Ways of Dealing with Jihadism
This OP is written from the point of view of a citizen of the US and is directed at those who are, or claim to be, interested in alleviating the "clash of values" between Western secularism and the more radical strains of Islam and reducing the concomitant threat posed by jihadism.
I will start off by acknowledging that people are right when they say that western values (secularism, belief in equality of the sexes, etc.) are inherently at odds with fundamentalist Islamic values that often give rise to jihadism. This is self-evident. It is also true that many jihadists are not solely motivated by, or perhaps even mostly motivated by, terrestrial concerns. And they do indeed often tell us that this is the case while committing acts of terror. As far as I can tell, there are a number of ways of resolving this conflict, or at least the threat of jihadism, of varying degrees of plausibility that might be compatible with those truths. I will now present a few (although this is far from being an exhaustive list):
1) We could (presumably in an ethical way) kill or imprison enough jihadists and people that might become jihadists such that the problem would go away
2) We could push for a reformation of Islam so that less people become radicalized
3) We could wage an illegal drone war, organize coups against governments that oppose western hegemony, and invade and destabilize entire regions for reasons that most likely have little to do with eliminating terrorist threats while currently supporting a government perpetrating a genocide.
1) is of course ridiculous and intuitively unethical, and if one actually thinks that we could feasibly kill or imprison enough jihadists, or people that might become jihadists, to eliminate the threat radical Islam poses, they are wrong - barring committing incredible crimes against humanity. 2) seems to be the best way forward out of these three options, although it would undoubtedly take time and effort. And it does not preclude killing or imprisoning jihadists when necessary. 3) consists of following through on the prevailing middle east policy and hoping that in the process of blowing up anyone or anything that gets in the way (in Chomsky's words), the religious views of Muslims somehow change in a positive way in spite of that violence.
Anyone who takes the threat of terrorism seriously should balk at 3).
I expect that someone might say, or hold in their mind, that 3) (or whatever interpretation of the facts around US foreign policy that exists in one's head) is compatible with 2). I would say that the two probably dont entail a logical contradiction, but so long as we assassinate entire families in the hopes of getting at targets that are suspected of maybe being a threat to something all the way across the world, or support Israels genocide, as a much more egregious example, we are stepping on the toes of any would-be reformers, as those kinds of things (unjustifiable crimes) are precisely that which might be used as fodder for the argument that a radical interpretation of scripture mixed with strong anti-west sentiment is correct.
I admit that the way forward is far more complicated than just committing to supporting reformers of Islam; for instance, I think that we have clearly been right to support certain scrappy, ideologically desirable groups, such as the secular, left-wing Kurdish militias that were instrumental in fighting IS, so they could effectively fight IS. But the main point here is that our current foreign policy makes little sense if we are committed to reducing jihadism and terrorism or alleviating the friction created by the clash of values.
All of that said, to frame the issue the way I have is itself indicative of a problem. Jihadism, at least in so far as terrorism is concerned, should be on the backburner compared to issues of the environment, potential nuclear destruction, the genocide in Gaza, Trump's incoming presidency, etc. But for some reason people allow themselves to be terrorized and absorbed by the mere thought of an attack every time one comes around. That is the intended effect. Don't let it do that to you.
I will start off by acknowledging that people are right when they say that western values (secularism, belief in equality of the sexes, etc.) are inherently at odds with fundamentalist Islamic values that often give rise to jihadism. This is self-evident. It is also true that many jihadists are not solely motivated by, or perhaps even mostly motivated by, terrestrial concerns. And they do indeed often tell us that this is the case while committing acts of terror. As far as I can tell, there are a number of ways of resolving this conflict, or at least the threat of jihadism, of varying degrees of plausibility that might be compatible with those truths. I will now present a few (although this is far from being an exhaustive list):
1) We could (presumably in an ethical way) kill or imprison enough jihadists and people that might become jihadists such that the problem would go away
2) We could push for a reformation of Islam so that less people become radicalized
3) We could wage an illegal drone war, organize coups against governments that oppose western hegemony, and invade and destabilize entire regions for reasons that most likely have little to do with eliminating terrorist threats while currently supporting a government perpetrating a genocide.
1) is of course ridiculous and intuitively unethical, and if one actually thinks that we could feasibly kill or imprison enough jihadists, or people that might become jihadists, to eliminate the threat radical Islam poses, they are wrong - barring committing incredible crimes against humanity. 2) seems to be the best way forward out of these three options, although it would undoubtedly take time and effort. And it does not preclude killing or imprisoning jihadists when necessary. 3) consists of following through on the prevailing middle east policy and hoping that in the process of blowing up anyone or anything that gets in the way (in Chomsky's words), the religious views of Muslims somehow change in a positive way in spite of that violence.
Anyone who takes the threat of terrorism seriously should balk at 3).
I expect that someone might say, or hold in their mind, that 3) (or whatever interpretation of the facts around US foreign policy that exists in one's head) is compatible with 2). I would say that the two probably dont entail a logical contradiction, but so long as we assassinate entire families in the hopes of getting at targets that are suspected of maybe being a threat to something all the way across the world, or support Israels genocide, as a much more egregious example, we are stepping on the toes of any would-be reformers, as those kinds of things (unjustifiable crimes) are precisely that which might be used as fodder for the argument that a radical interpretation of scripture mixed with strong anti-west sentiment is correct.
I admit that the way forward is far more complicated than just committing to supporting reformers of Islam; for instance, I think that we have clearly been right to support certain scrappy, ideologically desirable groups, such as the secular, left-wing Kurdish militias that were instrumental in fighting IS, so they could effectively fight IS. But the main point here is that our current foreign policy makes little sense if we are committed to reducing jihadism and terrorism or alleviating the friction created by the clash of values.
All of that said, to frame the issue the way I have is itself indicative of a problem. Jihadism, at least in so far as terrorism is concerned, should be on the backburner compared to issues of the environment, potential nuclear destruction, the genocide in Gaza, Trump's incoming presidency, etc. But for some reason people allow themselves to be terrorized and absorbed by the mere thought of an attack every time one comes around. That is the intended effect. Don't let it do that to you.
Comments (127)
1) If jihadism is incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism.
2) Jihadism is incompatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism.
Sounds about right. But I don't think many people actually think we should tolerate jihadism. People might, however, think we ought to tolerate the kind of fundamentalism that might give rise to jihadism. Maybe we could modify your argument in some way to account for that:
1) certain radical interpretations of scripture directly give rise to jihadism.
