June 4, 2007
Muslims in Europe, continued
“Do you lick a dick a day?” No mother likes to be asked that sort of question by her eight-year-old son – particularly over breakfast. But my wife stayed calm. She turned to my son and asked him coldly, which of his friends had taught him this horrid little ditty? “Jamila”, he replied.
This was a surprise. Jamila is a Muslim child who wears the veil. Islamic piety has its drawbacks, but I had assumed it provided some protection against smut. However, on reflection, I found the episode strangely heartening. The British often agonise about whether Muslim immigrants are assimilating with the mainstream. Jamila’s taste in doggerel suggested to me that – behind the veil - assimilation is proceeding apace.
A friend of mine in the oil industry had a similar sort of experience, flying back from the Middle East recently. As he settled into his seat, two modestly-veiled Asian women sat down behind him. As soon as the plane took off, they removed their veils – ordered a couple of rum and cokes in London accents – and proceeded to get raucously plastered all the way back to Heathrow. Encountering drunken “laddettes” is normally one of the less pleasing aspects of modern British life. But, on this occasion, my friend made an exception. He cheered silently, every time the two girls downed another double.
Of course, anecdotes can be deeply misleading. Remember the confusion in Britain, when it emerged that the 7/7 bombers, who attacked the London underground, not only had Yorkshire accents, but even played cricket? How could they seem so British, but be willing to attack their fellow citizens?
Good question. So I wouldn’t want to be too sanguine about superficial signs of integration. But my anecdotes from the playground and the plane do still encourage me. There are certainly Muslims in Britain who want to detach themselves from the society around them, in pursuit of a medieval, religious fantasy. Some are even willing to use violence to pursue that end. And they can doubtless do a lot of damage.
But, in the long run, the attractions of modernity will surely overwhelm the forces of fundamentalism. Just think of what we have to offer: the Enlightenment, scientific progress, free inquiry, religious and political tolerance, prosperity, women’s liberation, sex, alcohol. The fundamentalists, by contrast, can offer a life of religious devotion and the vague hope of a revival of the Caliphate. It’s no contest.
truly heartwarming to read your article.
Posted by: Tariq Hama | June 4th, 2007 at 5:59 pm | Report this commentFrom a muslim, vast majority of us are not fundamentalists. we feel we have integrated well and respect our fellow beings and their beliefs.
I am afraid it is the easily led and the fanatics that we need to to be careful of
First, I want to say that I very much like your articles! The way you often provide insigtful analyses in a delightful manner is very refreshing.
Sure that “women’s liberation, sex, alcohol” are the source of delightful moments. None will disagree that it is very pleasant to have a few drinks with a georgeous, smart, witty, and perhaps slightly naughty woman. But what about frightening feminists, hangover and moral relativism ? I am not convinced that “the Enlightenment, scientific progress, free inquiry, religious and political tolerance, prosperity, women’s liberation, sex,[and] alcohol” are enough to overwhelm the forces of fundamentalism. There is probably a difficult issue with identity…Anyway, the nomintation of Rachida Dati to the position of French Minister of Justice goes in your direction. By the way she’s charming, smart and witty…
Posted by: Ibn Rushd | June 4th, 2007 at 9:38 pm | Report this commentOh Dear! What a load of non-sense!!!
Surely, Mr. Rachman, on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict, you could have come up with something more insightful, in tune with the description of your blog (US foreign policy & the “war on terror”) than this piece of droll that bases the hope for Muslim integration on sex & alcohol???
Do you even know that the majority of terrorists, ranging from Muhammad Atta to Siddique Khan led lives/had led lives that can hardly be described as pious? If sex led to integration, all those black American slave women who slept with their white American masters would have felt truly integrated.
No, integration comes from justice. Justice and equality.
So, here is the scenario. What moral argument would you make to stop an English muslim, full of his belief in the invisible Allah, from flying to Palestine to fight Israel when an English Jew, full of his belief in the invisible God & the promised land can fly to & fight for Israel?
Meanwhile, the visible U.N, which the last time I checked is not an anti-semitic body, believes that in this game of the invisible Allah/God, Israel, in her occupation of Palestine, is the party that is in violation of international laws.
