments, if indeed these are.

[ralfy]

Blowback

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_ ... ligence%29

[C8]

The West isn't responsible for "elevating" Islam to power- it was responding to growing attacks on its citizens by Muslims. Liberals believe that only the West can be evil- its a pathological self hate that will bring ruin upon us all if we let it.

[evilgenius]

As far as history goes the most glaring clash is that of individual rights vs. those possessed by the group. The West has been the champion of individual rights. While it is certainly true that the rights of the individual do not hold sway over all decisions both public and private in the West, it, nonetheless, is the champion. Islam is group based. Where codification within Islam itself fails people tend to fall back upon familial or tribal assertions concerning roles that individuals must play depending upon the accident of their birth or other such phenomenon. Escaping from that situation is dangerous, even for those born, raised and living in the West. The irony is that, like everything else, what oppresses them oppresses their oppressors just as much, limiting them to playing certain roles as well. The difference between most of the oppressed and their oppressors tends to be only the possession of power. The memes that formulate such thinking are much harder to escape than the houses or relationships that empower them, however. In times of central struggle, in a crisis of faith, even those who have seemingly escaped may find that God punishes those who transgress even to the seventh generation.

Yeah, I say that, but isn't there also good within the group? There most certainly is. Man wants in a place of hollowness when he cannot identify with others. In the depths of this kind of hollowness he is wont to commit any kind of crime in order to either escape it or because of the neglect is causes his soul to suffer. Man is an extrovert, largely, by nature. Into this void, or potential void, come these Jihadists. They wish to use these very elements which already define Islam to one degree or another in order to gain and assert power.

How do the countries of the West answer this type of struggle, though? Don't they ask their citizens to appeal to the society at large? As a result of that religion is typically subsumed, wrapped within a blanket of how it can help further more widely accepted goals which tend to run secular in nature.

The West does pit the individual against something larger than them. It pits them against the state. You could say that it pits their rights against their responsibilities, when the voice of the state gets it right. But it creates something else in the name of that when it gets it wrong. There is another thing to consider in such warnings against the nature of Islam and how it's radical Islamist factions vie for power by confronting the West. That thing is how history demands that the West resolve its own tension between the place of the individual and that of the state. In the absence of such arguments, and a clear understanding of what sort of ideology ought to evoke the rhetoric and political action put forward by each position, there lies great danger. Man is a political animal. Ignorance is not your friend in regard to this.

[ralfy]

The West isn't responsible for "elevating" Islam to power- it was responding to growing attacks on its citizens by Muslims. Liberals believe that only the West can be evil- its a pathological self hate that will bring ruin upon us all if we let it.

We're likely looking not at attacks "by Muslims" but by armed groups of various ideologies and beliefs supported by military powers. Also, it's probably not so much a matter of "good" vs. "evil" but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

This explains why even as the West condemns attacks against their "freedoms" they continue to provide military aid or engage in trade with countries that oppose their ideals of democracy.

[onlooker]

Absolutely Realpolitik and no better example than the Middle East. They have what the West wants and craves namely Oil. We will do all sorts of contortions and about faces and changes in alliances just so we can be assured access to that Oil. The destabilization of the Middle East is well advanced and that is what the West especially the US wanted to pit one against another and utilize military might, underhand diplomacy, opportunistic intervention, proxy assistance, bribes and threats and overall both overt and covert means to assure we have access to the Oil.

[ennui2]

I find those who continue to ply the narrative that all foreign policy is driven by oil and nothing but oil to be overly simplistic bordering on childish. This also comes across as an apologia for terrorism, which turns my stomach, and it's a gateway-drug to tinfoil conspiracy theories (911).

A large percentage of people feel more comforted when they lay blame on their own tribe than to accept that some foreign actor could appear out of nowhere as a threat. We self-identify with our own tribe so we think "gee, we can self-correct, if we just run around and scream that soylent green is peeple." But you can't somehow impose on people halfway around the globe that sawing off people's heads with a rusty knife is wrong.

That's really what all this self-flagellation is all about. It's about how to frame the situation in a way that feels more solvable or manageable. But it's not.

You'll find that fundamentalist thought (which exists both in religion and secular ideologies) is the real enemy. When people reach epistemic closure and they draw little circles around people with labels over them saying "friend" and "foe", that's when the trouble starts. You can't negotiate with people who have flagged you as a collective existential threat. This flaw in the human animal rears its ugly head just as much with brown-skinned men as white Americans and it takes both sides to perpetuate it. So this continued attempt to spin and spin and blame and blame the West is intellectually bankrupt.