2) If certain radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to those radical interpretations of scripture.
3) if jihadism is incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism.
4) Jihadism is incompatible with secularism.
5) Therefore, because of (1), those radical interpretations of scripture that directly give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism.
6) Therefore, religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism or those radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism.
I would say:
1) If certain radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to those radical interpretations of scripture nor to jihadism.
2) Certain radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to those radical interpretations of scripture nor to jihadism.
Looks good. Thanks for simplifying it; I should have done that myself and saved you the work.
1) p ? (¬q ? ¬r)
2) p
3) ¬q ? ¬r
It might be possible to simplify this even further, so that you arrive at a basic modus ponens or a basic modus tollens.
Yes, I see. I'll try to make it simpler. How do you get the logic symbols in your posts?
I use the Tree Proof Generator and I just copy-paste the symbols from there.
Okay, cool.
Thanks, sandwich. I'll use those resources for sure.
I present the modus tollens version:
1) If religious tolerance applies to jihadism and those radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism, then they must be compatible with secularism.
2) Jihadism and those radical interpretations of scriptures that give rise to jihadism are not compatible with secularism.
3) Therefore, religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism or those radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism.
edit: it isn't quite modus tollens is it
1) (p ? q) ? (r ? s)
2) ¬(r ? s)
3) ¬p ? ¬q
You can leave the argument there if you want. In theory, it can be simplified even further. I would try to arrive at the most basic modus tollens, like so:
1) a ? b
2) ¬b
3) ¬a
That would be the ideal structure for a modus tollens, because it's the most basic one. Of course, sometimes that's not possible, due to the content of the argument. Sometimes, the content of an argument imposes restrictions on how much the argument in question can be simplified. Sometimes there's a point in which you can't simplify it any further from the point of view of the content, even though you could simplify it further from the point of view of the purely formal structure.
I've got it.
1) If jihadism and the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are to be tolerated, they must be compatible with secularism.
2) Jihadism and those radical interpretations of scripture that lead to jihadism are not compatible with secularism.
3) Therefore, jihadism and the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism should not be tolerated.
Let's suppose, if only for the sake of argument, that jihadism can only exist if at least one of its causes is a radical interpretation of scripture. In that case, since the latter is a necessary component of the former, the root of the problem here is that radical interpretation itself, not jihadism, because jihadism is simply the effect. The cause of that effect is the radical interpretation of scripture.
And if that is the case, then if we block those radical interpretations of scripture, we will have blocked the existence of jihadism itself. So it seems like the wisest course of action is to simply declare that those radical interpretations of jihadism are incompatible with secularism (this can be supported independently by secondary arguments, but right now we'll just take it as a premise). This being the case, an even simpler modus tollens could be the following one:
1) If the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism can be religiously tolerated in a secular society, then jihadism is compatible with secularism.
2) Jihadism is not compatible with secularism.
3) So, the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism cannot be religiously tolerated in a secular society.
(edited for clarity)
And this last argument that I just said, @ToothyMaw, can be simplified even further. How? Well, like I did in my first comment:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
That was my point all along.
I think I get it, yes. If we suppose that radical interpretations of scripture are a necessary component of jihadism, we get your argument:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
And we can simplify it to get an argument like the one you made in the first place. We get a modus ponens like:
1) If those radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to those radical interpretations of scripture.
2) Those radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are not compatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to those radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism.
Or am I making a mistake somewhere?
Nope, not as far as I can see, at least. Now we need to bring the concept of "elegance" into the argument, just to tidy up the expressions a bit. For example, instead of "those", I would say "the". This has no bearing on the validity of the argument, nor does it have any bearing on the truth of the premises. It's just an aesthetic thing so that people have an easier time reading it. So, I would echo your last argument, with a few stylistic modifications, like so:
1) If the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to the radical interpretations of scripture.
2) The radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are not compatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism.
Duly noted. Thanks, sandwich.
From a purely technical standpoint, I don't think that repeating a point (i.e., "stop supporting Israel") makes it more persuasive. Like, it just doesn't.
I.e. put our fingers in our ears, bury our head in the sand and the problem should go away... right? Right?
Instead of looking to syllogism consider looking to history. 2000 years ago the Jews had an issue with religious extremism. The Romans stomped it out and the Jews were forced to re-examine their theology and frame it in a more moderate, sensible way. The Jews and Muslims think alike in many ways.
The problem may or may not go away, but it will stop being our problem.
Are they somehow mutually exclusive? Deductive reasoning and history, that is.
I wasn't trying to be persuasive. I was just stating the obvious with extra emphasis on what I consider most important.
Pardon, but I think this is a bit too easy. For example:
4. Jihad is a religious tenet.
5. Religious tolerance applies to religious tenets.
6. Therefore, religious tolerance applies to Jihadism.
The implicit premise of your arguments is
If this is right, then the substantive question asks when religious tolerance should be abandoned.
Quoting T Clark
For fuck's sake, T, did you even read the OP? I said that our current foreign policy makes no sense if we care about reducing jihadism. I agree with you that we should pull our military out of the middle east in an intelligent way and stop supporting Israel.
edit: when I talk about supporting reformers, I don't mean with APC's and foot soldiers. Maybe I should have made that clearer?
Yes, I did read the OP and just read it again. We created our problem with jihadism and we have it in our grasp to get rid of it. The OP is wrongheaded in suggesting there is some problem with Islam we need to address beyond the one we've brought on ourselves.
Fair enough.
Quoting Leontiskos
Ah, but then it's theology that you want to discuss (hello, BTW). Indeed, when I formulated my initial argument, I did something subtle, which I'm not sure if anyone has detected yet, but you're the one that got the closest so far, @Leontiskos.
The intent behind my initial argument, is that I made it compatible not just with the POV of the secular West, but also with the POV of jihadists themselves (at least, to the best of my ability). Here's how that works. Let's agree to take Wikipedia's words for what jihadism actually is:
Quoting Wikipedia
It literally says that jihadists want to base the state on Islamic principles. That, is incompatible with secularism. Why? Well, let's take a look at the wiki for the word "secularism":
Quoting Wikipedia
"(...) separation of religion from civil affairs and the state", it literally says. So, you see, @Leontiskos, it is the jihadists themselves who claim that jihadism and secularism are incompatible. In that sense, my initial argument works against them.