As for me, I am going out to get pissed, who knows I might even get lucky … and then I will feel truly integrated!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | June 4th, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Report this commentSex and alcohol are a normal part of people’s life. Some wait till marriage, some don’t. Some prefer not to drink, but whether you are muslim or not, you are still human and want certain things.
The article is great. Have you seen the movie Babel?? There was some kind of incest between muslim kids. If you are muslim, it doesn’t mean you don’t want sex or get married or have fun.
I don’t understand the logic of last article. Now blacks are assimilated very well in the US. Barack Obama. There are some black who are recognised around the World for their achievements (Denzel Washington, Shaq O’Neill, Michael Jordan, Will Smith, Roger Ferguson, Thierry Henry etc) whilst there are very few muslims who achieved that. Surely blacks are more assimilated by accepting western culture including sex and alcohol.
It is in the muslim World where there is no equality. No churches, no rights for women, can’t drink in small amounts etc. In the US or the UK everyone is equal.
With regard to Palestine and Israel. People who go and fight for Palestine, how does that help palestiniean people?? They are not better off if their money is spent on weapons to kill Israelis, they only suffer from people who ‘fight for it’. Its better if people don’t fight for Palestine and money is spent buildin schools and hospitals. Israel fights HAMAS, but in Israel you can earn money to take care of your family. ‘Fightsers for Palestine’ can’t do anything to improve standards of life.
Posted by: Chen | June 5th, 2007 at 10:58 am | Report this comment‘Do you even know that the majority of terrorists led lives that can hardly be described as pious?’.
I want to comment on that. Most muslims that I know who come to the the US or the UK from Saudi Arabia drink like HELL and go out with prostitues A LOT. They don’t do it in their home country not because they believe it’s not good or cuz of Islam but simply cuz they will be punished there.
Even Saudi Kings go to UAE for drinks and girls. Many muslims embrace sex and alcohol openly. If I have to name group of people who are most strict about it I would name the chinese.
Posted by: John | June 5th, 2007 at 11:07 am | Report this commentBut there is another side to this story.
Just consider Iranian cinema. Constrained by the authorities from representing sex and violence, and with a long philosophical tradition including Islam, but also many other influences, Iranian film makers moved towards films driven by plot, characters and philosophical observation, producing some of the finest cinema in the world.
Lets not get so smug that we can’t learn from others: It is also we who are assimilating to our new cultural realities.
Posted by: Daniel Taghiof | June 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm | Report this commentDaniel, Iranian movies are one of the worst in the World. I have seen a couple, they are full of lies and islamic propaganda. I can bet my house that no iranian movie will be nominated for an Oscar in the next 10 years.
Posted by: John | June 7th, 2007 at 1:55 am | Report this commentDaniel said: ‘producing some of the finest cinema in the world’. Are kidding us?? Their budget is 100000 bucks or so, actors are not taught, especially women cuz it can be ‘unislamic’ to show emotions including love.
Sex and alcohol are a normal part of many people’s life.
Dear Mr. Rachman,
It is true that Enligtenment, scientific progress, free enquiry…etc. are all very attractive but are those what the West has offered to the Muslim world or the “Third World”, in general?
Don’t you consider the possibility that you might have become a tad complacent?
Do you seriously think that the anti-West feelings are aroused because of the above things being “offered”?
Don’t you think the hatred accorded to the West might, just might, be because the West has used its technical and scientific advantages to offer the “South” other things such as colonialism, exploitation and humiliation?
Doesn’t the West prop up venal and cruel regimes right across the Third World just so long as ther are “our son of a bitches”? Isn’t the Saudi regime and the scandal with BAe not typical of the problems involved?
Aren’t the above the true face that the West presents to the Third Worlders, Muslims included?
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pm | Report this commentPacifist, I think the west’s attitude is best illustrated by taking a peek at Darfur. While many countries turn a blind eye to the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people there, the west tries to find a way to stop the killing. Being bogged down in peacekeeping operations allover the world NATO countries have too few resources at their disposal to dedicate to saving those people; it would be a huge endeavour to go into Sudan without permission of the Sudanese and secure the area for the local population. We try to find willingness with other organisations such as the AU but they can’t seem to make a fist against the carnage either.
