Blogcritics: Comments on Always Use Protection - The Open Society and Its Enemies

Comment by swingingpuss

Tue, 10 May 2005 08:41:34 EDT

There are many moderate Muslim intellectuals under the radar of Western media who do speak out, with reason and passion - such as Majid Tehranian, professor of Hawaii University, Salman Rushdie, Pakistani rockers Junoon, and Indian President Abdul Kalam. Many more...not enough, perhaps. Getting back to the topic at hand, when will the Western public come to terms with the need for protection and dialogue with the Other?

Comment by Steve S

Tue, 10 May 2005 05:59:58 EDT

If no one from the rational wing of Islam speaks out, then the terrorists become the voice of all Islam, and that's where things seem to stand right now I agree Dave. I see a perfect example here. You and I have talked often about the extremist fringe of the conservative movement. Well, when moderate conservatives don't speak up and say 'hey that isn't what we are about', then the fundie extremists become the voice of the conservative movement. Unrelated to topic at hand perhaps, but wanted to point out that I've tried to get you to see this line of logic before too.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 10 May 2005 03:53:57 EDT

Yes, I did oversimplify. But for every terrorist there are thousands who actively or passively support his actions, if only by not taking any action to stop the terrorist or even speak out in condemnation. If no one from the rational wing of Islam speaks out, then the terrorists become the voice of all Islam, and that's where things seem to stand right now. Dave

Comment by SFC SKI

Mon, 9 May 2005 19:18:57 EDT

Actually, Dave, you make the common error of lumping all Muslims in one pile. Indonesian Muslims and American Muslims are not for the most part running in the streets and slaughtering non-Muslims. AFAIK, Muslims in India are predominantly happy to live in close proximity to non-Muslims, otherwise they'd be in Pakistan.

Comment by swingingpuss

Mon, 9 May 2005 19:15:04 EDT

Dave, you have a valid point but we have pin our hopes on the wisdom of intelligent and reasonable muslims like many of my friends who would be surprised to find themsleves classed with Osama and his buddies.

Comment by SFC SKI

Mon, 9 May 2005 19:13:17 EDT

Well, the terrorists are certainly tied into the global arms market, as well as receiving funding from front groups around the globe, but I know what point you are trying to make. To say that the answer is solely economic in nature is to miss a big part of the equation. While some of the terrorists are drawn from the poor, undereducated and unemployed, there are enough terrorists and backers not in these categories to disprove economics as the main factor. It is true that some are drawn into the terrorist movement for monetary reasons, especially if they seem to hav no other recourse, but again thre are others not in those dire circumstances who choose terror, as well as those who are down and out but choose not to. So much for my rambling reply, I do agree that better economic situations will minimize the recruiting pool for terrorists, but not end terrorism completely. There is a certain part of the terrorists' ideology that a certain number will flock to no matter how good the economy is. Look at Bin Laden, very wealthy, and driven by ideology to wage a terror war.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 9 May 2005 19:12:09 EDT

SP, I'm not sure that Islam actually wants to be included in global international culture. In fact, I'm pretty sure they would like to destroy it. How do you get them to join up when their religion tells them it's evil? My guess - satellite TV for the masses - whcih is what invading Iraq is really all about. Dave

Comment by swingingpuss

Mon, 9 May 2005 19:00:03 EDT

SKI, I think the only answer to terrorism is economic and cultural globalization, and inclusion, rather than exclusion. Religious ideology might have it's share of wayward martyrs but if people enjoy stable economic, social and political enviornment they would be less inclined to let their sons and daughters blow themselves up. And I do agree that the moderate muslims need to denounce the terrorists just like the anti-fascist demonstrators against the neo-nazis did on Sunday in Germany. But they need a strong dynamic leader to mobilise them.

Comment by SFC SKI

Mon, 9 May 2005 17:23:02 EDT

The problem is that the most irrational ones are the same ones using carbombs to get their point across. A little hard to negotiate for all the noise and blood. Until a larger part of theri particualr silent majority publicly denounces their tactics and actively works to shut down their popular, material, and monetary support, little will change. Stateless terrorism is far less susceptible to commercial deterrence. Good point about India and Pakistan though, I was not actually aware that unique use of incentive.

Comment by swingingpuss

Mon, 9 May 2005 11:26:59 EDT

Thats true Aaman. Big Business has a way of protecting their interests. For example- back in 2002 when India and Pakistan were at a nuclear flashpoint, it was the threat of Big business pulling out of the two countries that made the two governments drop their aggressive stance.

Comment by Aaman

Mon, 9 May 2005 10:53:14 EDT

Fine opinion, puss. Nice imagery of the global supply chain of Al Qaeda and Dell - I believe Friedman calls it "The Dell Theory Of Conflict Prevention" - similar to the McDonalds theory - two suppliers of Dell will not go to war against each other.

Comment by Opinion

Sat, 7 May 2005 11:35:21 EDT

All governments tend towards fascism of some kind