A thought for Madrid...

[Jerry Freeman]

At risk of provoking a denunciation from Lance for "self loathing," I would say that while we wage war against the terrorists, we also must look at the sources of such intense anti-American hatred. And there are sources. If we don't address them while we're waging this war, the tragedy could go on forever.

This stuff is complex. It's not a simple, "They hate our freedom" thing.

To blame Islam generally is wrong. There's a sect within Islam, called Wahibism, that's much more directly the source of the trouble, insofar as Islam is involved. Mainstream Islam is deservedly a great religion for which I've developed tremendous respect.

The irony is that Wahibism is part of a devil's bargain involving the first Saudi kings, installed by the British after WWI to ensure a stable regime and a continuous supply of petroleum.

When the first Saudi kings took power, they needed the support of clerics to cement their rule. They struck an alliance with the Wahibist leaders, agreeing to promote the sect worldwide if the Wahibist clerics would support the House of Saud.

As it happens, Wahibism is at the most rabid, anti-western extreme of Islam. It's not a coincidence that 14 (is that the correct number?) of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi. It's the Saudis, primarily, who have long supported the religious schools all over the world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, where the Wahibist, extreme anti-western doctrine has been heavily promulgated.

To have any hope of turning this situation around, we have to see these things with some discernment, understanding where the trouble is really coming from and not casting the conflict in a simplistic "us vs. them" (meaning the West vs. all Islam) framework that can only perpetuate the status quo.

I would say there are four main things we have to do:

1. Continue to systematically and vigorously oppose terrorism everywhere, using whatever force can be brought to bear to effectively shut down terrorist activities wherever we are able to confront them.

2. Engage the moderate, mainstream Islamic world much more actively to develop a much closer relationship, understanding and integration with the non-Islamic world. These people are not the enemy, but there's a problem as long as we continue to think of them as outsiders in our world.

3. Work systematically to stop the promulgation through the Wahibist system of education, which has been aggressively exported worldwide by the Saudis. Before 9/11, there was an understanding that we could have access to their oil supplies and do all kinds of extremely profitable business with them as long as we didn't meddle in their "internal" affairs. Now, it's become clear that their "internal" affairs, to the extent that they have been proliferating an extreme anti-western version of Islam throughout the Muslim world, haven't been so internal after all, since they contributed to the September 11 attacks. We are now in a position to exert pressure on them to change.

4. Do whatever we can to help relieve the economic and political repression of masses of people in the Arab world. These people, under the thumbs of totalitarian governments, are smart enough to see that the Western powers (especially the British, French and Americans, perhaps to varying degrees) have long supported repressive regimes for the sake of maintaining access to their petroleum reserves. There has to be progress towards a better life for the masses of people in such places, where terrorism has been incubating for so long.

This will all take a long time, if it ever happens at all, but some of the elements are beginning to take shape.

For our part as individuals, I'm most concerned that we cultivate the ability to discern the difference between moderate, mainstream Muslims, with whom we absolutely must develop more contact, communication, mutual understanding and respect, and those who have been poisoned against us by a system of teaching that doesn't represent true Islam at all.

As long as there remains a deep seated tendency in Western culture to see the Muslim world as one mass of "them" and as "other," I'm afraid there will be little hope for peace.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Wombat]

I hate to break it to you Wombat, but what the Islamic world, at least the faction that's producing the terrorists, wants is for the Western world to drop dead and disappear. Ultimately nothing less will please them. These aren't folks you can sit down and calmly ask to pretty please stop blowing people up.

What an unfortunate irony.

I could use this as an excuse to stop speaking in a moderate and measured way but I decline the invitation. I said a lot of things, but my message was mainly between the lines. But even if you failed to notice that I was talking in a rather unusually subdued way for me, absolutely nothing in what was actually on the page came even close to warranting this interpretation. I said that we need to learn to listen. I didn't say anything about believing everything we hear. I didn't say anything about reasoning with the irrational. I just said that we need to learn to listen, and carefully, in places we've tended to disregard in the past. By what leap of logic do you get from that to the interpretation you reached? You think I'm advocating wishy-washy pacifism or universal trust? Eh? I'm currently writing a book partly about strategies of deceit.