Or at least I think it does.
Yes, of course they claim that. But do they claim that the one who is intolerant of Jihadists is still practicing religious tolerance?
I think my original point stands. I am not questioning the idea that secularism and Jihadism are incompatible. I am questioning the idea that one can be intolerant of a religion and still be practicing religious tolerance.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
The subtlety that I picked up was using "the concept of religious tolerance" rather than simply "religious tolerance." This could mean that there is some specialized concept. For example, in the West we don't consider militant religions real religions, and this allows us to think that intolerance of such religions does not transgress religious tolerance.
Do you disagree with that argument?
Secularism aside, there is also the natural end of self-preservation, such that anyone who tries to eliminate you forfeits their right to be tolerated. "Religious tolerance" also tends to be trumped by this natural end, and for this reason any statesecular or otherwisewill tend to repel Jihadists.
That's one of my main points, here. In the West (and not just the West, actually) someone can't just claim that their own particular group of people "are a real religion". Why not? Because then they can file for tax exemption. I'm aware that might sound incredibly dumb to you. But let's not underestimate the bureaucratic power of the IRS or the equivalent to the IRS in a country like Argentina. Like, those federal entities are not just going to happily give everyone free money just out of the goodness of their hearts. Religious tolerance does not work like that on a federal level. How does it work? Well, you're either part of a religion that the IRS recognizes, or you prove to the IRS that your "new" religion is actually a "real" religion as far as federal tax collecting is concerned.
See my point?
Quoting Leontiskos
I'm not sure. I need more time to think about it.
Okay, cool, that's a lot different from what you were saying. We can actually discuss this.
Do you think there might need to be something at work in one's brain other than an appreciation of how horrible US middle east policy is to get one to blow oneself up on a bus and kill dozens of innocent people while yelling words of praise to one's God? That isn't meant to be snarky; I genuinely wonder how you might rationalize what seems obvious to me: radical interpretations of scripture in the Quran tend towards producing mass-murdering maniacs at a (relatively) high rate. I consider that to be partially a problem with Islam, as those scriptures are given meaning by shared interpretations of a shared book. Although I think our policy definitely factors into the attitudes of jihadists heavily, and almost certainly fuels radicalization, one group just seems to be consistently more belligerent, at least in terms of acting violently for religious reasons, than others.
None of that justifies our barbaric policies or actions, or our potentially worse belligerence on the world stage, of course. I mean just look at our support of the genocide of the Palestinians. There is clearly no justification for that.
How do we know that these interpretations are radical in the sense of aberrant or misguided vis-a-vis the Quran? Muhammad conquered much land to establish an Islamic society. Muhammad himself was a jihadist and Muhammad is held up to be the paragon of moral excellence in Islam.
Maybe it's all perfectly by the book and in the example of their founder.
A few days ago I heard an imam say that that there's no way to lose on the battlefield versus a zionist. Either you kill the zionist, or the zionist kills you and you go to Islamic paradise (Jannah.) Who are we to tell him his interpretation is wrong??
Easy: You let the Federal government decide that. They have to, otherwise the IRS wouldn't have the bureaucratic power that it has.
Sort of, but does the "religion" in "religious tolerance" exclude Islamic Jihadis? If so, why? Why is Jihadism not religious?
It is my understanding (and I could be wrong here) that any organization that claims that they want the state to be based on their religious principles, and that they are willing to resort to armed violence to do that, for theological reasons (instead of political reasons, for example) cannot invoke the protection granted by the right to religious tolerance.
In simpler terms: if your armed group wants to take over the White House for religious reasons, then, from a federal point of view, your armed group cannot invoke religious protection as an excuse to commit a federal crime.
Searching through scripture to determine theological truth/ what is "real" Islam is not a normal or proper function of the US government.
It is when the IRS has to recognize the religious status of a new religion, if only for the purpose of federal tax collection. Not just in the US, but in every country that has an equivalent federal entity.
Yes, that's right, but I don't understand why we are talking about the IRS or the state.
Suppose a state has a law against prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now suppose they prohibit a Jihadi from exercising their religion. I would submit that what is occurring is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion, which is religious intolerance. I think the state would acknowledge this and say, "Free exercise of religion is not unconditional."
But note that religious tolerance and free exercise of religion is precisely what is not occurring in this scenario. It is being overridden by a higher law.
But that's one of my other points: no state in the West, no country in the West, prohibits the free exercise of religion. It only establishes a distinction between what is a religion and what is just a group of people that want to be recognized as such (as a religion, that is) by the state or country in question.
And this isn't just a Western thing. Several countries in the East function in more or less the same way.
Does the existence of Islamic reformers actually constitute oppression of jihadists, though? If anything, jihadists would be the ones inclined to impose their own political and religious beliefs on others, probably through force or armed conflict by definition. I mean, they literally want to establish a state based on Islamic principles. I don't see how they couldn't transgress others' rights in the process, and I can't think of many plausible things more antithetical to freedom. Shouldn't a libertarian like yourself have some sympathy for those reformers who want some freedom for themselves?
But I would like to raise a related issue: how do we deal with militant politico-religious groups anywhere, including our own?
How do we deal with American Christian Nationalism? Who is responsible for 'causing' it? Should it be stamped out? Should it be punished? Forbidden? Who has the responsibility for solving the problem of American Christian Nationalism?
I'm not claiming that our far-right extremists are no different than Jihadists. I'm just wondering whether we have enough insight into extreme political and religious behavior to deal with either one effectively.
In my opinion, extreme political / religious behavior, whether Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or what have you is NOT compatible with secular societies (which, of course, can contain actively religious citizens). Recognizing it as incompatible, however, doesn't tell us what to do about it, at home or abroad.
I've arrived at the conclusion that the simplest, most practical solution is to just be a reductionist about this. How so? Like this:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
In other words: if you want to take over the White House in the name of Jesus, then you can't say that you were discriminated by federal agents after they arrest you for committing a federal crime. Well, you can say it if you want to, but it won't hold up in court.
But why think that? Is it only because "religion" gets defined in a way that makes the claim true by definition? "Anything we are intolerant of is by definition not religion"?
The reason the U.S. has a First Amendment is because those rights are often transgressed by states. The First Amendment gives citizens legal recourse when the state prohibits the free exercise of religion, which it is prone to do.
