Saturday, December 2, 2006
Muslims are victims of Islam
What strikes me most about the video Steven posted last week is that Islam brutalizes Muslims. In the Middle East, Islam is seen as the answer to life's problems, and notions such as human rights and fairness are thrown out the window. This puts Muslims themselves in a dire position, being manipulated by their incompetent, corrupt, and brutal leaders into accepting them, as they are Islamic, and are fighting the non-Islamic 'other.' Most frequently, the 'non-Islamic other' is a fellow Muslim, who is Shia rather than Sunni, or vice versa, or perhaps is not pious enough. Or, perhaps the individual walked through the wrong neighborhood by accident. In short, Islam has become the ultimate wedge issue, and it is Muslims who are the victims! :( Is Islam 'inherently' violent? Is that 'true Islam'? I largely agree with this very abridged history of the religion (and explanations of core beliefs). That means that it is easier to convince neutral parties that Islam is violent, rather than peaceful. Combine that with the feeling the brutal dictators of the Arab world (not to mention many Western imams, funded by them) inculcate into their followers that they are victims, and the only way to step out of their victimhood is to be the most pious Muslim ever (rather than, say, doing constructive activities), and you have a recipe for disaster, if 'pious,' means 'violent jihad on non-believers.' The solution? At one point, many neocons thought the solution was to democratize Iraq, and to spread freedom, thereby removing the influence of a major player who was breeding hatred (and paying $25,000 per family to suicide bombers in Israel). There is a certain logic to it. Perhaps it will work long term. But certainly it will not work if there is no true American commitment to it. We do not have the will to win, and so we will not win. We are also being run by incompetants who have fought the war poorly, and who largely ignored the sectarian conflict within Iraq. I am not 100% convinced that immediate democracy ever was the solution. A better solution probably would have been to have installed a benevolent dictator, who would teach a generation of students democratic and non-hateful ideals through new school curriculums, and stressed learning, knowledge, and advancement over jihad. In a generation's time, the Iraqis would have been ready for a democracy. (But then again, 'benevolent' and 'dictator' often do not go hand in hand, and Lord Acton did say "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Perhaps that would have been doomed to fail as well. What to do? At this point, if we leave, we guarantee that the civil war in Iraq will devolve into total bloodshed. If we stay, there will be a somewhat lesser civil war, but we will be blamed for it. We also will be protecting a government with American lives that increasinglly appears it will be a Shia religious dictatorship in line with Iran. Both are horrible scenarios, but between the two, I say it makes more sense to leave. What is in our interests, then? Fortify Kurdistan, stay in Kurdistan, leave the rest of Iraq to its own devices, and throw full support behind the good regimes in the Arab world - Kurdistan, obviously, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan. Have a full scale development of alternative fuel resources, and develop a long term strategy of pressuring the House of Saud to stop teaching their impressionable children that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is fact. Actually, do the same to Egypt. Stop supporting both countries with the amount of arms and funds that are being sent. Show there is a difference in the way the US treats a good, democratic, non-hate mongering regime, and a bad, despotic, hate-mongering regime. And for godsakes, quit the mealy mouthed message of quasi support for Israel, and come out as a proud supporter for this great nation, on the basis of its adherance to democratic values. Stop asking for one millimeter of land to be conceded to the Palestinians until they de-hateify themselves and show a true commitment to peace and prosperity, or for Israel to not fire back when its citizens are being killed. And Syria should be lambasted, not engaged with talks! Lebanon and March 14 is the nation the US needs to throw 100% of support behind. March 8 and Syria need to be vilified, not negotiated with. If Iran has nuke facilities that the US finds and finds a particular target, it should be taken out. There should be no nice talk with a regime that is cool with annhilation talks about another nation. (Israel) Maybe then, it will be shown that the US means business, is not speaking out of both sides of the mouth, and is not a paper tiger, all roar and no teeth. The US needs to treat its friends better than its enemies. (please read a Christopher Hitchens article about that!) And this long term vision enables Muslims to stop being brutalized by fellow Muslims. I want Muslims to succeed, just as I root for the whole world to succeed. The only way to ensure their said success is to dismember the support for the victim death cult that permeates the Mideast (and parts of the west) in the name of Islam.