Let me take the opportunity to spell out one of the things I was saying between the lines. Initially, ie, before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a good case for thinking that Al Quaeda's main agenda had nothing much to do with the West as such. Perhaps it still doesn't although it's harder to tell these days. Yes, of course they would like to convert the universe. But that's not achievable and they know it. What is achievable though, if we allow it to happen, is to polarise the Islamic world into a tiny, embattled, pro-Western minority and a rabidly anti-Western horde that they are now successfully creating amongst once potentially moderate Moslems on the street. If I read them correctly, the main game is a battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary Moslems. The easiest way to achieve this is not to go around preaching and teaching .. you get suicide bombers that way but not mass movements. Far easier to act as an agent provocateur by attacking the West boldly and then letting the West do the job for you by reacting in a way that achieves precisely the kind of polarisation aimed at. I could go on but this, I hope, gives some indication of what was between the lines.

The last time we interacted, Sam, was when you walked off in a huff after Carol and I posted approvingly on a thread you started about violence against women. When your misinterpretation was pointed out to you, you apologised to Carol but not to me. OK, I realise going off half-cocked is part of your style, and I don't mind that, up to a point. But I think you've overstepped the mark here. To the best of my ability I've been trying to listen to you. Can you honestly say you were trying to listen to me?

[Jens_Hoppe]

So much for those who conclude it's fear of terrorists which changed things in Spain

Did anyone really claim it was fear of terrorists that decided the election?

[blackhawk]

I said I was making the comment because of what I've noticed - my experience has led me to believe this about our society in general - and I stand by it.

Susan

Society in general? So when you wrote this:

I'm not surprised that nothing was mentioned about this on the board before now.

You were referring to society in general, not C&F? Um...sure, I believe that. :roll:

[Jens_Hoppe]

I think the facts speak for themselves:

Before Thursday: Polls show a clear-cut conservative victory.
After Thursday: The socialists surprisingly win the election.

Now, did or didn't the attacks on Thursday influence, or even decide the result of the election? I think the answer to that is trivial.

Not only is it not trivial; it almost certainly isn't true. The option you ignore is that what influenced the election was a combination of factors, chief amongst them the Spanish government's utterly pathetic reaction to the event.

Nope, I did not ignore that explanation. In fact I agreed with Zub earlier on that it was very plausible. Still, without the "event" happening, there wouldn't have been a pathetic reaction from the conservatives in the first place, right?

That's all I am saying: If the event on Thursday hadn't happened, the election probably would have turned out differently - for whatever reason. Therefore, the bombing did in fact influence the outcome. I just don't see how anyone can reasonably deny that.

[Wombat]

I think the facts speak for themselves:

Before Thursday: Polls show a clear-cut conservative victory.
After Thursday: The socialists surprisingly win the election.

Now, did or didn't the attacks on Thursday influence, or even decide the result of the election? I think the answer to that is trivial.

Not only is it not trivial; it almost certainly isn't true. The option you ignore is that what influenced the election was a combination of factors, chief amongst them the Spanish government's utterly pathetic reaction to the event.

Nope, I did not ignore that explanation. In fact I agreed with Zub earlier on that it was very plausible. Still, without the "event" happening, there wouldn't have been a pathetic reaction from the conservatives in the first place, right?

That's all I am saying: If the event on Thursday hadn't happened, the election probably would have turned out differently - for whatever reason. Therefore, the bombing did in fact influence the outcome. I just don't see how anyone can reasonably deny that.

Sorry Jens, we are in fact in agreement. There seems to be altogether too much misinterpretation going on at present.

I actually think the new government in Spain is more than a little embarrassed at their position. But what do you do? Postponing the election would not have sent the right message either.