Sure. But suppose the following, just for the sake of argument. Suppose that you tell me that you believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that this particular belief of yours is a religious belief, and that you are known as a Pastafarian. Suppose that I tell you that your beliefs are stupid. You cannot lawfully accuse me of religious discrimination in that scenario, because Pastafarianism is not a religion. Why not? Because no state or country recognizes it as such. If you want to say that I'm being intolerant anyways, sure. But not religiously.
What I would say is that it is not a religion because it is not a religion, and this is unrelated to what states or countries recognize. Talking about states, countries, or the IRS seems to simply pass the buck. For example:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
The substantive question is about how the matter is decided, and this means that, first, the Federal government must itself engage that substantive question in determining what is and is not a religion, and second, the Federal government could get the question wrong. "The Federal government said it's a religion therefore it must be a religion," is not a valid argument.
And again, I don't think the courts would rule that Jihadism is not a religion. I think they would rule that freedom of religion is not unconditional. It seems clear to me that Jihadism is a religion (or a religious tenet).
Quoting Wikipedia
But the really sinister cases are the ones involving cults, like what happened way back in Waco, Texas.
Jihad is a religious tenet.
Jihadism seems pejorative, so I looked it up and got this:
"Jihadism refers to militant Islamic movements that use violence to achieve their political and religious goals.
Jihadism is not representative of Islam as a whole. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide condemn violence and terrorism in all forms."
So jihad is legitimate, but jihadism is apparently what the "bad muslims" do. But did Muhammad not use violence to expand the influence of Islam? It doesn't make sense to me, but apparently a distinction is drawn between the valid "jihad" and the invalid, extremist "jihadism" which is clearly pejorative.
Is that a political question, or a theological question? If it's neither and it's "just a simple question", then someone might as well ask (due to parity of reasoning): So the Crusade is legitimate, but "crusader-ism" is apparently what the "bad Christians" do. But did Jesus not use violence to expand the influence of Christianity?
EDIT: Now try asking that question, but with the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Pastafarians. You will notice quite a difference.
It is a historical question. And of course he did. So I'm asking couldn't Muhammad be considered a jihadist?
And a jihadist could ask you the following question: couldn't Jesus be considered a Crusader?
No, I would not consider Jesus a crusader.
Then that is the difference between a Christian and a fanatical Christian. A Muslim will tell you that Muhammed could not be considered a jihadist either. However, fanatical Muslims (i.e., jihadists) would argue otherwise, just as a fanatical Christian would argue otherwise.
I think we're running into confusion over the definition of what a "jihadist" is.
But to call Jesus a crusader, when the crusaders murdered many innocent Jews, seems absurd to me.
Then by all means, clarify the confusion, I'm all ears.
Difficult question. A simple answer is that those of us who are not ideologically aligned with or politically adjacent to such groups should go about making it difficult for these people to enact their agenda. Yes, I know. Honestly, I'd have to think about it quite a bit to come up with a more substantive answer on how to deal with it. On whether or not it should be allowed: if influencing the government to adopt Christianity as what would essentially be a state religion is necessary for Christian nationalism to be Christian nationalism (and that might not be the case, if I'm being generous), then we cannot let it exist. I mean that sincerely: it must not exist if we are to preserve the separation of church and state. How we go about fighting something like that, once again, I'm not totally sure.
I'm coming across so many different definitions that it's essentially rendering the term meaningless. Jihad is an actual concept within Islam, jihadism seems like it's just a pejorative that's associated with violence.
Tell me what part, or parts, of the following definition and characterization you don't agree with:
Quoting Wikipedia
EDIT: Furthermore,
Quoting Wikipedia
I don't disagree with any of it. Jihad is a real thing; jihadism, as far as I can tell, is basically a pejorative.
It applies to some religious tenets. If your religion requires you to punch nonbelievers in the face, that shouldn't be tolerated.
I'm thinking that we can say that "Jihadism" represents part of the religion of those Muslims who accept and practice Jihad in the "outer" and violent sense.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I take it that this is not pejorative. I take it that Jihadis would not disagree with this description of themselves.
I doubt it. In anycase, even if all support for Israel vanished and all troops were pulled out of the region, there's been such a history of terrorism against the U.S., the U.S. would still conduct counterterrorism operations, and those operations alone would provide justification for the jihadists to attack the U.S. and it's allies. It's an insolvable problem until the jihadists vanish.
I take it that "religious tolerance" means tolerating religiously motivated acts. So if you do not tolerate the punch in question, then you are not practicing religious tolerance. You are being intolerant of a religion.
I think the only alternative is to say, "I am tolerating religiously motivated acts by prohibiting or censuring religiously motivated acts," which is contradictory.
Unless it's not a religion to begin with, which is why this is not an entirely private matter, it is in part a public matter. If public entities (such as federal entities) don't recognize it as a religion, then it's up to the believers to prove that they are a religion, and that their specific interpretation (i.e., their specific "denomination", if you will) is indeed a legitimate religious interpretation of their own scripture.
Quoting Leontiskos
The alternative is to demarcate, between religion and non-religion, just as we demarcate between science and non-science, art and non-art. As for the question of who should do the demarcation, that's another discussion. But I am convinced that it cannot be an entirely private matter, because it is related to public concerns.
Sure, but no one is arguing that Jihad is not religious.
Then this should be all muslims, at least in theory. Outer jihad is a veritable part of jihad and jihad is a veritable part of Islam.
When I look up the term the articles specify that it only applies to "extremist" groups and not the average, peace-loving muslim.
Some Muslim scholars argue that jihadism, understood as the violent overthrow of a non-Muslim state, is not compatible with Islam, and it is therefore not the correct, religious interpretation of what Jihad is in the context of the Muslim religion.
I wouldn't expect any country to blanketly tolerate all religious tenets. The tenets that infringe on other's rights of non-interference will not be tolerated and should not be.
Right:
Quoting Leontiskos
-
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Okay, but I don't see this as sufficient for the conclusion that Jihadism is not religious. Even if the Jihadi is not a "real Muslim," what they are doing still seems to be a religious act. On the premise that they are not a "real Muslim," their religion is a deviant form of Islam, but I don't see how this quantitatively small deviation from "true Islam" can cause the Jihadi to be non-religious.