Countries such as China and many Arab countries are not turning a blind eye but are actively supporting the regime in Khartoum by investing in it and by selling it arms. Google Sudan Arab investment for details. What is especially disturbing is that Muslim Arab Sudanese are killing African Muslims in the hundreds of thousands and Muslim countries are not at all concerned about this racist genocide of people of their own religion, instead by their investments in Khartoum they condone it and help fund a government that is responsible for it.
After the fall of the Soviet Union most dictatorial states aligned with the US have become democratic (Korea, Taiwan, Peru, Indonesia, Phillipines) often after significant US pressure for them to become democratic; the opposite of what you claim. After the fall of the Soviet Union many nations (eg all Eastern European ones) became democratic. Sadly enough of all oil exporting countries only one (Norway) at this moment in time is a proper liberal democracy; oil rich elites are hard to displace. Countries all try to sell to oil rich countries to get some of their oil money back, in that process kickbacks and corruption are much rarer in democracies.
The best thing the west has to offer the world is the system of liberal democracy in which every single person has the right to vote for any person who wishes to be voted into office. More than that it offers everyone freedom to be who they want to be and for that freedom to be protected so that small groups of radicals and extremists cannot force the entire population into compliance. Many people seem to think that people in countries like Iran, Pakistan or Zimbabwe do not want or need or understand democracy but they have never been properly asked whether supporting terrorism or famine is what they wanted.
P, aren’t you pleased with the liberal freedom accorded to you? You can post here in this section of the Financial Times, imagine being Iranian like Arash Sigarchi and having the freedom to be as critically onerous as you are towards the Iranian government. Sigarchi is free now but many others that suffered his fate are still in jail.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam NL | June 9th, 2007 at 12:19 am | Report this commentPacifist, according to economics studies, those countries that were colonized are now on average 40% richer than those that were not colonized. I am talking about poor countries not including America. I read this article couple of months ago in the Economist in the ‘Economic Focus’ sectoin. You can check it out on your own.
Nowadays those countries that do not blame others for problems are prospering (China, South East Asia as a whole). They don’t say ‘We were colonised, so we can’t develop’.
United States was also a colony. So being a colony is not that bad, take the matter into your own hands.
Posted by: Chen | June 9th, 2007 at 1:26 am | Report this commentMuslim people are intolerant: when people discuss their problems to help them, they finger at others and claim ‘U have problem too, don’t bother with us’. Then they can’t solve their problem, become poor and hopeless, after that religious leaders blame America for their problems because they can’t blame anyone else.
If you argue with a muslim on some hot issue, if they disagree they claim ‘The World is better without u’. What the World is going to loose if muslims didn’t exist?? What the World would loose?? Nothing, muslims haven’t achieved anything in the last 10 centuries. No any scientific progress, no major peaceful movement like liberation of black people in America, instead women get less and less rights in the muslim World.
People say there are moderate muslims who are not like that. These moderate muslims: what have they done in order to combat extremists?? Nothing they just enjoy their life in the West and do nothing to counter their religious ‘brothers’ and don’t even aknowledge the problem by saying ‘Oh there are other issue. You non muslims also have problems’.
In Iraq it is Iran who sponsors terrorists to kill peaceful iraqi people, who are by the way also muslims. Muslims slaughter muslims, and whose fault is that?? America.
Yes America invaded Iraq, just like it invaded Japan once. Japanese instead of killing each other for their differences, built an economy that is number 2 in the World now. South Koreans built their economy with American presence. What muslims do? They kill each other and are considered to be heroes and liberation fighters for that by their fellow ‘brothers’.
Posted by: Non-muslim | June 9th, 2007 at 4:06 am | Report this commentFelix,
imho you have completely swallowed the old colonialist mentality of “bringing Christianity and civilisation to the savages” and are about to sing me a song about the White Man’s burden too
(Well, for “White Man”, substitute “N. American / W. European” and the same result obtains. )
You give the credit for the democratisation of some places not to themselves but to the US and bang the drum for Darfur but forget the West’s entire complicity in Palestine and Chechnya although I expect noises to be made about the Chechens now that the West appears at loggerheads with Moscow.
