Islamists against terrorism


by Sunny
11th August, 2008 at 11:24 am    

Al-Qaeda’s violent methods and tactics have been coming under mounting criticism this year from Islamist scholars who once supported it. One by one they have been coming out in public to denounce the organisation’s actions as being counterproductive.

.. says this BBC article last week. It goes on to point out that:

At one level there is the intellectual debate, the Arab thinkers within the jihadi movement. These are the people who are standing back and questioning whether al-Qaeda’s extreme methods aren’t actually doing more harm than good to Muslims. But then down at the grass roots level, things are moving the other way, because there are still growing numbers of potential recruits to violent jihad, including in Britain.

Often these recruits have only a shallow knowledge of Islam, and they are far less impressed by theological debate than they are by more day-to-day, down-to-earth factors like TV reports of western airstrikes on civilians in Afghanistan or the presence of US and British troops in Iraq.

As thabet points out, “So, yes, foreign policy is part of the problem. But not the only problem.”

But here’s the crunch. Some will say the answer is to teach these wannabe jihadis proper Islam so they can be guided away from terrorism. Secularists are likely to balk at that approach, saying the best way forward is for them to forget about religion. If foreign policy is only part of the problem, a fact neither Islamists nor the pro-war anti-Islamists want to acknowledge, what are other parts to the problem?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Religion,Terrorism






87 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. » ah, nuance: Islamists Against Terrorism. … Talk Islam

    [...] nuance: Islamists Against Terrorism. Al-Qaeda’s violent methods and tactics have been coming under mounting criticism this year from [...]




  1. soru — on 11th August, 2008 at 12:54 pm  

    The question is not so much whether foreign policy is the problem, but how much foreign policy can be a solution.

  2. MaidMarian — on 11th August, 2008 at 12:59 pm  

    ‘what are other parts to the problem’

    Entrenched views, reinforced by any number of media. especially the internet.

    If people read/see something often enough they will believe it. For good or for bad.

  3. Roger — on 11th August, 2008 at 1:34 pm  

    what are other parts to the problem?
    Islam.
    One of the basic assumptions of islam is that muslims decide what is tolerable and tolerate it. Finding themselves in a society that tolerates the intolerable to them and grudgingly tolerates islam itself is a disconcerting experience for devout muslims.

  4. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 1:39 pm  

    This may be interesting:

    http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/

    Even The Rand Corporation is now saying that the war on terror is a failure and that a new strategy is needed.

  5. Shakeel — on 11th August, 2008 at 1:41 pm  

    As a person actively engaged in tackling this problem i must say that foreign policy is 90% of the problem. If foreign policy was corrected they’d had no fuel for the fire. All terrorist claim to be fighting injustices that are linked to western, particularly British and American foreign policy. If that was taken away, you’d only have a tiny fraction of the terrorists left, those who are mental expansionists who think they can take over the world with car bombs and scuicide bombers. Of all the material you’ve as individuals have ever read about terrorists, how many of them do you think want to take over the world, compared to those who want to fix what they deem to be injustices?

    Osama Bin Laden is a maniac, the guy who is readying himself to become a scuicide bomber as we speak somewhere in the world (probably) is someone who thinks he’s about to right a wrong. It’s that kind of scale.

    The other parts to the issue only we the Muslim community can fix. Education, education, education. We need to make our community more religiously aware so that it cannot be blackmailed using something it holds so dear to itself yet knows so little about (an amazing oxymoron), secondly we need to increase the level of education within our community generally so that people are smarter, have better jobs, more skills, and have better economic conditions.

  6. MaidMarian — on 11th August, 2008 at 1:50 pm  

    Shakeel (5) – I think that the important word there is, ‘claim.’

    Whether they want to take over the world is one question – whether they want to be part of a glorious radical islamic takeover is quite another.

    Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by, ‘corrected,’ in your second line?

  7. Shakeel — on 11th August, 2008 at 2:03 pm  

    I personally think that the USA and EU and Britain should take a fairer stance when dealing with foreign policy. For example, take the recent approach towards Hamas and Hizbollah. They both became democratically elected yet were snubbed by the Western world, who happen to be traditional allies of Israel. The reason they were snubbed; because they are militant groups. We have in the past dealt with other militant groups, the IRA, Mandela, many others. It’s not completely unfeasible. We could have extended a sincere approach towards them, placed the responsbility of the negociations of peace between Israel and Palestine and the formation of a viable Palestinan state upon them, and then watched whether they ruined thier chances or rose to the occasion.

    I suppose what I’m saying is that they were not offered any carrot on the end of the stick.

    That’s just one example. Another example close to my heart is Kashmir. I want a UN intervention in Kashmir, and a UN sponsored refernedum on the future of Kashmir which would include Indian Occupied Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and the territory currently labelled as the “Northern Area’s” by Pakistan. Why is it so hard for the entire world to force that issue? It might stop a nuclear war one day.

  8. marvin — on 11th August, 2008 at 2:17 pm  

    As a person actively engaged in tackling this problem i must say that foreign policy is 90% of the problem.

    Foreign policy? What about the reaction to Satanic Verses, Mo-Cartoons? Is that included in ‘foreign policy’?

    Amazing you put 90% of the blame on the West. That’s exactly what jihadists and islamists do. And you agree.

  9. marvin — on 11th August, 2008 at 2:20 pm  

    Foreign policy, as according to Bin Laden would include infidels on the Arabian peninsula.

    Also, any support for Israel. Whatsoever. Get a grip.

    Islamist terrorists have been trying and sometimes succeeded in attacking all nations for all sorts of reasons. Mostly the justification is not converting to strict Islamic ways.

  10. marvin — on 11th August, 2008 at 2:22 pm  

    . We have in the past dealt with other militant groups, the IRA, Mandela, many others

    Which had achievable objectives. Shakeel, you are talking of simple appeasement of the unobtainable. I find it worrying that you are involved in tackling these issues!

  11. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 2:31 pm  

    Its interesting that Muslims only regard *western* foreign policy to be problematic but not so much the foreign policy of the governments of Muslim-majority nations.

    The biggest problem-cases in the Muslim world are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They both retain the facade of pro-Western compliance but funding and nurturing of radical extremisim goes on unchecked. Western governments are happy to use these countries for political expediency (Big Bucks and a geo-political nexus respectively). Do you see any Muslims complaining about the foreign policy of these countries? Thin on the ground, I think.

    When the West (UK and US) launched a humanitarian strike in Serbia, the region had already been “ethnically cleansed”. Some 500,000 Bosnian Muslim women had been raped and tens of thousands of people had been killed “by the truckload”. Did you see a single Muslim state, apart from secular Turkey, lift a finger? How many Muslim countries are making a noise about Darfur?

    Who’s foreign policy is problematic? Nothing is black and white. Muslims owe it to themselves to ask for accountability from their own governments rather than Western ones exclusively.

    Is there any reason why the Saudi goverment needs to spend £20 billion for 72 Eurofighter war planes from BAE?

    Would you like to see 1 billion al-Muslimeen stand up and say they will boycott Saudi Arabia instead of Israel for a change? I know I would.

  12. Chris Stiles — on 11th August, 2008 at 2:50 pm  

    We have in the past dealt with other militant groups, the IRA, Mandela, many others. It’s not completely unfeasible.

    Just to take the example of the IRA – large scale and public negotiation with them only started after they had largely renounced violence.

    The same is not true of either Hamas or Hezbollah to this date – so don’t expect there to be large scale public negotiation with either. Notwithstanding the US’s knee jerk association of ‘Islam = bad’, i wouldn’t be suprised if there were tentative contacts with both via back door channels – possibly pulling in states like Syria in the case of Hezbollah. I rather doubt that such things would become public in the near term.