The right message was sent by the millions of dignified Spaniards who took to the streets in quiet protest over this atrocity. But sending the right message is one thing. Finding lasting and workable solutions to the problems that these atrocities are grotesque symptoms of is something else altogether.

[Walden]

Terrorist bombings NEVER orient an election towards a more liberal choice.

This sweeping generalization flows from what?

initiating and leading the "rebellion" (Spain, Poland, Tcheco, Hungary...) against the rest of Europe on the Iraq issue

Spain, etc. are sovereignties. The continent of Europe, as a whole, is not. Should I say that Canada is in rebellion against North America in staying out of the war? Of course not.

Nope, I did not ignore that explanation. In fact I agreed with Zub earlier on that it was very plausible. Still, without the "event" happening, there wouldn't have been a pathetic reaction from the conservatives in the first place, right?

That's all I am saying: If the event on Thursday hadn't happened, the election probably would have turned out differently - for whatever reason. Therefore, the bombing did in fact influence the outcome. I just don't see how anyone can reasonably deny that.

It is indeed alarming that an act of terrorism should seemingly sway an election, in, as was said, that it could trigger terrorists to plan more bombings for election times. If we wind up with Kerry in the White House, I'd rather it be because he was democratically chosen, than to appear to be a direct result of terrorism.

[TelegramSam]

The last time we interacted, Sam, was when you walked off in a huff after Carol and I posted approvingly on a thread you started about violence against women. When your misinterpretation was pointed out to you, you apologised to Carol but not to me. OK, I realise going off half-cocked is part of your style, and I don't mind that, up to a point. But I think you've overstepped the mark here. To the best of my ability I've been trying to listen to you. Can you honestly say you were trying to listen to me?

Actually, I remember that post, and the reason I didn't apologize to you is because the post that needed apologizing for wasn't aimed at you to begin with because all you posted was, and I quote "Well said." in regards to Carol's post. The post I misinterpreted was Carol's, not your post.

Also, I didn't "walk off in a huff" and I wasn't "going off half-cocked" either. I wasn't angry, I mearly misunderstood Carol's post. The reply was mostly tongue-in-cheek anyhow, if you noticed the ":twisted:" smiley at the end of it.

I'm so terribly sorry if you think I've not given you the attention you feel your two-word post deserved, but it seems that you've misread me just as much. Maybe you just don't remember the thread very well, so here it is: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php ... highlight=

Also, perphaps if you had simply posted that explanation in your other post in this thread to begin with, I wouldn't have misread it. Clarity is important, especially over a forum such as this.

[susnfx]

I said I was making the comment because of what I've noticed - my experience has led me to believe this about our society in general - and I stand by it.

Susan

Society in general? So when you wrote this:

I'm not surprised that nothing was mentioned about this on the board before now.

You were referring to society in general, not C&F? Um...sure, I believe that. :roll:

The American society in general, to which many members of C&F belong. I begin to see the oft-mentioned pattern of response to what is considered U.S.-bashing here. I've never had it directed at me, however, and I'm offended by it. I'm American, I love where I live and have no real desire to live anywhere else. That said, however, having lived for 52 years in five states in small towns and very large metropolitan areas, I've come to some personal conclusions about Americans, some of which are very flattering, some of which are not. We're not a perfect society and we have weaknesses. I personally believe that one of those weaknesses is a belief in our superiority which results in an inability to relate to other cultures or to understand their problems or tragedies. I believe that many (not all) Americans believe that the rest of the world is out to "get us" because of envy, thus their problems are their own. It was this personal belief of mine that prompted my initial post.

I've never had such a vitriolic response (here and in private) to anything I've posted and it has done nothing to lessen my belief that some Americans cannot bring themselves to admit to any weakness or having one pointed out to them. I'm through posting to this thread. If anybody else wants to attack me, please do so by PM so I can use the language I'd really like to use.