There is a theological difference between a religion and a sect, which is why there is a theological difference between religious behavior and sectarian behavior. The leader of a doomsday cult, who tells his followers that he is the Second Incarnation of Christ and that they, being his loyal followers, must commit mass suicide, is not behaving religiously as a Christian should nor as a Christian would, he is behaving in a non-Christian, sectarian way.
(slightly edited for clarity)
Let me try to cut to the chase a bit. What if Jihadis win the entirety of the judicial placements in the Islamic schools? At which point all of the Islamic authorities favor "Jihadism" as part of Islam? What happens then? I submit that all the people who are now pointing to those scholars and schools that oppose Jihadism would simply pivot and claim that religious tolerance is not unconditional, and that the religion of Islam does not need to be tolerated vis-a-vis Jihad. I don't think they would claim that Islam is no longer a religion.
So the buck stops at the fact that nations (including especially secular nations) do not tolerate the violence of Jihadism. If it is non-religious they won't tolerate it, and if it is religious they won't tolerate it. It makes no difference whether it is religious or non-religious. It's not as though if the Islamic authorities can convince everyone that Jihad is part of Islam, then Jihad will be tolerated. Besides, I find the implicit idea here that religions are never inherently violent to be simply ahistorical.
Of course not. Why would they? Secular nations delegate the monopoly of violence to a particular group of people (I.e., law enforcement). Those are the only people that can use force in a legitimate way, and only under certain conditions (i.e., proportionality, circumstance, level of threat, etc.).
Quoting Leontiskos
Indeed.
Quoting Leontiskos
It's actually a really simple theological point to make: for Muslims, the inner jihad is more important than the outer jihad. The inner jihad is one's effort to be good, not evil. The outer jihad, however you wish to define it, is less important, by definition, and this is literal scripture, it's not open to interpretation. Of course, no one is under the obligation to convert to Islam. But if you're a Muslim, it would be heretical to say that the outer jihad is more important than the inner jihad.
I am not a sophisticated student of Middle East or Islamic history, but it seems to me that what we call jihadism is primarily a political movement juiced up by religion. Solve the political problem and we solve the rest. We solve the political problem by getting out of the way. The jihadis are only a problem if they are coming after us or our friends. Within Islam they can work it out for themselves.
As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with Imams wanting to set up sharia law in western countries. They're not coming to set up the New World Caliphate.
If the terrorists stopped terrorizing, why would we keep conducting counterterrorism? Islam is not another evil empire coming to get us.
Counterpoint: if the US and the rest of the region hadn't rapidly stood up a massive air campaign against IS as they advanced into the Baghdad suburbs in 2014 (and provided significant ground support) it seems fairly obvious that IS would have taken most of Iraq, all of Syria, and likely expanded into Lebanon by 2016.
Even with a massive amount of air and artillery support it still took almost three years to retake Mosul, with the siege of the city lasting 9 months after the initial encirclement and resulting in civilian losses that were, on some measures, a significantly higher proportion of the population than Gaza to date.
Essentially, IS wasn't going anywhere without the coalition carrying out an extremely large scale air campaign. IS was smashing through US trained and equipped Iraqi divisions despite huge numerical and material disadvantages, fighting Iran and Hezbollah and winning, fighting other Jihadis and winning, and advancing against both Russia and the SAA, while also engaged and making progress on a third major front while tangling with both the Kurds and the Turks.
There is very little reason to think the problem would have just "gone away."
Many of the countries with the largest Jihadi problems are hostile to Israel and have essentially no footprint in the Middle East. Likewise, Iran, Hezbollah, and other "Shia kufar," threatened with Salafi Jihad are not exactly huge fans of Israel.
And the military and special agents.
The creation and expansion of ISIS was a direct result of the destruction of government and military infrastructure in Iraq by the US. We were stepping in to solve a problem we created. Let's stop causing those problems to begin with.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Which other targets of jihad are you talking about? If it's not us or our allies, why should we get involved. Let them work it out for themselves.
That's a big if. Islam isn't an evil empire, and the Islamic holy book itself isn't any worse than the Bible or Torah, but for whatever reason, many Muslims have an archaic worldview where women are little more than property, violence against LGBTQ folk is justified, democracy is shunned, corrupt strongmen rule, and jihad against infidels is applauded. That's not going to change if we stop supporting Israel and wash our hands of the region. We would still be viewed as the Great Satan.
Youll note the caveat so long as he doesnt transgress anothers right to do the same. When that happens all bets are off.
Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Chad, CAR, etc. Southeast Asia has had its share of Jihadi groups too.
I think it's a small to medium sized if. If we can extricate the west from the religious and political conflicts within the Islamic world, admittedly a tall order, I don't see why they would care about us anymore.
As I asked previously, why should we get involved with those areas? What possible good could we do?
:up:
I don't have much to offer to this complex problem. What I would say is that we need to hold Islamic groups responsible for Islamic individuals, such that this pressure causes Islamic groups to eschew Jihadism.
Fair enough. I do think that it cannot be accomplished by people external to Islam, however, and some progressive Muslims need to take a stand. In fact, I would say that a coalition of progressive, open-minded Muslims pushing for reform would be worth far more than anything any of us could ever do or say from the outside to change attitudes and influence Muslims not to be radicalized.
And surely the way to go about empowering any reformers does not contain committing war crimes, like droning people all over the place or supporting the genocide of the Palestinians.
NOS, they literally aim to set up a state governed by Islamic principles, probably through armed conflict. Jihadists must transgress others' rights by definition or they are just cosplaying. That should be obvious to anyone with a big wrinkly libertarian brain such as yourself.
Neo-nazis aim for a white-ethno state governed by Hitlerian principles. Commies aim for a a totalitarian state and the abolition of property. Republicans aim for a state governed by a piece of paper. Greens want the state to control the economy and the weather. Every power-seeker and politico from fringe to establishment seeks to transgress your rights. Thats how politics works. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. What isnt obvious is that we need to reform one and not the other.
I'm skeptical this is true. As I've mentioned in a previous post, I think your statement would be correct about the Middle East and our own status as a target for terrorism, but Islam has enough internal discord to explain a lot of other conflicts.
Right. That seems like a key point.
First off, neo-Nazis are indeed to be fought, just not with rifles or bombs because they don't usually commit to armed warfare against any ideologies or people who oppose them - at least in the US. That is because they would get stomped. So, they scuttle around on the fringes of the internet only coming into the light to seize political opportunities like a mouse might seize upon a rotten bit of cheese to safely further their idiotic agenda and sate their appetites for relevancy. That is very different from Jihadis. They will just cut your head off for disagreeing, stone your wife to death, and take your daughters as sex slaves. One of those two things is a much more overt threat to one's liberty, as anyone with half a brain would be able to tell.