    In the specific case of Hamas, the Palestinians own reaction to them is rather proving the principle that they have never ‘missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity’.

    To pick up on Sid’s point – Jordan and Egypt continue to keep borders to the West Bank and Gaza closed – so much for pan-Islamic brotherhood.

  13. MaidMarian — on 11th August, 2008 at 3:01 pm  

    Shakeel – I’m sorry, but looks terribly like a hostage to fortune. Countries can not and should not determine their foreign policies based on whether a group of religious extremists (home grown or otherwise) will decide to take umbrage and run around killing people.

    That way you are basically handing a veto over government policy to the most extreme and violent people in the country. Why should their opinions about various world conflicts trump those of other people?

    There are many people who opposed the various conflicts but very few of them support, let alone carry out, terror attacks. The extremists were not somehow compelled to commit these acts; they made an active decision to do so — and to my mind they could have chosen not to do so quite easily.

    I rather struggle to believe that terrorists sit around reading the Foreign Policy Studies journals and form a rounded, balanced and informed view of world affairs prior to blowing themselves up.

    The stark reality, unpalatable for those that would happily blame the governments and public, is that root cause of Islamist terrorism is Islamist ideology. I see no reason why I should indulge someone who would blow me up without a second thought.

  14. Ala — on 11th August, 2008 at 3:05 pm  

    It’s a mixture of foreign policy and religion. The Islamists only take affront when the foreign policy is directed at Muslims, but couldn’t care less about anyone else. They might use non-Muslim causes to highlight the injustice of a common enemy, but if a Muslim nation were at fault, even against another Muslim nation, they couldn’t care less (unless different sects were involved and they were itching for a sectarian war).

    If your solution is destroy religion: good luck, you’re going to need it. Then, once you have done that, watch out for the big smack as your head hits hard and stark reality and you realise nothing about human nature has changed.

    I do believe people will always invent silly causes, black and white concepts and turfs to fight for. I would takle any kind of political and social problem, politically and socially. You can forget about a theological solution.

  15. Sunny — on 11th August, 2008 at 3:22 pm  

    Foreign policy? What about the reaction to Satanic Verses, Mo-Cartoons?

    The reaction to the cartoons wasn’t, in the Middle East, anything out of the ordinary that happens there regularly anyway. Thats got little to do with religion and more with people not developing a culture of acceptable protest. You see that kind of burning and mad protests in India all the time over silly (usually religious) things.

    the reaction to the cartoons in the west was broadly fine.

  16. Shakeel — on 11th August, 2008 at 3:44 pm  

    You have to make distinctions between terrorist masterminds and the people behind the terrorist ideology and the terrorist foot soldiers, the people carrying out attacks. I know Muslim kids who will justify 911 and 7/7 attacks as tit for tat retaliation for foreign policy. These same kids don’t want to take over the world. You need two entirely different approaches towards these two entities.

    As for the Protests against the Satanic verses and the Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, your really disillusioned if you think that we wouldn’t protest that. Now a minority of the protestors went over the top, attacking Britain and supporting Nazi-ism etc, that was simply a distasteful over reaction and the fact they have been tried and send down, is just ludicrous and a infringement of free speech.

  17. Shakeel — on 11th August, 2008 at 3:53 pm  

    Sid, I agree about the fact that the foreign policy of Muslim nations is equally as pitiful. However it is unfair to say that there is no opposition to it. The politics in Pakistan has been hectic for years and years and bloody at times, over simple things like policy. Furthermore to accuse the Saudi’s and Pakistan of supporting and funding extremists is outrageous and unproven. Even the Americans were dealing with the taliban until August 1998 (when they rejected the deal for the oil pipeline). Everyone works for thier own interests. What makes you think Sudan is a problem? Apart from what you hear in the media. Some say Dafur is a rebellion.

    Also for your information, Pakistan is the largest contributer of peacekeepers in the entire world, so I don’t think it’s over looking it’s civic duty. Furthermore During the Bosnian conflict the ISI supplied the Bosnians with the bakhtar shikan which is a Pakistani ATGM (based on a Chinese ATGM).

    If anyone isn’t pulling it’s weight it’s the arab world.

  18. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 4:02 pm  

    Furthermore to accuse the Saudi’s and Pakistan of supporting and funding extremists is outrageous and unproven.

    Actually, that is, with respect, a pile of bollocks. It is outrageous and not to mention disrespectful to the victims of these radical groups, to say that Saudi funding is “unproven”. Most defenders of this outright lie like to defend themselves with the fact that money flow from the Middle East to South Asia is informal and sometimes unaccountable. Think “hundees’.

    I have myself met a group of Kashmiri “rebels” who had escaped to Bangladesh because they were being given protection by a group of Islamist radicals who were being directly funded by Saudis.

  19. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 4:41 pm  

    Marvin – What you fail to fathom is that whilst terrorists may want much more the reason many ordinary people feel sympathy is because nothign is being done to address issues.

    Thus you may not eliminate the groups entirely you’d cut of the support of people and funding by feakin resolving issues.

    How bleedin difficult is that to fathom.

    Even The Rand Corporation have now admitted that the approach taken by the USA isn’t working.

    Again Sid the reason the funding exists is due to a percieved injustice(s). Do something about those and they won’t need to fund it anymore and you can then tackle issues that otherwise are ignored namely foreign policy in Muslim countries.

    The two issues go hand in hand. They Say and You Say doesn’t get us anywhere. To solve the problem one needs to look at an overall equitable foreign policy worldwide. The fact that all sides are behaving piss poorly to address major issues doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t say something needs to be addressed.

    To resolve this problem means addressing some major issues around the world and the world hasn’t got the courage as a whole to do that.

  20. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 4:45 pm  

    Also with respect Sid it is the USA and UK who have seats on the UN Security Council to drive through change and not any of the countries you mention. So the greater responsibility lies with those who have power of veto that directly affect world decisions.

    Also Sid are you saying there is nothing wrong with US and UK Foreign Policy?

    A corrupt world policeman isn’t needed at the head of the world body what is needed is a fair and just world policeman. The current world policemen are mainly corrupt to their own desires and not necessarily what is good for the world.

  21. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 4:47 pm  

    Again Sid the reason the funding exists is due to a percieved injustice(s). Do something about those and they won’t need to fund it anymore and you can then tackle issues that otherwise are ignored namely foreign policy in Muslim countries.

    Yep, the operative word in that passage being “perceived”. It is critically important. There are whole raft of injustices, human rights violations, denial of basic rights to women, migrant workers and minorities and all sorts of social malaise in Saudi Arabia but they are not *perceived*. Certainly not by the large majority of Muslims.

    Do you the Saudis spending a single petrodollar to fix those problems?

    Speaking of “They Say and You Say”, you support boycotting Israel. Would you advocate the boycotting of Saudi Arabia?

  22. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 4:54 pm  

    The veto power and frankly abuse of Security Council Policy is the reason why countries are fighting tooth and nail to get a spot at the top table.

    They can see clearly that if you get there you can do what you like.

    Can any country challenge US Foreign Policy because of its veto?

    India if it gets a seat knows that no-one can then force the Kashmir issue. Yet it is a likely candidate but why when a major world issue remains unresolved.

    It is because of this failure of 50 years that terrorists can continue to garner support and funding.

    What is the point of the UN if it can’t be equitable in solving the worlds problems rather than acting in US and European interests at the time.

    Foreign Policy is dictated by the powerful. US Foriegn Policy affects the foreign policy of all the countries you mention because they react to it by using various
    means to try and counter it where they prtecieve unfairness.