Susan

[Wombat]

The last time we interacted, Sam, was when you walked off in a huff after Carol and I posted approvingly on a thread you started about violence against women. When your misinterpretation was pointed out to you, you apologised to Carol but not to me. OK, I realise going off half-cocked is part of your style, and I don't mind that, up to a point. But I think you've overstepped the mark here. To the best of my ability I've been trying to listen to you. Can you honestly say you were trying to listen to me?

Actually, I remember that post, and the reason I didn't apologize to you is because the post that needed apologizing for wasn't aimed at you to begin with because all you posted was, and I quote "Well said." in regards to Carol's post. The post I misinterpreted was Carol's, not your post.

Also, I didn't "walk off in a huff" and I wasn't "going off half-cocked" either. I wasn't angry, I mearly misunderstood Carol's post. The reply was mostly tongue-in-cheek anyhow, if you noticed the ":twisted:" smiley at the end of it.

I'm so terribly sorry if you think I've not given you the attention you feel your two-word post deserved, but it seems that you've misread me just as much. Maybe you just don't remember the thread very well, so here it is: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php ... highlight=

Sam we could pick nits here indefinitely, but why bother. I regret even bringing that matter up, since it is distracting from what I was trying to say. I didn't care then, and I don't care now, about an apology. What I do think is a pity was that a very good thread petered out after only a few posts. But there'll be other chances to discuss that topic.

Also, perphaps if you had simply posted that explanation in your other post in this thread to begin with, I wouldn't have misread it. Clarity is important, especially over a forum such as this.

Well I don't quite see it this way, but, since we don't have the old disagreement, why manufacture a new one? Let's just let it go.

[Brigitte]

I think the facts speak for themselves:

Before Thursday: Polls show a clear-cut conservative victory.
After Thursday: The socialists surprisingly win the election.

Now, did or didn't the attacks on Thursday influence, or even decide the result of the election? I think the answer to that is trivial.

Not only is it not trivial; it almost certainly isn't true. The option you ignore is that what influenced the election was a combination of factors, chief amongst them the Spanish government's utterly pathetic reaction to the event.

Nope, I did not ignore that explanation. In fact I agreed with Zub earlier on that it was very plausible. Still, without the "event" happening, there wouldn't have been a pathetic reaction from the conservatives in the first place, right?

That's all I am saying: If the event on Thursday hadn't happened, the election probably would have turned out differently - for whatever reason. Therefore, the bombing did in fact influence the outcome. I just don't see how anyone can reasonably deny that.

From what I heard in the last days and reflections, the bombing did refresh the political "goldfish's" (voters I mean) memories. The Aznar government has had a few "cockups" in the last 8 years of their government but luckily enough they are at least 1 and 2 years ago that is why they had been back to favorites. They have certainly not been the favorites when Spain decided to be part in the alliance in Irak, 90% of the Spanish people where against the war as I just heard yesterday again. Then they had the oilpest and the Aznar government belittled the catastrophe for long, did not let the public know how bad it was in real and did not help the people there until it could not be hided anymore. As I said, political memory is really short term. This time when the government still was stuck on the ETA blame for the terrorist attack while everywhere around on the news the link to Al Kaida was already thought about, so the Spanish people may have just remembered the misleading and against the public will actions of the Aznar government. They had the hightest rate of voters with 77%, this also may explain.

There were 3 minutes of silence here as well yesterday.

Brigitte

[TelegramSam]

Whatever you want Wombat, you're the one who brought it up after all. I don't really care.

[Stu H]

The Weekenders wrote:

'To insist that somehow the US is less concerned about humankind is to take an unfair shot at the biggest, richest country. '

Biggest? Richest?

Kinda says it all............

[sheryl_coleman]

If you read the earlier posts in this thread, Sheryl,
I think you will find another explanation.

I have read the posts. I can see your point, but I do not agree.

I'm saddened that a thread that began with
an expression of sympathy to the Spanish people
so quickly turned to criticizing people in this
forum for not doing what the critics have
repeatedly appealed to them not to do.
This thread strikes me as mean spirited,
and at the worst imaginable juncture.