What is it about the Western HR advocacy (and hence, Western morality) that only follows economic and political self-interest and why shouldn’t we (the non-Westerners) see it with the same cynical gaze that regards us?
Yes Freedom of Speech is good but why do you think it is in the gift of the West to give to the South? Taking Mr. Sigarchi’s homeland of Iran, it had a self-generated attempt at democracy that was snuffed out by the Americans and unprecedented brutality was introduced in the Iranian society by the American and Israeli trainers of the Savak (the Shah’s secret police) which totally warped the Iranian society over the ensuing 25 years. The same acts were perpetrated all over the Middle East and Latin America and continue today by the US support for the likes of Saudis.
I could go on but, in a nutshell, your thesis is that non-Westerners are immature and child-like that deserve to be exploited like cattle and only can achieve democracy and freedom at the sufferance of the Westerners.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentChen,
There are lies, damned lies and then there’s the newly Neo-Con Economist magazine’s statistics.
What do you suppose the British, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch empires were? Forrunners to Unicef and Unesco and Oxfam?!
I am sure that all manners of holes can be picked in the methodology and scope of such “economic studies”.
Finally, for the dispossessed native people of the US, America has remained a colony and if you want to compare a colony with a non conlony you ought to take account of the holocaust of the native Americans.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pm | Report this commentEconomist is a credible magazine, much more credible than islamic magazines. The research paper that I was referring to was done by PhD economists with lots of experience. If some research suggests the results that you don’t like, don’t blame the people who have written it. Every article you don’t like Pacifist, you blame it on the authoer, ‘he is jew’, ‘he is neo con’, ‘Don’t trust them’. If research papers in the West were lies, US wouldn’t be strong.
Posted by: Chen | June 11th, 2007 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentYou have to rely more on science and less on your intuition.
You talking about holocoust of the native americans. You should also talk then of holocaust of people in Iran who express their views and go to prison if their views don’t match the one of the government.
If you don’t accept our facts and researches, why should we accept yours?? May be Quran was written by a prostitute for fun?? Prove me wrong. If you don’t accept western media and papers, why should we accept yours??
Dear Mr. Rachman,
I can tell from my own experience that the VEIL does nothing to save Islamic Muslim women from smut, contrary to what the Mullahs would like.
However it does achieve the bare minimum that the Mullahs would like it to achieve.Namely it makes them stand out like a sore thumb in every walk of life.And gradually they become used to this and assume this as their identity and will fight to keep this and other such handicaps on, though in their heart of hearts they would know that these are handicaps after all.
By the way I hope u have have made an earnest attempt to understand what Jamila’s comment was exactly about and Who whether a person or a group was it exactly aimed at.
Therein lies the answer to why people leading non-pious lives blew up the World trade Towers on that fateful day.
Regards,
Posted by: Satya | June 12th, 2007 at 6:30 am | Report this commentSatya
Chen,
you’re misinformed: the economist article refers to a study of small ocean islands - not large countries that may (iNdia) or may not (China) have been colonised.
The study does indeed indicate that former island colonies are now 40% richer than island left uncolonised, however, it seems this is largely attributable to the island’s location. The islands on the best trade routes were colonised first, so colonialisation was the RESULT of economic potential, rather than the CAUSE of economic growth.
Just seems to show that Western powers cherry-picked the best territories.
Posted by: D Jones | June 12th, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Report this commentHi Chen,
From what D Jones says, you have misunderstood the premise of the Economist article.
Even if the authors of the report were correct in their data-gathering and methodology, it still needed some basic knowhow on behalf of the report’s reader so it was probably wasted on your good self.
Moreover, to say that lack of political freedom in Iran is tantamount to holocaust confirms a lack of intellectual substance in your rather angry post.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm | Report this commentOk. In any way, USA was a colony and it is the richest country in the World.
Posted by: Chen | June 13th, 2007 at 12:17 am | Report this commentChina was colony, now it is growing.
Latin America was colony, now it is developing.
Hong Kong was colony - now it is paradise.
Iran is a poor country.
I know many iranians in the West who ran away from Iran.