[onlooker]

No, blaming the West is not intellectually bankrupt, it is voicing the truth of imperialism dating back to when Great Britain carved up the Middle East arbitrarily to suit its ambitions. It is voicing that to this day Israel (An extension of the West) is antagonizing the Muslims/Arabs. Just look at the perverse inequality between Israel citizens and Palestinian people or young people reduced to throwing rocks at tanks to release their frustration. As for the focal point of the West being Oil that is as obvious as the Sun and Moon. Why are we not so engaged in places like Africa or elsewhere? Because they do not have the prodigious and indispensable resource that is OIL. To call this obvious circumstance a childish observation is like saying the Sun coming out is a childish observation, well that would not make it less true. Speaking of Islam and the two way engagement of the West with Islam is simplistic. The antagonists have been the West and now that they have awoken radical elements in Islam we say it is the Terrorists being barbarians. Well, who provoked them. Yes the West. Again I have already voiced the deep underlying reasons for the War on Terrorism and how it is convenient for the West especially the US. So suffice to say it is going just as planned.

[SeaGypsy]

Free enterprise does best by being able to respond quickly to spontaneously occurring markets. It can't all be planned without losing it's key gusto. The outcomes of butterflies in China on cyclones in South America, doesn't have to be planned. Who planned to put the oil where it is or the cultural domains, technological override factors etc etc. The system is way beyond anyone's real control, because it is responding constantly to new & emerging variables, many of which are organic. Weird enough, but in physics the economy is an organic technological organism.

[C8]

A large percentage of people feel more comforted when they lay blame on their own tribe than to accept that some foreign actor could appear out of nowhere as a threat. We self-identify with our own tribe so we think "gee, we can self-correct, if we just run around and scream that soylent green is peeple." But you can't somehow impose on people halfway around the globe that sawing off people's heads with a rusty knife is wrong.

That's really what all this self-flagellation is all about. It's about how to frame the situation in a way that feels more solvable or manageable. But it's not.
.

incredible post

[Ibon]

Self flaggelators don't make policy and don't influence absolutely anything. They are a sub culture within a subculture whose voice carries no weight. Fringe material that play no role.

Now the voters out their rallying for Donald, that is another matter.

[C8]

No, blaming the West is not intellectually bankrupt, it is voicing the truth of imperialism dating back to when Great Britain carved up the Middle East arbitrarily to suit its ambitions.

Yes- blaming the West IS intellectually bankrupt

You arbitrarily single out the Middle East and ignore all the non-Muslim lands (Asia, Latin America, etc) that were once under colonial rule also and that today are NOT attacking us. Why aren't the Chinese bombing us?

You also ignore the Muslim attacks on other nations that did not control them colonially. Why are Muslims bombing Hindus or each other?

The only explanation: its not about the West or colonial history- its about Islam (an inconvenient truth for liberals to be sure)

[C8]

Self flaggelators don't make policy and don't influence absolutely anything.

Funny- Obama regularly references the sins of the West- he seems to make policy (like letting ISIS commit genocide against Christians)

[onlooker]

Those other places that you refer too C8, have not been invaded and destroyed. Their religion has not been singled out as a source of evil. Their main resource has not been plundered incessantly. You ask why are they bombing others? Because in some way those others abide or support this War on Terrorism. As for in fighting well, why don't you cite what I said about forced demarcation boundaries putting together peoples whose views have been at odds for centuries. The fact of the matter is you have cause and effect inverted. We, the West provoked them and now yes some are taking up the sword. So wouldn't you if you homeland had been obliterated and your people or in some cases family and friends and been blown to smithereens. You guys speak about easy answers, I am not giving you an easy answer, I am saying that Christianity and Islam have a long history of enmity and that we in the recent times have once again stoked that enmity. So what should we expect a fond greeting from a region whose holy land has been occupied by foreign forces and invaded and whose governments reflect Western meddling and influence rather than the will of the people. Time to look in the mirror and see that "we have met the enemy and he is us"

[evilgenius]

I find those who continue to ply the narrative that all foreign policy is driven by oil and nothing but oil to be overly simplistic bordering on childish. This also comes across as an apologia for terrorism, which turns my stomach, and it's a gateway-drug to tinfoil conspiracy theories (911).