  23. shariq — on 11th August, 2008 at 4:58 pm  

    “Again Sid the reason the funding exists is due to a percieved injustice(s). Do something about those and they won’t need to fund it anymore and you can then tackle issues that otherwise are ignored namely foreign policy in Muslim countries.”

    Do you seriously believe that? You can just about make the case that all the funding in the world wouldn’t make a difference if countries like Saudi, were content democracies with thriving economies.

    However to suggest that Saudi’s fund extremism because of the injustices completely misunderstands the alliance between the House of Saud and the Wahabi’s on which the modern state of Saudi Arabia was built.

  24. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 4:59 pm  

    Sid “Speaking of “They Say and You Say”, you support boycotting Israel. Would you advocate the boycotting of Saudi Arabia?”

    Yes

    Now do you support the boycotting of:

    India
    Isreal
    Russia
    Iran
    North Korea
    Zimbabwe

    or is your bloody ire just for Muslim nations?????

  25. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:00 pm  

    Also Sid are you saying there is nothing wrong with US and UK Foreign Policy?

    I’ve never said that and have been more critical of US and UK foreign policy than most. By contrast, the lack of criticism of Arab foreign policy from your side is conspicuous by its absence. Not being critical suggests that you are 100% behind the policies of Saudi and Pakistan.

  26. The Common Humanist — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:07 pm  

    Shakeel,
    I must have missed the avalaunche of soldiers from the Islamic world q’ing up to save…..mostly Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo….I did notice alot of nasty evil western soldiers putting themselves in harms way to protect lives. Ah well.

    “Furthermore to accuse the Saudi’s and Pakistan of supporting and funding extremists is outrageous and unproven”

    What Sid said. Without the oil and consequential (and sickening) Western and Eastern sucking up to the fascist wannabees in SA that country would have abhored as a medievalist backwater and its exportation of wahabbist protofascism around the world checked. (My indonesian friend has a button – mention Sauidi and sit back and listen to the catalogue of problems SA’s version of islam is causing in Indonesian. He hates the supremicism of the wahhabists, the distain they have for Indonesian culture and the very negative impacts it is having on society there.)

    Now I spend my time pretty unhappy with much UK/EU/US and NATO foreign policy BUT have you ever thought that the 90% figure is the product of a lack of education and insight on the offended wannabee jihadists part?

    I would agree with you about Kashmir however. Anything that takes India and Pakistan away from the nuclear trigger is fine by me.

    Darfur – is a conflict between an authoritarean Arabist Islamic state and ethncially African Muslims who are primarily sedentary farmers. The Arabs being generally more nomadic herders. The conflict, though it has racial/religious overtones, is fuelled more by overpopulation, desertification, erratic rains and a lack of quality farm land. Religion and arab racism towards black muslims just enables Khartoum to mobilse reactionary arab militias more fully. The fact that this is a big issue in the West but barely recongnised as a problem amongst Muslim elites speaks volumes in itself.

    I think though that overall there are positive signs that the Islamic world is waking up to the danger posed by the hijack of their religion by nutters, there apologists in the West and East and the immense damage to the image of muslims around the world that extremism brings.

  27. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:12 pm  

    “However to suggest that Saudi’s fund extremism because of the injustices completely misunderstands the alliance between the House of Saud and the Wahabi’s on which the modern state of Saudi Arabia was built.”

    The funding exists because it diverts attention from issues within and deflects criticism from Muslim countries.

    Thus the funding is used to divert attention of the people to the other injustices facing Muslims.

    It is classic politics.

  28. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:15 pm  

    It is classic politics.

    Erm, which is foreign policy, right?

  29. The Common Humanist — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:16 pm  

    ““Again Sid the reason the funding exists is due to a percieved injustice(s). Do something about those and they won’t need to fund it anymore and you can then tackle issues that otherwise are ignored namely foreign policy in Muslim countries.””

    Aye right. And the world is flat.

    To pick just one of the issues is that for many Wahhabists, Hezzbollah types and Hamas fellas is that the ‘injustice’ is 12 million Jews breathing. Not really sure that can be negiotated with successfully.

    It does really look to many that a worrying percentage of muslims only perceive injustice when non muslims are involved in some way. Muslim on musilm violence just doesn’t seem to matter in the same way. I appreciate that is a grand sweeping statement but that is the impression one forms from reading muslim commentators etc etc etc.

  30. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:20 pm  

    Sid – “By contrast, the lack of criticism of Arab foreign policy from your side is conspicuous by its absence. Not being critical suggests that you are 100% behind the policies of Saudi and Pakistan.”

    What sheer nonsense. You in fact are rarely critical and always as a standard deflect any discussion to criticise Muslims countries thus your lack of criticism is absent and may suggest you support 100% UK and US Policies. In fact one may doubt taht you are even of Asian Origin given your whole hearted attepmts to derail any discussion of UK and US Foreign Policy.

    Your whole aim here is to divert serious discussion of UK Foreign Policy and you do that in every discussion.

    As I have said to you in the past Saudi and Pakistan Foreign Policy is pretty meaningless because they don’t have much clout to carry it out.

    In fact last time I critcised Muslim Countries including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan regarding education you defended them!

    Anytime anyone wants to discuss UK Foreign Policy here you jump in and herd the discussion towards bashing Muslim Foreign Policy. Why can’t you just once let people discuss issues with UK Foreign Policy?????????

    Clearly you love the Hazel Blears approach of denying there is anythign wrong but its ok to discuss it even though it isn’t wrong.

  31. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:25 pm  

    Sid you haven’t answered my question

    Now do you support the boycotting of:

    India
    Israel
    Russia
    Iran
    North Korea
    Zimbabwe

    or is your bloody ire just for Muslim nations?????

  32. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:26 pm  

    Sorry Avi, I have been the most vociferous anti-Iraq war voice on this blog since I started posting here. I can bore for England on that topic and have reigned myself in. That and the bombing of Lebanon in 2006.

    On the other hand, I haven’t seen you criticise Saudi policies once. At one point you were adamantly doing what Shakeel is doing now, and that is to pretend that Saudis don’t fund Wahabbi extremism. Even suggesting, like him, that it was an outright lie.

    It is promisiing to see that with time, you have now admitted it to be a case of “classic politics” in #28.

  33. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:28 pm  


    India
    Israel
    Russia
    Iran
    North Korea
    Zimbabwe

    or is your bloody ire just for Muslim nations?????

    A minor point: I see Iran in that list. Surely that’s a “Muslim” country too?

  34. The Common Humanist — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:32 pm  

    “As I have said to you in the past Saudi and Pakistan Foreign Policy is pretty meaningless because they don’t have much clout to carry it out”

    Tell that to places around the world that now find wahhabi clerics in their midst, corrupting the minds of the youth through their peddling of hate…..

    Foreign policy exists on many levels. Saudi Islamic Imperialism operates on a civil, soft power basis rather then with wings of screaming fighter jets.

  35. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:32 pm  

    Sid – Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Your back to your old nonsense.

    “At one point you were adamantly doing what Shakeel is doing now, and that is to pretend that Saudis don’t fund Wahabbi extremism. Even suggesting, like him, that it was an outright lie.”

    With respect your talking complete and utter bollocks and twisting the discussion. What I said and backed by the likes of Yahya Birt was that Middle Eastern Governments at one time funded projects without looking at what they were up to. You are twisting what I said.

    I even gave you a link to Yahya Birt’s article but clearly even that isn’t enough for your venom.

  36. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:34 pm  

    I see you can bore for England too ;)

  37. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:35 pm  

    As I have said to you in the past Saudi and Pakistan Foreign Policy is pretty meaningless because they don’t have much clout to carry it out

    Maybe if you live in Ilford.