D Jones, the article didn’t conclude the same way you did. It said there was a correlation between colonisation and growth. Economic growth these days has little to do with potential and resources available - Japan doesn’t have much resources, but it is 2nd Worlds economy now.
Internet, fancy aircrafts, computer technologies, advances in theoretical physics, economics, robots - all were done in the USA, Europe or Japan.
What Iran has given to the World??
You don’t recognise achivements done by the West, you only look at bad things and change the facts you want.
We can do the same and look only at bad things about Islam. Terrorism, womens rights abuse, lack of freedom - but we don’t do that. We consider Islam as a good and noble religion. Why you never be more open to other people’s values??
Although we disagree, I never said anything about your intellectual potential. But you did it. Don’t cross the boundaries - it is muslims who have least advances in the World.
D Jones - then western powers were colonising other countries they didn’t know what creates wealth, they could only guess. Trade was considered to be a zero sum game by many people at that time.
Posted by: Chen | June 13th, 2007 at 12:32 am | Report this commentMy point is after being a colony, countries have a chance to develop a strong system of the rule of law. Some countries missed this opportunity, but some used.
As I said before, few would consider Japan as a useful colony.
Pacifist, at least I read the article.
Middle East has lots of resources (good colony D Jones??), but many would agree that it is by far not the World’s most developed part.
It has fancy buildings, but wealth there is not created, oil has been there before.
I meant to say *when western powers were colonising*
Posted by: Chen | June 13th, 2007 at 12:33 am | Report this commentP, that is a sad attack on me personally.
Your qualification that I think that ‘non westerners’ “are immature and child-like that deserve to be exploited like cattle” are your words that you try to put in my mouth, but such words serve to reveal the Orwellian structure of your thinking. You do not know who I am or where I am from so I’d be very pleased if you could keep your preconceptions limited to your ideology and not extend it to me. I have always been very critical of Russia’s murderous campaign in Chechnya, I don’t believe that the situation between Israel and the Palestinians is as clear cut as you believe it is. I am a student of many different cultures and your assumption that a western world view dominates my thinking simply is not true and is not in evidence.
Meanwhile in Darfur tonight, by the force of statistic probability if not in actual fact, hundreds of people will be killed by Arab Islamic Janjaweed militia and those who could actually stop them from doing so are investing their ugly profits in Khartoum. And do we hear a word of protest from you? In the article below we have Mr. Ahmadinejad and el-Bashir being very friendly with each other while Sunni Muslims who also happen to be black in Mr. el-Bashir’s Sudan are being hunted and killed by the hundreds of thousands. These are Sunni muslems too, like the Palestinians. Don’t you think Mr. Ahmedinejad should fund the people of Darfur in their struggle against their oppressors? Not a chance and you know it. Mr. Ahmedinejad’s selective silence is sickening.
It is fine to be dogmatic but when it starts to override humanitarian ethics its just wrong, and you calling yourself Pacifist is so typically Orwellian it would be funny if it wasn’t so terribly sickening as well.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article20534
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | June 13th, 2007 at 2:13 am | Report this comment“The enemies schemes against the Sudanese people aiming to pressurize the government and nation are condemned by the Iranian nation,” he added. The Iranian president expressed satisfaction with the resistance of Sudan’s government and nation against such threats and declared Iran’s support for them.” What do you really think about that, P?
Dear Flelix,
You’re absolutely right to point out that I don’t know you personally but the comments I made were not about your personality but logical deductions of the views you express.
Darfur is, by and large, an intra-Muslim fight. The reason that your kind like to take sides there but not in Palestine or Chechnya is that, as I said before, the advocacy of Human Rights by the West is simply another weapon in their armoury of achieving political and economic advantage.
(The same consideration applies to the attitude towards the Iranian nuclear effort which, despite 3,500 man days of inspection by the IAEA, has not been shown to be aimed at weaponisation while, at the same time, the US breaches its own obligations under NPT by proposing to provide India (a non-signatory) with nuclear technology and by its own continued efforts in developing tactical nuclear weapons.)
The West has no problems whatsoever with Third-Worlders killing each other. In fact, as we are seeing right here and now, they actively foment civil war in both Iraq and Palestine. So please excuse me if I take a jaundiced view of your concerns about Darfur.