As for the rest of those groups: yes, sometimes those groups seek to transgress one's rights. But there is something to be said for the degree to which freedoms are transgressed, and the reasons for transgressing those freedoms. "Greens", for instance, clearly have no desire to curtail certain freedoms for the sake of curtailing freedoms, but rather to maintain organized life on Earth. Which you should view as absolutely justified if you aren't psychotic. As for communists: yes, communism undoubtedly lends itself to the curtailment of freedoms, I grant that. But you seem to think everyone except for big-brain NOS is being scammed out of their rations by a bunch of grifting idealogues.
That, I would argue, is largely not the case, especially for the groups you just mentioned. One isn't a nazi if one doesn't hate, one isn't a communist if one doesn't want property to be publicly owned, and one isn't a Republican if one doesn't support King Donald when the rubber meets the road. One also doesn't care about the environment if one opposes measures to stop destroying the environment - even if that means curtailing some freedoms in (probably) relatively mild ways. Those are essential qualities that are required for membership of those groups and that inform those groups' ideologies. That is to say, most of those people in those groups understand what they are supporting. If anyone is being misled by ideology, it is the person who would equate the potential for transgressing freedoms between all those groups because they can't understand the limitations of looking at the world in such stark terms as you do, NOS.
So, I would argue that certain ideologies should be reformed over others, largely because the degrees to which freedoms would be transgressed and the reasons for transgressing those freedoms, are, once again, not identical across the ideologies, and the people who support the ideologies know it - just like you do, NOS. A Nazi is not equivalent to a "Green", and you know it. If that still doesn't make sense, here is a quick thought experiment:
Would you rather live in a white, Nazi ethnostate predicated on Hitlerian principles (whatever the fuck a Hitlerian principle is), or a United States that has made some economic sacrifices and sacrifices of personal freedom to support not destroying the environment? Which of those two worlds transgresses more of one's freedoms in all likelihood?
I go for the world where no one transgresses anothers freedoms so long another doesnt transgress theirs. And those ideologies fall squarely into the category that would. I require no other distinguishing categories because the instinct and behavior to coerce and force others to speak, act, and to believe in certain ways is inherent in each, in the Islamist just as it is in you. Their ideologies ought to inform their own beliefs and behaviors, how they live their own lives, not ours.
Unfortunately it is without irony that the reasons you would seek to reform Jihadism, to purge them of their evil beliefs, is the same reasons why they seek to purge you of yours. In the mean time your defence of power furnishes them precisely with the means to do so.
You and I don't agree very often, but this is exactly right.
So, there is never a justification for transgressing other's freedoms unless one's own freedoms are directly being transgressed. That isn't what you were saying earlier, which was basically that all of the ideologies you listed are equally injurious to our freedoms, which is clearly not the case. You say they all fall into the same category, but does intent actually mean so little to you? Is there no such thing as a greater good worth compelling or limiting people's actions for ever?
I mean, if all it took was a small decrease in quality of life for everyone so that humanity could continue to inhabit the Earth, you don't think that could be justified? In opposing that measure would you not be transgressing the freedoms of countless others - perhaps billions - to live their lives through your principled opposition to having your freedom to pollute and destroy transgressed? I think according to your own reasoning you are wrong, NOS.
Furthermore, there is no redeeming value to be found in ignoring or allowing Jihadism, and I see no reason not to help the people who are most affected by it, which is Muslims, reform their religion successfully, if only because many of them don't want to live in an Islamic state themselves. I mean, those people are having their freedoms transgressed by the Jihadis, are they not? You should want to help them, NOS.
I hope you are just agreeing with him because you took an adversarial position towards the OP in the first place. NOS is being really unreasonable here, as usual.
I didn't take "an adversarial position." I disagreed with what you wrote. And I agreed with what NOS4A2 wrote in the specific post I was responding to.
Besides that, questioning a person's motives is not a legitimate argument.
Thats right; I dont care if they believe they will bring about heaven on Earth. Every ideologue claims he has the intent to better the world through his power, theft, and impositions, if only he could bend the state and the people to his whim, but history shows that it never turns out as intended. In fact I doubt their intent entirely and conclude that they just want to tell people what to do in the hopes of fashioning society in their image. I prefer to let justice be done though the heavens fall, myself.
Reform is what they do to people in prison, and look how well that has worked out for the islamists. European prisons are a breeding ground for recruitment.
The way it has now been framed by the West is to make it seem like this problem is somehow inherent to Islam, to avoid facing the backlash of decades of malpractice.
In reality, virtually every Islamic extremist group can be directly tied to US-Israeli interventions, and regularly these extremist groups were directly supported by the US and/or Israeli government and secrets services at one point or another - IS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.
The US and Israel are the pink elephant in the room, occasionally supported by English or French lackeys.
Then you are okay with the end of organized life on Earth because you think no one has the right to transgress your rights unless you transgress theirs, and every person who has ever claimed to believe in a greater good is a swindler. Got it.
There are groups of people who have a lot of power that push for profits through the destruction of the environment to our detriment and without regard for suffering or the existential threat the destruction poses. It seems to me that the corporations, billionaires, and lobbyists in question are transgressing our rights to maintain our ways of living. If that is true, are we not justified in resisting forcefully?
edit: by forceful I mean taking preventative measures that might include restricting freedoms - economic or personal. I don't mean violence.
Since you can both predict the end of our species and
provide the means to prevent it, what are the answers?
Im not ok with the end of life on Earth. I just believe youre more likely to bring it about before any of your bogeymen, and youll make our remaining time here more miserable while doing so.
I was a classical liberal once. Maybe I still am. Not sure. It's not always easy to define what a right is. Protest is a right, of course, but what about protesting outside of religious buildings specifically while services are ongoing? Or how about blasting noise outside of religious buildings during services as a form of protest? Harassment or free speech? It's not always so clear cut. As long as the intolerant minority remains insignificant it's easy to be tolerant.