  38. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:43 pm  

    Sid “A minor point: I see Iran in that list. Surely that’s a “Muslim” country too?”

    I see your classic shifting away from actually answering the question?

    As you say the point is minor but it seems to have stopped you from answering the question.

  39. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:44 pm  

    Sid – “Maybe if you live in Ilford.”

    I’ll tell you what I’ll meet you in Ilford one weekend and you can personally show me this hive of Saudi funded activity.

    Now if you care to answer the question.

  40. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:47 pm  

    TCH – “Foreign policy exists on many levels. Saudi Islamic Imperialism operates on a civil, soft power basis rather then with wings of screaming fighter jets.”

    Yes and both are equally bad but you choose to oppose one and defend the other.

    As Imperial US imposition is so much more advanced than backward Wahabi thought as we are always told that Islam is a backward religion then which is the bigger threat?

    Surely people are turnign away from a religion that is backward.

    So surely our focus needs to be on discussing US Foreign Policy which you don’t want to do.

  41. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:51 pm  

    I’ll tell you what I’ll meet you in Ilford one weekend and you can personally show me this hive of Saudi funded activity.

    No you misunderstood, as usual. If you live in Ilford, Saudi and Pakistani funding of Wahabbi outfits looks like an “outright lie” and Yahya Birt’s toilet paper looks quite erudite.

    Take it to the other side of the world where people are being blown up in busy shopping centres, public parks and cinemas by groups like the Khilafat Majlis and the JMB and the preponderance of Saudi funding of extremist nutters doesn’t look quite so rosy.

  42. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 5:54 pm  

    Now if you care to answer the question.

    Easy peasy:

    Criterion: Do they fund organisations whose ideology is to set up authoritarian, clerical states and are willing to kill innocents in order to do so?

    India – No
    Israel – No
    Russia – No
    Iran – No
    North Korea – No
    Zimbabwe – No

    So, no.

  43. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:00 pm  

    Sid – Can I make this very clear for you – I consider any funding or any policy that supports extremism as abhorant. That is any funding including all Middle Eastern funding that kills or in anyway hurts people. Is that clear enough for you?

    As usual your shifting of actually answering a question is classic.

    Also you are the one who brought up Ilford, so I offered to meet you there to see and now – now – you shift again and say well its quite rosy there but you were referring to other parts of the world. So why bring up Ilford!

    You’ve spent a long time avoiding answering my question do you support the boycotting of only Muslim countries or other countries that also abuse civilian populations and deny them their rights? It isn’t a difficult question but one that you are loathed to answer.

    As Scott McClellan is due to leave his post at the State Dept. with the end of the Buish Administration maybe you’d like to apply for the job ;-)

    Now if you could kindly answer the question I asked I would be grateful.

  44. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:03 pm  

    So why bring up Ilford!

    For exactly the reason I stated on #42 and the TCH made on #35. Let me repeat his statement:

    Tell that to places around the world that now find wahhabi clerics in their midst, corrupting the minds of the youth through their peddling of hate…..

    Foreign policy exists on many levels. Saudi Islamic Imperialism operates on a civil, soft power basis rather then with wings of screaming fighter jets.

    Can it really be that hard for you to understand this?

    You said:
    You’ve spent a long time avoiding answering my question do you support the boycotting of only Muslim countries or other countries that also abuse civilian populations and deny them their rights? It isn’t a difficult question but one that you are loathed to answer.

    No only Saudi Arabia. For the criterion that I have already made clear in #43.

    Now does that sound like I’m loathe to answer? I can’t answer fucking loudly enough.

  45. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:03 pm  

    Sid – “Criterion: Do they fund organisations whose ideology is to set up authoritarian, clerical states and are willing to kill innocents in order to do so?

    India – No
    Israel – No
    Russia – No
    Iran – No
    North Korea – No
    Zimbabwe – No

    So, no.”

    I see so your whole approach to foreign policy is if they have clerics and if they don’t they can do what they want. Genius.

    So the fact that India denies the rights of Kashmiri’s to choose their own fate isn’t a factor. The fact that China denies the Tibetan’s the right to live in their own country doesn’t matter.

  46. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:08 pm  

    Sid – “Can it really be that hard for you to understand this?”

    Yada Yada yada – whatever.

    You are boring the hell out of people with your nonsense.

    Can you show it or not? I said I’ll meet you so either put up or shut up. Easy choice.

    Yes Foreign Policy exists on many levels and you raised Ilford and when asked to support your claim of that level you divereted abroad and said the ill effects were abroad. Now you are saying they are in Ilford.

    So lets see the nearest one. It is simple enough.

    Why can’t you understand that you raised it and now don’t want to show it. Is that soooooo difficult for you.

  47. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:08 pm  

    The fact that China denies the Tibetan’s the right to live in their own country doesn’t matter.

    China wasn’t in your list! That’s just sneaky Avi.

  48. Don — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:08 pm  

    Foreign policy is not right or wrong because it offends or not any particular group. It was the FP of Australia to help East Timor which inspired the Bali bombings (aided by a smouldering distate for louche westerners having a beach holiday). Should Austalia have ‘corrected’ it’s policy because it angered islamists?

    If US/UK policy is wrong (which IMO it seriously is many places, starting with Iraq and Palestine) then it should be changed. Fewer terror recruits would be a bonus for changing to a more equitable policy, but shouldn’t be a driving reason to change policy.

  49. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:10 pm  

    Sid- Is your foreign policy only targetted at Muslim Countries alone and particularly those taht you don’t approve of?

    Everyone else can thus do what they like to Muslims but not vice versa?

    Do you support India in Kashmir then?

  50. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:15 pm  

    Sid- Is your foreign policy only targetted at Muslim Countries alone and particularly those taht you don’t approve of?

    Let me know when you’ve caught up reading to the end of the thread. I already said No to boycotting Iran (Muslim) and Yes to boycotting Saudi (also Mulsim).

    Yeah, kind of subtle, so I’m not so sure your binary reductivism is going to appreciate this.

    And as for “India in Kashmir” – not a very black and white issue is it Avi. My Kashmiri friends resent the unnecessary war which has had a huge death toll. But here’s the crunch: No one I know wants Kashmir to be part of Pakistan either. Except, perhaps, for the Pakistanis.

  51. Sunny — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:18 pm  

    What are you guys arguing about again?

  52. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:18 pm  

    Don – Foreign Policy has to be just towards everyone and not just based on national interests.

    Thus even if in the short term it brings the ire of Islamists – if the long term benefit is a just policy then it is to be followed. Thus East Timor was a correct Foreign Policy.

    However a just foreign policy means addressing issues of the Muslim world as well.

    Just because a cause is supported by Islamists doesn’t mean that the West shouldn’t address it as is the case of many such issues. Chechnya, Kahsmir etc. all need to be justly addressed thereby choking the effect of the Islamists and showing Muslims that Western Policy is just.

  53. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:22 pm  

    What are you guys arguing about again?

    I’m demonstrating how easily you can shake and vac and put the freshness back with Avi’s bollocks.

  54. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:23 pm  

    Sid – “And as for “India in Kashmir” – not a very black and white issue is it Avi. My Kashmiri friends resent the unnecessary war which has had a huge death toll. But here’s the crunch: No one I know wants Kashmir to be part of Pakistan either. Except, perhaps, for the Pakistanis.”

    Look your shifting ground again. The just policy is for Kashmir to be independant of both India and Pakistan.

    The way your are coming across is that if your are a western allied democracy then you are safe from Sid Policy.

    Foreign Policy needs to be just and that includes Muslims. That way you stop the spread of Islamism because it chokes off their claims about issues not being addressed.

