Comments on Cause & Effect

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to Cause & Effect

I'll look at that essay you recommended.

I should have written that the jihadists adhere to a sect of Islam that believes in those things. I did not mean that Islam in general is sexist or persecutorial.

Empty handed painter, you made just the right point, but didn't follow it through the way I would. Yes, in England 200 years ago you might have been brutalized for stealing. In much of the Islamic-majority world, such punishment is standard fare today. If Christian fundamentalists with similarly oppressive ideas were meting out such punishments in the United States (actually that does happen in some religious cults) I would be the first to denounce that particular brand of Christianity. We can and must deem brutality against innocent people unjust and unacceptable wherever it happens. I don't care if cruelty has hundreds or thousands of years of cultural tradition behind it -- so did slavery, so did the second-class status of women in Europe and the United States. It is far past time for Islamic-majority countries to undergo the same transformation, and I'm tired of the integrity of Islamic culture being used as an excuse for tolerating the oppression of women that goes on there. If the majority of Islam is against discrimination against women and people of different faiths, great -- now make it the law in Islamic countries.

posted by Dylan24 on August 1, 2005 at 4:59 AM | link to this | reply

katray...

...sin't it scary when those in power are in full denail, and only those not in power (i.e. almost everybody else!!) can recognise it?

Thanks for stopping by.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 28, 2005 at 8:34 AM | link to this | reply

Hemlocker...

...you're quite right, of course, and i apologise. I was either being lazy, or just trying to make things simple for the hard-of-thinking around here!

Good questions, scary answers, I suspect.

Thanks for reading.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 28, 2005 at 8:32 AM | link to this | reply

empty handed painter...

...you make some good points, but you'd be surprised how few people can handle this view.

Maybe they find it threatening.

Thanks for reading.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 28, 2005 at 6:24 AM | link to this | reply

Strong post Damon

I believe the reasons for both wars have much more to do with pots of gold and oil than revenge or stopping terrorism. I do think the attacks in London were a rage fueled response to the Iraq war and the soaring civilian casualities. Good points made here.

posted by katray4 on July 27, 2005 at 6:30 PM | link to this | reply

Damon

"We" didn't launch a war against Iraq to avenge 3000 deaths. The original response was against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Most of us so-called progressives supported that. Then came the war in Iraq, which none of us support. What is happening? What will happen? What does the future look like? Hemlocker

posted by Hemlocker on July 27, 2005 at 9:31 AM | link to this | reply

dylan

we have two dylans on blogit?
the rules, etc., that you have elucidated here re: status of women, chopping a hand for stealing, etc., have not been exlcusive to Islam. They are cultural mores worldwide. Heck, if you'd lived in England just a couple of hundred years ago, and pilfered a chicken or something, you might have lost your hand.
People live as they see to live. Judging from a perspective where we have gotten past many things that other cultures have not, in this light, these things are abuse.
However, these are traditions and cultural mores with a long history. It's like female circumcision -- to our eyes it's terrible' but to theirs, it's a crucial part of their culture.
Melding of curltures, not to the expense of the best of tradition, will eventually change these things. Change must come from within.
In the meantime, we cannot draw conclusions based on our own culture.

posted by Xeno-x on July 27, 2005 at 5:53 AM | link to this | reply

Pat...

...thanks for those good observations.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 27, 2005 at 5:49 AM | link to this | reply

Dylan...

...I'm not sure you're right.

What I meant there was that the West operates a hypocritical policy. Some countries we'll invade to stop human rights abuses - Iraq being one of them - where others we'll turn a blind eye, or even actively support.

As for your take on Islam, you are definitely wrong (though you have that in common with many non-Muslims who try to summarise that faith).

May I suggest you check out this excellent post on the subject?

Thanks for reading.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 27, 2005 at 5:49 AM | link to this | reply

Human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia

angered those who are committing terrorist attacks?

The people who commit these attacks adhere to a doctrine that says women should be beaten or killed for adultery, that infidels should be eliminated, that chopping off limbs is a legitimate punishment for stealing.

They may object to the abuses by the Saudi regime, but clearly they have their own human-rights abuses in mind. It's just a matter of kicking out the current abusive regime so they can install their own.

I can accept that our support for Israel and our presence in Saudi Arabia angered people and helped cause their terrorism, and how in their minds this could seem legitimate, but I can conjure no sympathy whatsoever for their outrage over human-rights abuses. I'd tell them, stop stoning women as punishment for them being raped, and then we'll talk about human rights.

posted by Dylan24 on July 27, 2005 at 5:23 AM | link to this | reply

terrorism is a response

of a weaker nation, which cannot afford massive armies. In the American colonies, much of the war waged by the rebels included guerilla tactics, stealth, hit-and-run. Being an elusive target and operating in the way of terrorists who feel they have nothing to lose, can bring the most powerful enemy to major grief. Perhaps what our "leaders" call bringing freedom to a "backward" country, is what those sovereign nations see as interference and worse, colonialism.

Sometimes President Bush's words and decisions seem like the script of a bad Western, such as "he's the guy that tried to kill my daddy," as a reason to attack Saddam Hussein. Even if he thought such a thing, was it smart to say it aloud to the world's news cameras?

posted by Pat_B on July 27, 2005 at 4:39 AM | link to this | reply