I didn't realize I was criticizing anyone. I was just mentioning what in my opinion was a correlation. As far as "what the critics have repeatedly appealed to them not to do" I'm not sure what you mean... post OTs? I was not aware one was not to do that on the board. (If this is the case, there sure seem like a lot of OTs though.)

Let me say this clearly: anybody with
fingers and internet access who complaiins
that there was no thread here earlier
is in bad faith. Why should anybody else
be more responsible for its absence than
yourself?

I'll try to say this clearly too. I wasn't complaining, just pointing out what to me seems a correlation. Although you can never be sure of exactly where someone may be coming from when they post, I hope you didn't read my post as being "mean spirited" or in "bad faith" as it was certainly not meant that way.

All the best,
Sheryl

[The Weekenders]

The Weekenders wrote:

'To insist that somehow the US is less concerned about humankind is to take an unfair shot at the biggest, richest country. '

Biggest? Richest?

Kinda says it all............

Stu,

Says what all?? My point is that I think Susan's comment failed in a more global observation about humankind. I think her comments are an indictment against mankind, not the citizens of the United States of America.

I do not believe that, given the information available about the bombing, that Americans are any more or less concerned about it per capita than any other nation, save Spain and her close neighbors. There is a subtle implication that somehow, someway, Americans should be more concerned, because EVERYBODY KNOWS _________ (fill in your country here) CARES MORE ABOUT THE GLOBAL VILLAGE BECAUSE OF BUSH IN IRAQ (or past military meddling). I mentioned cultural self-loathing because I hear so much of it around here. Time for a reality check. Time to re-examine cherished assumptions.

I am not the world's most sophisticated traveler but I have visited countries in Europe and Asia and gained a perspective that is often lacking from those who seem to think that this is such an oppressive place. It reminds me of teenagers who hate their parents because they are stuck in the house and dependant on them. Once they get out and around, pay bills and hold down a job, their perspective is enlarged.

I think its futile to hold Americans up to a higher standard of behavior compared to an unproven standard in another nation, even if we are perceived as having too much power over the fates of others. Raise consciousness about injustice worldwide, YES, I agree. But to get down to a personal level and make a judgment about individuals seems worthless. People get caught up in their lives, families and professions in ____________ as well.

Are there more Australians crying in their hankies about the tragedy? Or Russians or Japanese? I would imagine that its statistically negligible. It so happens that the posters here, from various countries, seem to be fairly socially-conscious in their own estimations, but they could probably walk out their own front doors in their own countries and find somebody who doesn't give a @#$ as well. Then someone within this country with similar sensibilities agrees with them and we do have America-bashing. And I feel compelled to point out that we are a charitable society in general and respond to many world tragedies with money and goods, even offering it to those who consider us the Great Satan.

This causes me to muse that maybe, because of the US occupation of Iraq, there is a sense of "vigil" among those who strongly oppose it. Maybe that creates a sense of MORAL AUTHORITY?

Does being a smaller, less powerful country confer SPECIAL MORAL AUTHORITY in this regard?? Within the US, we experience this phenomena. There are a sizable number of black Americans who believe that each and every one of them has HIGHER MORAL AUTHORITY (their term) when it comes to discerning prejudice and injustice than other (read white) Americans. Columnist Leonard Pitts uses this term regularly and I always choke on my Cheerios that this guy believes this fantasy.
People are people. Everyone acts in a combination of their upbringing, personal conscience, situational choices, etc. etc. To confer authority to another ruins both parties in the end. I cannot yield to those who feel comfortable snipin at Uncle Sam without making these observations. I don't care if you are the most politically involved person in your country, you really do NOT have the moral authority to anecdotally decide a fairly sweeping generalization about this huge place. Susan was right to relate what her observations were, but I disagree with the conclusion.

I don't feel vitriolic or angry towards Susanfx. I simply disagree with a generalized observation that may well not hold true outside of Salt Lake City or maybe IS true about the whole dang world.