    And Kashmir is a B&W Issue because if in an area that big people don’t want to be part of either country then why can you decide that issue won’t be addressed?

    As regards Saudi Arabia then again as I said to you if the policies of the country are not just towards people and they are causing issues with regards to extremism then I have no issue with sanctions.

  55. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:25 pm  

    “I’m demonstrating how easily you can shake and vac and put the freshness back with Avi’s bollocks.”

    The only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you talk complete and utter bollocks and a lot of your fictional writing is deserving of a prize for fictional literature it is so made up of nonsense.

    Sunny – Why did you have to appoint someone with such venom to be a PP Editor?

  56. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:30 pm  

    And all you’re good for Avi is to show how easy it is for Muslims, oops Self-hating Jews, to take all the issues in the world where Muslims are being oppressed, forget the nuance and the various shades of gray that surround these issues, then consolidate them into one massive SUPER MUSLIM ISSUE that is supposed to be the one-size fits all issue with which Muslims are supposed to undertsand Foerign Policy.

  57. Don — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:32 pm  

    Avi,

    I agree that in a perfect world FP should be just towards everyone, but I think the best we can hope for is a modicum of decency and forward thinking.

    We also agree on the second point.

    And on the third, with the caveat that it must also address issues of the buddhist, hindu, jewish, animist, etc worlds. And all those who don’t see themselves as part of an adjective of choice World.

    Just because a cause is supported by Islamists doesn’t mean that the West shouldn’t address it…

    Again agreed. But equally just because a policy is opposed by islamists doesn’t mean the west should abandon it. A just foreign policy should be an end in itself. If pacifying extremists is a driving factor then we are taking a step away from justice, not towards it.

  58. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:44 pm  

    Sid – Your becoming boring with your droning and piss poor grasp of how to rid the world of extremism. You’d do well as Hazel Blears assistant or Bush’s futurte speech writer.

    Your speeches would be so easy and always start with “Its the fault of them Muslims……”

    Its easy for you ex-Muslims oopps I mean white-Conservatives to take all the issues in the world and blame them on Muslims, forget the nuance and the various shades of gray that surround these issues, then consolidate them into one massive SUPER FREEDOM ISSUE that is supposed to be the one-size fits all issue with which Europeans are supposed to undertsand Foreign Policy.

    In order to defeat terrorism which is what the writer raised means having the courage to address issues that cause terror and addressing them. Thus reducing the ability of terrorists to recruit and cause carnage.

    Your whole approach is that Muslims are always wrong and whatever they say we need to do the opposite.

    I believe that the issues that cause tensions need to be addressed on the world stage by the powers that be to reduce the levels of tension.

    Someone with your venom and frankly giving you access to a keyboard and editorial power at PP makes you about as useful as Michelle Malkin as a Middle East Peace envoy.

  59. Avi Cohen — on 11th August, 2008 at 6:47 pm  

    Don – “And on the third, with the caveat that it must also address issues of the buddhist, hindu, jewish, animist, etc worlds. And all those who don’t see themselves as part of an adjective of choice World.”

    Agreed. The just rights of all people are a must and the aim must be to work towards this.

    “Again agreed. But equally just because a policy is opposed by islamists doesn’t mean the west should abandon it. A just foreign policy should be an end in itself. If pacifying extremists is a driving factor then we are taking a step away from justice, not towards it.”

    Again agreed. The point I was making was that a just foreign policy needs to be driven regardless of current factors. Government need to do what is right to bring all people justice and rights regardless of their race, religion and creed.

  60. davebones — on 11th August, 2008 at 8:15 pm  

    This all seems off the mark to me. Discussing whether we do or don’t support sanctions or foreign policy its like playing risk. It is academic. I’m more interested in what we can do.

    Likewise I don’t understand people who criticize Islam and Islamists. Surely if people feel this way they should meet Islamists and discuss this with them. Surely this in in the interest of our security.

    If people who have a problem with Islam speak to Islamists about this a lot might be achievable. If there is anything I noticed outside Finsbury park mosque about the culture we have now it would be that we have a decent level of tolerance. We shouldn’t take this for granted. Bosnia is a lesson to us all.

  61. Muhamad — on 11th August, 2008 at 11:06 pm  

    Shakeel @ 8 “I personally think that the USA and EU and Britain should take a fairer stance when dealing with foreign policy. For example, take the recent approach towards Hamas and Hizbollah. They both became democratically elected yet were snubbed by the Western world, who happen to be traditional allies of Israel.”
    Once bitten twice shy as they say. Hitler was democratically elected. We know what the Tory Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler and Mussolini.

  62. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 11:08 pm  

    Dave Bones

    My beef is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and their continued patronising of radical, mostly Wahhabi, Islamist political systems and ideologies.

    I don’t hate individual Islamists personally. Last thing I want to do is make this personal. Talking is good but there comes a time when you realise one set of ideas are diametrically opposite to yours.

    People like Avi like to suggest that my criticism of Saudi Arabia implies hatred of *all* Muslims. This is a seriously cynical ploy. A conflation neocons like to throw around a lot. Islamists too.

    Bosnians were as beer-swigging and pork-munching as the next Serbian. And yet they were the subject of a targetted religious genocide. Not many Arab Muslim states made much noise when it was happening. Is this not foreign policy that should also be criticised? Instead armies of crazed fatwa-spewing military-trained Islamists ended up in Europe prior to congealing into what is now Al-Qaeda.

  63. Sid — on 11th August, 2008 at 11:12 pm  

    And Kashmir is a B&W Issue because if in an area that big people don’t want to be part of either country then why can you decide that issue won’t be addressed?

    Avi Cohen

    Bringing it back to foriegn policy (phew), almost all post-colonial seperatist movements have been nationalist in expression. Except Pakistan’s, which was a separation based on religion.

    What makes you think Kashmir is a religious (Islamic) issue and not a nationalist Kashmiri issue? Are you suggesting that Jammu-Kashmir is 100% Muslim?

  64. cam balkon — on 12th August, 2008 at 9:18 am  

    thank you for sharing

  65. davebones — on 12th August, 2008 at 11:56 am  

    Absolutely Sid, I am not accusing anyone of religious hatred it is just that we all have opinions but they don’t make any difference where as actions can. A lot of what I believe is diametrically opposed to the views of Muslims I have spoken to, but we have still been able to speak and form some sort of friendship, this was all as a direct reaction to the “war on terror”. If I can get through anyone can.

  66. Avi Cohen — on 12th August, 2008 at 3:01 pm  

    sID

  67. Avi Cohen — on 12th August, 2008 at 3:17 pm  

    Sid – “People like Avi like to suggest that my criticism of Saudi Arabia implies hatred of *all* Muslims. This is a seriously cynical ploy. A conflation neocons like to throw around a lot. Islamists too.”

    Sid you’re blogging style is much like a used tampon – very bloody and most of it useless for the good of mankind.

    You live in a self-delusional world and attribute comments to people that are so far from the truth of what people say.

    I’ve never minded your criticism of Saudi Arabia or Islamists despite your stupid attempts to continue to falsely imply this. Where I have exposed your imbercile attempts is in piss poor blanket labelling of groups which you clearly despise.

    As an example of your crass insistence is your piss poor labelling of all Salafi’s as terrorists which as have been shown to you via examples just isn’t true. Scotland Yard, the US State Department etc. all rightfully acknowledge that there is a fragmentation of Salafi’s with some groups advocating violence and some who don’t.

    You piss poor reporting style reminiscent of the worst excess of the Blair Govt. is to label them all. That isn’t true and is misleading.

    That is what you’ve been exposed on and the fact you falsely imply it is to do with criticism of Saudi Arabia etc. is nonsense.