That is at least partially an easy question to answer, but mostly irrelevant to our discussion. What I, some random person on a forum, thinks we ought to do, doesn't matter. What does matter is that it is true that sacrifices of freedom can be justified for the greater good. That is, if one isn't so conspiracy-minded that one believes that people who want to protect the environment are equivalent to Jihadis. Sure, the latent potential to control and transgress rights is there even with environmentalism, I guess, but it would be really dumb to think that those two groups - jihadis and environmentalists - are comparable in terms of their goals, the degree to which they (might) want to stifle freedoms, and how they would go about it. In fact, it would be moronic.
Quoting NOS4A2
Okay, so let's unpack that. You appear to be saying that a worldwide Islamic caliphate is less likely to make life on Earth difficult to maintain than if we curtailed a few freedoms for everyone and protected the environment (that is, if the curtailment of freedoms were necessary to do so). Or you are saying that jihadis cause less destruction in pursuing their radical, violent agenda than people who want to protect the environment who might try to legislate some changes in the way we live. Or you could be saying both. You don't see any problems with either of those statements?
It isn't true that sacrificing someone's freedom can be justified for The Greater Good, and for two simples reasons. You do not know what The Greater Good is nor how to attain it. What is true, however, is that the environmentalist and the Jihadi both believe they know do know it and how to attain it (or at least they say they do) and both involve imposing their ideologies on others through injustice and the abuse of power.
I want neither an Islamic nor environmentalist caliphate to govern my life, is what I'm saying.
You speak of curtailing another's freedoms as if it's something you do every other Tuesday. Is this common behavior for you? Or is it a sort of fantasy you have?
In free speech discourse it's called the Heckler's Veto. I don't think drowning out someone's speech with your own is free speech, but rather a form of censorship. It denies both the speaker's right to speak and the listener's right to hear it.
NOS, if we don't do what is necessary to protect the environment no one will even be around to enjoy the freedoms you claim to have in mind for humanity. Either we do what we have to, or no one has any freedoms. Should I say it in a different way? The Greater Good means doing what it takes to maintain a society that affords the people in it at least some freedoms, even if it means that some must be restricted.
You are being dense.
Furthermore, I don't see a fundamental difference between not allowing people to have bazookas and curtailing our freedoms in some small ways (such as imposing certain laws to reduce pollution) for the continuance of a society in which people are free to live comfortably. Why don't you argue for people to have the right to possess and shoot bazookas, NOS?
Quoting NOS4A2
First off, that doesn't address the point I was making. Second, if you are not aware that your life is already governed in many ways by far more sinister and predatory entities than environmentalists, you are naive.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm going to forego the sardonic responses that come to mind when I read this.
Fair enough. Sorry, @NOS4A2. I could've said what I wanted to without the insults. I hope we can continue to be on good enough terms to have productive conversations still.
If that was true, Judaism would have died when the Assyrians invaded.
It nearly did. I'm talking more about the Romans though. The destruction of the temple and the defeat in two major rebellions caused Jews to radically rethink and moderate their theology.
Other than giving up animal sacrifice, what changes did they make?
No apology required, friend. I afford you every right every right to call me dense, naive, or whatever else suits your fancy. I guess we can postpone the conversation until other people can handle it.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-after-the-temple/
Quoting BC
Jihadism is a very broad term.
I think we should talk more specifically about Sunni-extremism that followed Sayyid Qutb's ideas and came to be popular with Al Qaeda and later with ISIS/Islamic State. Very different from Shiite islamic revolutionaries from Iran, even if both have similarities.
First and foremost, the objective has been to create Islamic revolution in the Muslim population itself, the Ummah, and to overthrow the secular governments (at least in the view of the radicals themselves) now controlling the Muslim states and pave way for the righteous Caliphate. A way to get to this is to attack the West. This should be obvious from the Al Qaeda of the 1990's. Osama bin Laden declared back then that the US was the enemy and that it was OK killing American civilians, something that goes quite against the idea of jihad being a personal religious struggle and a defensive war to protect Islam. This actually is something similar to what the Iranian islamic revolution has and why Iran has been opposing so much Israel, a country with the former Imperial Iran had lukewarm relations. Declaring to be against Israel has been the way for Iran to spread it's revolution and vitaly to the effort, because otherwise the idea of having a war with a country so far away simply doesn't make sense. But it works wonders for the zealots of the revolution, just as was taking the US Embassy workers prisoners. Because the US was the Great Satan, after all, remember the ouster of Mossadegh and Operation Ajax?
The idea to attack the West, the US or European countries has an old idea in terrorism behind it: that the response of the West to these attacks would show the "true colors" of the West and hence create the environment for the Caliphate to emerge. This is similar to the thinking that for example the Red Army Fraction had in Germany: they were the fraction of the incoming "Red Army" emerging from the German "proletariat" that would rise in the future. By their attacks the Nazi state that West Germany was (according to them), would show it's true colors and unleash a wave of counter-terrorism, that would awake the masses. Well, West Germany responded by the matter being dealt by the police and the Bundeswehr wasn't involved in anything in the fight against the RAF (Rote Armee Fraction). No actual "Rote Armee" emerged in West Germany.
But not so with the financier Osama bin Laden and the fringe group Al Qaeda. Perhaps the US didn't bomb the Holy Sites of Mecca, but they did go after him by occupying a country where OBL was. And in the end killed him in Pakistan, were he was kept as a chess piece by the Pakistanis. The idea didn't die with OBL.
The whole thing did achieve a short term success briefly. We did have a former Al Qaeda member (that had broken with Al Qaeda) declaring himself the Caliph and the IS gaining control of territory. The franchising of the idea has been also successful, so successful that an retired US veteran drove into people in New Orleans with an ISIS flag waving from the vehicle.
(Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declaring all is good in the Caliphate in 2014)
Yet the focus should be in the Muslim states themselves here and how they view this debacle. Well, if there was indeed support after 9/11 and Palestinian crowd did praise the attack, the brutal ways of Al Qaeda and ISIS have really changed that in the Middle East. It's extremely telling just what happened in Syria, where the victorious HTS group and it's leader Ahmed al-Sharaa had been fighting alongside Al Qaeda, had been imprisoned in Iraq by the US, and then had a rift with IS and it's Caliphate. And now is deemed as an apostate by the remnants of ISIS/IS still lurking in the country.
