Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
"Implicit in such fundamentalism is the dismissal of law and natural moral." - fundamentalism is a strict adherence to religious practices. I am not sure what you mean by "dismissal of law and natural moral?" Please explain.

"fascist form of religion." - there have been many political commentators who have used this term. It depends on whose definition of fascism you use.

"you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists." - you could but these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

'Develop that part of the world'? -  economic development and investment.

"Our oil money already brought great prosperity into the parts where there is oil." - great prosperity for who exactly?

"What about the incumbent?" - Bush is not going to be President in 2009 and I would not expect coherent insight on this matter from him other than "it's hard work."

"solving other people's problems?" - no but they became our problem on 9/11/01 and the root cause of that needs to be addressed.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists." - you could but these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

Wahhabism, goes back to the eighteenth century. Although Wahhabites usually call themselves Salafists, modern salafism started at the beginning of the twentieth century, before the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan al-Banna, who called himself a salafist and a soufi. And long before the creation of Israel.

You should do some research and reading before posting...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 07:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are not reading what I wrote.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see I missed this, and despite your announcement to go and my good-bye, I answer.

I am not sure what you mean by "dismissal of law and natural moral?" Please explain.

Strict adherence to religious practices means you follow them above all, i.e. if there is conflict with law, you prefer the religious rules. By natural moral I basically mean the Goldden Rule and basic human compassion: strict adherence to religious law overrules that, too. (See Abraham on the mountain.)

there have been many political commentators who have used this term

Yes, there have been. That doesn't establish why you feel justified to use it, anonymous reference doesn't establish authoritative use. Almost everyone in the world has been called fascist by someone.

these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

Neither Wahhabism nor Salafism is modern. If you mean that modern followers of Wahhabism and Salafism have been cross-pollinated by Muslim Brotherhood thinking, that's a rather weaker point than your original, and one could say just as well that the cross-pollination went both ways (and many other ways).

economic development and investment

Do you think specifying that makes the intrusiveness of your policy different?

great prosperity for who exactly?

Saudis, Kuweitis, Bahrainis, Kataris, citizens of the UAE, Oman, and to some extent even Lybia. You seem to lack any knowledge about standards of living there.

I would not expect coherent insight on this matter from him other than "it's hard work."

You have praised him before for being on the ball where Clinton wasn't. Coherence seems to lack here.

they became our problem on 9/11/01 and the root cause of that needs to be addressed.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, not even with what you suppose to be its root cause, there was no Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Iraq before 9/11. There is now, and it is on a scale never seen before in other countries. And part of them are the death squads of US allies in government.

And on a theoretical level, no, it didn't became 'your problem' on 9/11, it became when the US took over the Middle East from the British Empire, and no, your problem still doesn't justify attempts to rule people instead of letting them self-rule.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 11:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series