    I am getting fairly annoyed with the falsehood you are placing upon me.

    “What makes you think Kashmir is a religious (Islamic) issue and not a nationalist Kashmiri issue? Are you suggesting that Jammu-Kashmir is 100% Muslim?”

    Did I say that? Freakin Nooooooooooooooo.

    Can you actually read what people say? If the majority of Kashmiri’s want to cede from India and Pakistan and create their own country and given the size of the place then they should be allowed to do this.

    As you clearly can’t grasp what I said here it is again:

    “And Kashmir is a B&W Issue because if in an area that big people don’t want to be part of either country then why can you decide that issue won’t be addressed?”

    So tell me where I said in that statement it is a religious issue or that Kashmir is 100% Muslim?

    What I said was that given the size of the land area and if – IF – the majority want to cede from either or both India and Pakistan that should be their right.

    That is a democratic way of doing things. I did not mention religion or Muslims. Is that soooooooooooooooooooooooooo bloody difficult for you tamponesque comments.

    Sunny – This is unacceptable that an editor can distort people’s comments and twist it to make a point.

    I never said that and the number of falsehoods being spread is reaching silly proportions.

  68. Sid — on 12th August, 2008 at 3:25 pm  

    OK that’s clear. I will continue criticising Islamists and you will continue to defend them and/or deflect any criticism by phenomenal amounts of whataboutery.

    In the meantine, you will continue to pass off self-contradictory statements which you will then deny when brought to your attention. Such as this


    Everyone else can thus do what they like to Muslims but not vice versa?
    Do you support India in Kashmir then?

    and


    So tell me where I said in that statement it is a religious issue or that Kashmir is 100% Muslim?

    But thanks for playing.

  69. Kismet Hardy — on 12th August, 2008 at 3:41 pm  

    There’s no such word as Islamists. It was invented by wooly libs who wanted to refer to muslim terrorist types without offending muslims.

  70. Avi Cohen — on 12th August, 2008 at 5:16 pm  

    Sid – You are really full of shit and if you are going to continue your piss poor selective out of context discussions then you are just a complete and utter waste of space.

    If you bothered to look at the context then you’d fucking well know what I said that in regards to.

    It is plainly obvious that your tactic is to derail any meaningful discussion unless people adhere to your point of view.

    I mean for fuck sake why don’t you go and pull out of other threads just to really throw the context.

    You aren’t worth debating with because you are so full of yourself.

    If you managed to drag yourself up and look at the context:

    “Everyone else can thus do what they like to Muslims but not vice versa?”
    That was a question to you in response to a fucking statement you made and not a statement of position. Do you grasp the fact that someone can ask a question in the English Language when you make a statement.

    “Do you support India in Kashmir then?”
    Again see that thing at the end it is called a bloody question mark and that in English is me asking you a question regarding your position. It isn’t me making a statement, do you understand this concept or do you want me to post you an Learning English book?

    So you are using my asking two questions, implying they are statements I made to back up your fucking foolish crap of falsehood. Genius!

    “So tell me where I said in that statement it is a religious issue or that Kashmir is 100% Muslim?

    But thanks for playing.”

    Yes it sums you up pretty well. Go back and play with your toys and let the big people discuss the serious issues.

  71. Avi Cohen — on 12th August, 2008 at 5:28 pm  

    Sid – “OK that’s clear. I will continue criticising Islamists and you will continue to defend them and/or deflect any criticism by phenomenal amounts of whataboutery.”

    Again this is more of your fiction. You label entire people you don’t like when even intelligence services say that the groups you list are fagmented and have different opinions. Is it so hard for you to actually grasp the fact that your labelling is so piss poor but you won’t admit it and instead choose to attack me to try and defend your own poor wording.

    If you put down your Neocons for Dummies and actually looked at the situation then you’d realise that and as I said even a Scotland Yard Anti-Terrorism Detective and now researcher said this. So if you are so confident in your position then go to the BBC News and say he is wrong as well.

    You are simply using the blog world like Melanie Phillips to spread a hatred about groups that you disagree with. But by labelling some of them falsely that is called misleading people and not criticising.

    There is a whole world of difference. You see if Group S is defined as Si and Sii with Si allowing terror and Sii abhoring terror for you to say that all of S support terror is simply false.

    That is all I pulled you up for but because you were exposed you’ve attacked me ever since by implying falsely that I defend them. That is just plain false.

    If asking that poor explanation is defending Islamists then your misleading people again.

    I’ve never understood why Sunny had to appoint you as an editor when so many other excellent writers are here on PP. Obviously the power has gone to your head and you attack like a pitbull anyone who corrects you.

    Have you ever considered workign for The Daily Mail!!!!!!!!

  72. Sid — on 12th August, 2008 at 5:32 pm  

    Why do I think you think is Kashmir a Muslim issue?
    Because of the wording of your question:
    “Do you support India in Kashmir then?”

    Implication: Indians are Hindoos. Kashmiris are Muslims.

    So, I’ll ask again: What makes you think Kashmir is a religious (Islamic) issue and not a nationalist Kashmiri issue?

    And if you deal in any more whataboutery by asking me about some other country to head off your answer, you’ll get more abuse from me.

  73. Sid — on 12th August, 2008 at 5:34 pm  

    I’ve never understood why Sunny had to appoint you as an editor when so many other excellent writers are here on PP. Obviously the power has gone to your head and you attack like a pitbull anyone who corrects you.

    “corrects you”?! Oh the self regard! :D

  74. Avi Cohen — on 12th August, 2008 at 5:52 pm  

    Sidney – “Why do I think you think is Kashmir a Muslim issue?
    Because of the wording of your question:
    “Do you support India in Kashmir then?”

    Implication: Indians are Hindoos. Kashmiris are Muslims.

    So, I’ll ask again: What makes you think Kashmir is a religious (Islamic) issue and not a nationalist Kashmiri issue?

    And if you deal in any more whataboutery by asking me about some other country to head off your answer, you’ll get more abuse from me.”

    You’re the one who actively uses whataboutery to avoid answering when you’ve made a complete and utter ass of yourself.

    I can see your tampon writing style is out in force again. So instead of askinmg me what I meant, you decided that as a PP Editor you had a right to implicate what I meant and then abuse me. Brilliant Editorial Responsibility – The Sidney Approach is to forget about asking what people mean, make it up and then use that to abuse people.

    If you remember the discussion was about a just foreign policy and I asked you if you supported India in Kashmir as most people (majority) do not want to be part of India. It had nooooooooooo religious undertone.

    If you had bothered to step aside from your continual grandstanding which really is bloody irritating and asked then I would have expalined why I asked about India.

    The reason was that can a democracy in the world of Sidney decide if a state is to continue to be part of
    that state or if the majority in that state can break away. Also relevant was the fact if you bothered to get down from your high horse and listed in the discussion that India is applying for Security Council membership thus if they get it they can derail any future discussion on this.

    It was all explained through the thread but you are misrepresenting what I said and presenting your own take on what I say rather than reading what I say and ask.

    Now take your bloody tampon out of your mouth, stop spreading your hate and answer the question please without any more of your nonsense, falsehood and grandstanding. It is a simple question for crying out loud and can be simply answered by saying yes I support India’s right to deny self-determination to the people of Kashmir or no I support the UN Resolution to mandate a referendum in Kashmir to allow people to democratically decide if they want to be part of India, part of Pakistan or an independant country.

    Just as Croatia, Estonia etc. were accepted as seperate countries as was East Timor, all of whose righst I support to independance before your start your shit again.

  75. Avi Cohen — on 12th August, 2008 at 5:55 pm  

    Sid – ““corrects you”?! Oh the self regard!”