A large percentage of people feel more comforted when they lay blame on their own tribe than to accept that some foreign actor could appear out of nowhere as a threat. We self-identify with our own tribe so we think "gee, we can self-correct, if we just run around and scream that soylent green is peeple." But you can't somehow impose on people halfway around the globe that sawing off people's heads with a rusty knife is wrong.

That's really what all this self-flagellation is all about. It's about how to frame the situation in a way that feels more solvable or manageable. But it's not.

You'll find that fundamentalist thought (which exists both in religion and secular ideologies) is the real enemy. When people reach epistemic closure and they draw little circles around people with labels over them saying "friend" and "foe", that's when the trouble starts. You can't negotiate with people who have flagged you as a collective existential threat. This flaw in the human animal rears its ugly head just as much with brown-skinned men as white Americans and it takes both sides to perpetuate it. So this continued attempt to spin and spin and blame and blame the West is intellectually bankrupt.

I think what you say is valid, when you refer to terrorist organizations that exist outside of Western society. The recent attacks in Paris and Brussels were, however, not engendered by such men. They were home grown. Furthermore the troubled men came from criminal backgrounds. They already had trouble getting along with the 'system'. For most of them when they got into prison they met these Jihadist groups, who took them in when they were having a crisis of faith. Their crisis of faith probably wasn't that of religion, but of identification with the secular society they came from. The fanatical religious organizations simply took advantage of this in order to obtain a more sophisticated type of cannon fodder. They scored people who knew their way around, had contacts in the criminal world and were newly willing to die because of the romance they were having with a religion that didn't demand character changes from them and heightened their sense of criticism of those around them as it bound them into a common group.

I hope you can see how this is a result of Western lack when it comes to the position of the individual and the state. The same kind of thing underlies the Black Lives Matter Movement in the US. Frankly, I'm surprised La Raza hasn't made a comeback as well. Maybe it has, in the form of the push for $15 dollar per hour wages at fast food restaurants? It certainly lay behind Timothy McVeigh.

There is a reason why people like Thurgood Marshall, a supreme court justice, were so important in the civil rights struggle of the 60's in America. What happens with the law is important. It gives us equality when it comes to redress of grievances. When equally applied it also helps detail to us what sort of responsibilities go along with the rights we enjoy as citizens. Start sorting people out for special treatment, in whatever way favorable or unfavorable, and it can become a recipe for disassociation from the group which consists of the wider society at large. The little things matter.

[ennui2]

No, blaming the West is not intellectually bankrupt, it is voicing the truth of imperialism dating back to when Great Britain carved up the Middle East arbitrarily to suit its ambitions. It is voicing that to this day Israel (An extension of the West) is antagonizing the Muslims/Arabs.

Wrong. I mean, where do we draw the line? Should we claim colonialism was payback for the arabs expansionist policy during the middle ages leading to taking over Spain and a lot of europe during the middle-ages? This line of argumentation doesn't move the needle one bit towards reconciliation or peace. It only makes excuses for holding grudges and rationalizing continued war and atrocities.

Just look at the perverse inequality between Israel citizens and Palestinian people or young people reduced to throwing rocks at tanks to release their frustration.

Inequality isn't what bothers me. It's the fact the palestinians hate jews so much that they are knifing them in the streets. It's the last stop on racism to target anybody just because of their ethnicity and murder them. There is no excuse for this. None, period. And those who come across as if they are making excuses for them are the lowest of the low as far as I'm concerned.

As for the focal point of the West being Oil that is as obvious as the Sun and Moon. Why are we not so engaged in places like Africa or elsewhere?

We have been. Somalia anyone?

they have awoken

= blame the west. Simplistic, incomplete. The middle-east has never finished its transition out of medievalism. And the rigidity of Islam and its lack of separation between church and state is a real problem. Witness the transition Japan went through after WWII, for instance. We bombed them back to the stone age and they are now an ally, whereas in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere the cultures there seem to be resistant against simply getting their shit together and forming a secular democracy.

who provoked them.

Do you realize that the #1 victim of terror are OTHER MUSLIMS? This problem is self perpetuating even if you pushed a button and erased "the west" from the face of the earth. Your continued insistence that this is simply a hornet's nest that was caused and perpetuated by "the west" is a fantasy in your own mind. There is no end in sight because the fundamentalist thought within islam does not allow for anything but complete dominance over the globe. So for all this hand-wringing over western hegemony there is a blindness towards the actual demands of these extremists, which is just as if not more expansionist and imperial.