(Ahmed al-Sharaa, on the right, and not wanting a Caliphate in 2025)
Now many actually in the Arab street think that ISIS was invented by the Americans and Israel, in the way that perhaps one Iron Man movie with the "Mandalorian" as the villain was portrayed. The conspiracy theory is similar to the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theories. Just like in the civil war in Algeria, the radicalism of the jihadist themselves turned on themselves. And likely was used by the Algerian junta, just as Assad tried to use them in Syria. But in the end, the extremism of jihadism kills the revolution itself, just like we have seen from many different historical revolutions where the extremists have gained control.
But the focus isn't on the Muslim states or the Middle East. The terrorist attacks happen in the West that we are afraid of. Jihadism and the response to jihadism is now part of our "culture war" rhetoric. The next mass murdering lunatic that wants publicity can happily get from the net the IS regalia and have the franchise continue. And Islamophobia is alive and kicking and will remain so.
So what to do with jihadism (and thank for reading so far, if you have)?
First thing is what to do in the Middle East. Then is what to do in our own countries. The two are totally different issues and need totally different policies. To blanket them with one response will lead to failure. How do we improve the situation in Middle Eastern countries that Messianic extremist groups cannot emerge and be prominent actors? This is both a political and counter-terrorism/military issue and has to be done helping the muslim countries themselves. Blaming ourselves for past actions doesn't get us anywhere, it's what we do now what counts.
Then the home front. How do we get estranged people willing to commit mass murder? How do we manage relationships with muslim minorities and stop radicalization among them? That's another issue. Jihadism will work as the lightning rod for migration policies and here also there needs to be a broad response with policies that at first don't seem to be related.
Usually the most effective policies seem too bland, far too long to explain and too lousy, actions of whimps, for those who want to ride with the scare of Islamophobia. And usually the simple tweets and comments given by our politicians backfire. Just like George W Bush declaring that the US is on a Crusade against jihadists. Or islamofascists or whatever.
Stay tuned to the next event and the next response to it.
Really interesting. Thanks for the context.
I wasn't clear to me from what you wrote, do you disagree with the steps I described, think they don't go far enough, or something else? Keep in mind that the goal I've set is not to solve the problem of jihadism but just to make it no longer the US's problem..
Quoting T Clark
Well, years ago when Ron Paul was campaigning for the Republican candidacy in 2008, I thought his simple line getting all the troops had a lot of merit. Wouldn't it be great that the US simply didn't mess around so much? It's a nice idea, but then we have to understand that not everything the US has done has been wrong. Above all, not everything bad that happens is because of US actions. US inaction can have a worse outcome. Usually when the US has been able to gather a large alliance and especially when it has gotten an UN permission, the military actions have been just, understandable and needed. When it has NOT been so, when the US hasn't been able to gather a broad coalition, when it has operated by itself, the outcome has been usually a disaster.
Was it right to defend South Korea against a Russian sponsored North Korean attack? I think yes, personally I like K-pop and stuff that comes out of the country. And the country finally has been a democracy and the South Koreans are far more better off than their Northern counterparts.
Was it right to create a large coalition and drive out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait? I think yes. That was the second aggressive war that Saddam had started toward it's neighbors, even if Kuwait had backed it in the war against Iran. Back then the US followed the advice of it's Arab allies and didn't go into Iraq. Unfortunately this success lead to neocons going later berserk.
Jihadism isn't the reason why the US is in Middle East. Actually there are countries that are OK with the US and do want it to be around. So what would happen if the US left? Well, that creates a vacuum, which is filled by some way.
We can already see what happens when the US has lost interest: other regional actors take it's place. Just look at how active in Africa have the Gulf States have become (in Libya and Sudan). Look at the actions of Turkey. Or how Saudi-Arabia went to war with Yemen and nearly went to war with a GCC member, Qatar.
So I think there is a role for the US to play in the Middle East, but more of leadership role than unitary actions. Unfortunately especially the Trump administration doesn't care a shit about creating alliances and bringing states together.
Quoting T Clark
Which regimes you define to be repressive Islamic regimes? Do note that Islam is far closer to the state as Mohammed himself was the first leader of the Muslim state. Hence it's no wonder that Arab states, especially those which are monarchies, do have state religion. Do you put into this category Saudi-Arabia? How about the UAE or Egypt? What about Jordan? And how about the wavering states of Lebanon and Syria?
Quoting T Clark
Well, this has a thread of it's own where I've voiced my opinion about this. In short, this has far more to do with domestic politics in the US than is about foreign policy and not because of the Jewish American voters, but because of the millions of Christian Evangelists who see supporting Israel as a religious matter. And as I've said in that thread, France was earlier the supporter of Israel, not so the US. And the Cold War era thinking doesn't have anything anymore to do with the US-Israeli relationship as it did earlier.
(Bibi talking to his American base)
Yeah, I'm sure you do, but having a right to do something doesn't make it a good thing to do. Thus, I apologized.
Yes, my reaction to the idea of just getting out was a positive one. It seemed that, as Randy Newman put it...
It also seems like many of our expeditions end badly, damage our national security, or both. I worry especially about how we have put ourselves at risk - right now I'm particularly concerned about Taiwan and Israel and maybe Ukraine. You and I recently discussed how some people around the world see US's role as a positive one. That and other world events have made me moderate my attitude some. If only we would stop tripping over our own feet so much.
Problem is, there are still a lot of people here who want us to keep taking on the "superpower" role. You see a lot of this here on the forum - people willing to risk world war for little potential gain beyond their own jingoistic pleasure. You see the same attitude from many American politicians. They want us to invade Iran or Cuba (or Greenland and Panama).
Quoting ssu
Are you saying that jihadis would still target the US if we stopped our ineffective meddling in the Muslim world, especially the Middle East? That strikes me as unlikely, but you are more knowledgeable about world affairs than I.
Quoting ssu
I'm not sure, in spite of your affection for K-pop. I think we did it for the same reasons we went into Vietnam - to resist the USSR and China. Whatever would have happened in a unified Korea, I think the world would be a more stable place if we had stayed out. The same with Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Taiwan...
Quoting ssu
At least from the US perspective, who cares? It's not our job, shouldn't be our job, to stop all the bad things in the world.
Quoting ssu
Maybe... I'm not sure.
Quoting ssu
Good question. What comes to mind is pre-revolution Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, pre-war Iraq. Tell me I'm wrong. As I said, I think your understanding of conditions is better than mine, although I think your values are different - Europe-centric.
Quoting ssu
I agree and it creeps me out. But I also think there is more to it than that. I think older American's, including Biden and other recent presidents, have a sincere ingrained belief we have a moral and political responsibility to support Israel.