    Well then Sidney either go an correct the State Dept and Scotland Yard regarding their statements that many of the creeds you list are fragmented and have a number of ideologies or shut up and accept it as fact.

    Lets get this right – you Sidney a tamponesque writer is claiming you know more than major government departments. So prove it to them and they may employ you or laugh at you. Mostly likely laugh :-)

  76. Avi Cohen — on 12th August, 2008 at 6:03 pm  

    Eually seriously Sidney TamponUpYourMouth is what about the Basque region?

    Now Spain as a member of the EU, a democracy and a member of Nato – should it allow the Basque people the right to self-determination given that religion can’t be an issue here as both are devoutly Catholic.

    You have the issue of Georgia and Russia now playing out on the world stage. Is the Russian Foreign Policy just or should Georgian Terrotorial Integrity be enforced by the UN, Nato, EU?

    Hence the overriding question who decides what is and isn’t just. Is it democracies or is it all countries.

    Again if you want to answer the question then stop spreading your hate and answer the question please without any more of your nonsense, falsehood and grandstanding.

  77. Sid — on 13th August, 2008 at 12:37 am  

    I asked you why you thought Kashmir issue is a Muslim issue and not a nationalist issue in the hope that we could salvage this thread but rather than address the question you bring in the Basque and, curiously, the Russia-Georgia war. Not for nothing are you regarded as a veritable legend in whataboutery.

    This after defiling the thread with dubious references to women’s sanitation, random name-calling and what can only be described as complete loss of self-control.

    No wonder you’re invited to all the Islamist parties.

  78. Avi Cohen — on 13th August, 2008 at 1:08 am  

    Sid – you are without doubt an unable to comprehend basic English.

    I have addressed your questions in comment 75 but knowing that you’d avoid any meaningful debate left comments about other regions until a seperate thread. Not all comments about other regions are directed at you but form a clear consideration to the thread namely what do European democracies do about just foreign policy issues regarding territory in Europe. So without replying to my answer you jump in do a bit of grandstanding yet again (yawn!) and then pretend as if I never answered your point. Utter nonsense.

    You failure to answer your falsehoods highlights you for what you are. I need say no more. I addressed in very clear terms and answered your questions in comment 75.

    Your classic running away from addressing your own dodgy writing is systematic of your own bullshit.

    Your tamponesque writing destroys all threads you touch and you are nothing but an agitator who simply won’t let people discuss any subject in a way you don’t approve of.

    If you bothered to read the points I raised in 75 I’ve answered all your questions. Your whataboutery and singular failure to address points means that it is you who is derailing the thread and further failing to answer questions or even apologise for an ongoing series of falsehoods about people which isn’t suprising from someone who labels entire creeds of people falsely.

    “No wonder you’re invited to all the Islamist parties.”
    I’ve never been to a single Islamist Party and I’ve never associated with any Islamist or given them time of day.

    Your continual smearing is in fact designed to try and dig yourself out of the cess pit your falsehood has placed you in and your constant smears are a sheer disgrace and simply another attempt to divert people from the fact that you have distorted dicussion, used quotes out of context and taken questions and implied they are statements of position. That isn’t a just way to treat anyone.

    If you can’t address the points in 75 as you haven’t as you run away again simply shows you never had any interest in meaningful debate and are simply here to fire venom at people. It is a shame but at least you’ve been shown for what you are.

    The threads are clear. In the past you’ve deleted my comments and now you are hiding behind a comment made later when in fact I answered your point straight away.

    As you have such trouble seeing up a thread let me paste it for you again what I said regarding India and Kashmir:

    “If you remember the discussion was about a just foreign policy and I asked you if you supported India in Kashmir as most people (majority) do not want to be part of India. It had nooooooooooo religious undertone.

    If you had bothered to step aside from your continual grandstanding which really is bloody irritating and asked then I would have expalined why I asked about India.

    The reason was that can a democracy in the world of Sidney decide if a state is to continue to be part of
    that state or if the majority in that state can break away. Also relevant was the fact if you bothered to get down from your high horse and listed in the discussion that India is applying for Security Council membership thus if they get it they can derail any future discussion on this.

    It was all explained through the thread but you are misrepresenting what I said and presenting your own take on what I say rather than reading what I say and ask.

    Now take your bloody tampon out of your mouth, stop spreading your hate and answer the question please without any more of your nonsense, falsehood and grandstanding. It is a simple question for crying out loud and can be simply answered by saying yes I support India’s right to deny self-determination to the people of Kashmir or no I support the UN Resolution to mandate a referendum in Kashmir to allow people to democratically decide if they want to be part of India, part of Pakistan or an independant country.

    Just as Croatia, Estonia etc. were accepted as seperate countries as was East Timor, all of whose righst I support to independance before your start your shit again.”

    Now Sunny clearly your editorial new boy is struggling with actually reading what writers say and is simply resorting to smearing people by falsely implying Islamists labels. Clearly as owner of PP you need to stop this. Simply for asking one of your editors to label creeds correctly I have been subjected to ongoing smears and falsehood which isn’t contructive critque. Editorial powers have been used to put his point of view whilst deleting my replies. Hardly a correct and fair way to discuss matters.

    Now whilst failing to read a reply your newbie is resorting to distasteful and completely false innuedo that I get invited to all Islamist parties which is without foundation.

  79. Sid — on 13th August, 2008 at 12:17 pm  

    I’ll ignore the unhinged ranting and get straight to the point. In your last comment was this nugget:

    If you remember the discussion was about a just foreign policy and I asked you if you supported India in Kashmir as most people (majority) do not want to be part of India. It had nooooooooooo religious undertone.

    Good, so we are agreed that the Kashmiri issue is nothing more than a secular political struggle concerning the self-determination of the Kashmiri people.
    And by that token, Muslims should not be required to have any religion-based affiliation to the Kashmiris any more than, say, a German Christian-Democrat should be concerned with the devolution of Scotland. Or, since you mentioned the Basque, an Indian Catholic should be emotionally and spritually bound with the seperatist struggle of the Basque people in Spain.

    Do you agree with that?

    If Muslims do feel any loyalty or empathy with the Kashmiri people it should rather be based in terms of how a large superstate like India can use violence to repress pro-Independence politics in Kashmir. But with race and politics being so tightly coupled with religion in South Asian politics – I agree that that trying to keep religion out of the “subtext” is a tall order.

    But to suggest that the Kashmiri struggle is a universally Islamic battle that is one of the hot spots of suppression suffered by the “Ummah” is romantic at best. And the proof of that is answered by this question: How many Arab Muslims in Saudi or Jordan or Syria or Algeria etc regard the Kashmiri struggle as *their* struggle? In fact, how many actually know where Kashmir is?

    I think you’ll find not many. In fact there is absolutely no political buy in from governments and if there is any religious-based interest it is probably exclusively from a minute clique of Islamist radicals who are simply looking for a an excuse to validate terrorism.

  80. Avi Cohen — on 13th August, 2008 at 1:18 pm  

    Sid – “I’ll ignore the unhinged ranting and get straight to the point.”
    It wasn’t uinhinged ranting it was a clear proof of your failure to read and follow a simple thread ;-)

    Perhaps if you stopped grandstanding and libelling people we could actually have an adult discussion eh?

    You liberally and without any evidence are happy to tar people with an Islamist label, falsely claim they get invited to Islamist parties and then when they refute your terrible slurs you call that unhinged ranting!

    >Do you agree with that?
    Yes and No. Yes in that what you say is theoretically correct but in reality people do have an affinity. Thus asking that Muslims have no affinity but allowing others is simply naive at best. As an example Germany was one of the first countries to recognise Croatian Independance due to an affinity with the people.

    India itself has an affinity to certain creeds in Sri Lanka and has interferred in the politics of that country so why say that their can’t be an affinity to Kashmir?

    Thus I refer you back to my question which you still haven’t answered. Is India as a major democracy and applicant for a Permanent UN Security Role able to deny the just rights of people to cede from India?

    What you say just doesn’t work in reality and thats what I highlighted to you was that it isn’t practical to say peopelk can’t have an affinity to other people. As an example some of the Irish people in the USA had a religious affinity to the nationalistic ideals of the IRA.

    With respect you are being awfully selective in denying Muslim affinity which is central to your claim whilst turning a convinient blind eye to numerous other affinities across the world.

    Thus I repeat what I said that a just western policy means addressing issues that have been largely ignored as regards Muslims but equally – EQUALLY – importantly also have the courage to raise issues within the Muslims world to create a just forweign policy there as well.

    In this way extremism can be reduced and western leadership can show fruits in diverting people from extremism.

  81. Sid — on 13th August, 2008 at 1:35 pm  

    India itself has an affinity to certain creeds in Sri Lanka and has interferred in the politics of that country so why say that their can’t be an affinity to Kashmir?

    India has a right to protect its borders and a large superpwoer is going to bully smaller weaker neighbours. There are apparata to address this politically rather than by terrorism. Would you agree? Individual Hindus emphaising with the plight of Tamils to the point of fighting for their cause does not happen really, does it? If what you say holds true, where are the armies of paramilitary Indian Hindus fighting with Sri Lankan Tamils?

    What you say just doesn’t work in reality and thats what I highlighted to you was that it isn’t practical to say peopelk can’t have an affinity to other people. As an example some of the Irish people in the USA had a religious affinity to the nationalistic ideals of the IRA.

    Isn’t that because theu were *Irish Americans* rather than simply Catholics who supported the IRA? I can expect diasporic Kashmiris supporting the Kashmir issue but Arabs should necessarily support Kashmir and largely don’t.

    With respect you are being awfully selective in denying Muslim affinity which is central to your claim whilst turning a convinient blind eye to numerous other affinities across the world.

    Muslims do that naturally. How many Muslim goverments supported the genocide of Bosnians? How many Muslims governments supported the genocide of Bangladeshi Muslims by Pakistani Muslims in 1971? How many Muslim governments support the genocide of Darfuri Muslms by Sudanese Muslims? You accuse me of selectiveness but you don’t even seem to recognise selectivesness implicit in the Muslim world.

    Thus I repeat what I said that a just western policy means addressing issues that have been largely ignored as regards Muslims but equally – EQUALLY – importantly also have the courage to raise issues within the Muslims world to create a just forweign policy there as well.

    So you’re suggesting that Western governments should accord all Muslim issues as one issue or are you saying that Western governments should increase the priority of Muslim issues? If so, how does either approach reduce terrorism? In fact, why on earth should Western policies divert people from extremism? Your expression on this idea needs far more elaboration than simply stating it to be true.

  82. Avi Cohen — on 13th August, 2008 at 2:10 pm  

    Sid – “But to suggest that the Kashmiri struggle is a universally Islamic battle that is one of the hot spots of suppression suffered by the “Ummah” is romantic at best.”

    That is the whole point though namely that such issues because they are not being addressed can be manipulated to basically recruit normal people towards terror and extremism. By addressing these issues then we can remove these excuses and support for terrorism automatically reduces.

    You have to remember that the people who are manipulated are often ill educated either interms of basic education or religion or both. Thus the extremists groups are able to manipulate them.

    “I think you’ll find not many. In fact there is absolutely no political buy in from governments and if there is any religious-based interest it is probably exclusively from a minute clique of Islamist radicals who are simply looking for a an excuse to validate terrorism.”

    Most modern government involves deflecting issues. Muslims Governments need to address key issues such as education, women’s rights, better economic development. But you won’t stop them using causes to divert attention from domestic issues and the best way to stop this is to tackle those issues thus forcing key changes in the Muslim world which are much needed.

  83. Sid — on 13th August, 2008 at 2:54 pm  

    Most modern government involves deflecting issues. Muslims Governments need to address key issues such as education, women’s rights, better economic development. But you won’t stop them using causes to divert attention from domestic issues and the best way to stop this is to tackle those issues thus forcing key changes in the Muslim world which are much needed.

    Well the overriding point is most Muslim governments are not elected platforms based on liberal democracies so they don’t *need* to use techniques such as “deflecting issues”. If you’re like the Saudi royal family, you’ve been in power since the 1930s and will be forever. Why do you need to divert attention from domestic issues? And even if they do, they certainly don’t concentrate on the plight of the Muslims in Kashmir to divert the average citizen away from the pressing task of what 4×4 he will be buying this year.

  84. Kismet Hardy — on 13th August, 2008 at 3:30 pm  

    Sid Sid Sid Sid!

  85. Avi Cohen — on 13th August, 2008 at 9:50 pm  

    Sid “If you’re like the Saudi royal family, you’ve been in power since the 1930s and will be forever. Why do you need to divert attention from domestic issues? And even if they do, they certainly don’t concentrate on the plight of the Muslims in Kashmir to divert the average citizen away from the pressing task of what 4×4 he will be buying this year.”

    I’ll answer your other points from your earlier post later. But it is extremely unlikely that the Saudi Royal Family will be in power forever. There is great in-fighting in the House of Saud, there is a large and young population with ever decreasing employment prospects. Education is poor especially amongst males. Oil is reducing and external pressures increasing. Within the next decade a large youth population with no income is going to be tough to control. Saudi Arabia isn’t like Qatar, Kuwait etc. with a small domestic population and large oil reserves. They like Iran have a large population and oil reserves that can’t subsidise the entire population and with grown unemployment. add this to the fact that investment is so difficult for the West and little science output to make economic progress.

    These are all causes of discontent.

    Hence the need to deflect attention.

    “Well the overriding point is most Muslim governments are not elected platforms based on liberal democracies so they don’t *need* to use techniques such as “deflecting issues”.”
    With respect this is a very silly statement. All governments of any type need to deflect attention. In the old communist world this was standard tactics even though they were not elected liberal democracies. They deflected attention to the misery their own people were in. In Zimbabwe it is the same, Mugabe is deflecting attention from his own failure by saying the opposition want to bring back imperial rule – that is deflecting attention.

    Following the collapse of Pan-Arab Nationalism then young populations in the Muslim world had to have attention diverted to issues abroad to save people bringing up issue at home.

    If you study the rise of extremism then this was how it all started. An influx of Egyptian extremism blended with young Arabs who their governemtns wanted to divert away from domestic issues thus taking up arms to defend their brethren. Make them think about foreign issues and not domestic.

    I’m frankly suprised you don’t see this.

  86. digitalcntrl — on 15th August, 2008 at 4:36 am  

    “But it is extremely unlikely that the Saudi Royal Family will be in power forever. There is great in-fighting in the House of Saud, there is a large and young population with ever decreasing employment prospects. Education is poor especially amongst males. Oil is reducing and external pressures increasing. Within the next decade a large youth population with no income is going to be tough to control. Saudi Arabia isn’t like Qatar, Kuwait etc. with a small domestic population and large oil reserves.”

    Many pundits have predicted the fall of the House of Saud these past few decades. They all have been wrong. The Saudis have displayed tremendous staying power for nearly a century and I don’t think that will change anytime soon. Also how is unemployement even relevant? A typical Saudi can subsist of the handouts given by the state w/o working a day in his/her life. If they were really concerned about unemployement they would get rid of the foriegners (Pakistanis, Indians, westerners, filopinos, etc.) that basically do all the real work in that country.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.