You ask me what I think of Ahmadinejad’s support for the Sudanese government? I think it stinks. Why does he do it? Because he also knows that there are bigger murderers in the world than Al Bashir who sit in the White House and 10 Downing Street or are supported by them and because Al Bashir is the enemy of his enemies.
Now I ask you what you think of various American and Israeli politicians making daily threats against Iran:
How about Joe Lieberman:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/2345
How about the Republican presidential candidates who seemed to be in competition about who would bomb Iran first?
How about the Israelis:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/2362
The conservatives’ general line is that the USraeli bombs are peaceful, civilising bombs and that in the long run they will “liberate” the Iranians. The same kind of thing that was said of the sanctions that killed (no not killed, but murdered) half a million Iraqi kids and the same that was said of the war on Iraq that has killed 650,000 Iraqis and counting.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 13th, 2007 at 12:44 pm | Report this commentHi Chen,
If you want a constructive discussion, then please post a link to the article you referred to. It is clear, at least to me, that you are misreading and misquoting.
(I am a subscriber to the Economist online, although due to the increasingly rightwing positions taken by the magazine, mainly to increase sales in the US, I shall not renew the subscripton).
To some extent, most countries have been colonies at some point during their existence. The points you make are a bit wide of the mark and I don’t think there is evidence that their colonisation helped them.
Thanks,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pm | Report this commentHi Chen,
sorry, I said you were misinformed - no comment on your intellect - but perhaps this was too personal…
…the article does indeed state there is a correlation between colonisation and economic development, but the causality seems unproven: the islands’ wealth derives from their location on trade routes, not their resources or their history…
…China seems a poor example of a successful ‘colony’. Even at its weakest there was a strong continuity in Chinese rule so it is hard to account for China’s ‘rule of law’ (or lack of it) by appealing to foreign rule.
The Middle East has a largely colonial history, first under the Ottomans then under French and British mandates. Many countries are wealthy (Arab oil states) and some are poor (Lebanon and Palestine - largely due to outside influence).
Iran is not that poor - comparing well to much of Latin America - its GDP per capita is higher than Equador, Colombia, Guatamala, Paraguay, Honduras, and Guyana (and, incidentally, China).
Posted by: D Jones | June 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm | Report this commentFelix,
US arms Sunni dissidents:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2100619,00.html
Of course , the cover story is that they are to fight Al Qaeda but the real intention is to foment civil war in Iraq.
Civil war in Iraq, civial war in Palestine, civil war in Iran (which the US is trying to stir up among the Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi minorities in Iran) and they shed crocodile tears over Darfur!!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 13th, 2007 at 1:02 pm | Report this commentI am from Kazakhstan and I live in the West, the only people who made jokes about Borat movie are muslims. No people from other religion did anything to hurt me about it, only muslims. When I said to them ‘Don’t do it I dont like it’, they only laughed enjoying my disappointment.
Posted by: Almaz | June 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Report this commentWhen my female friends from CIS countries go to Egypet or other middle eastern countries, they complain about muslis lookin at them like biggest perverts on earth.
Not all muslims like that, but there are many bad muslims and muslims don’t acknowledge that problem.
Pacifist, you wrote, “the cover story is that they are to fight Al Qaeda but the real intention [of the US] is to foment civil war in Iraq.”
Why does the US want to foment civil war in Iraq? The US depends heavily on oil exports from the Middle East and are not at all served by high oil prices, an oil shock caused by a widening war would be a disaster to the US and the global economy. Also, if Iraq was a peaceful democracy now the Republicans would be in the majority and would have no trouble winning the White House in 2008. Are there bigger issues than those two? What possible purpose would be bigger than that? Can you answer that?
It’s becoming pointless to discuss issues with you because you disregard everything I’ve written before to you so again you say “your kind like to take sides there but not in Palestine or Chechnya” when that is simply not true and anyone can look it up; you think you know who I am because of your “logical deductions of the views you express.” Have you ever critically examined your own process of deduction? Because I have many times expressed my opinion on those situations and it does not register with you. You again say that there is no evidence that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons but the IAEA never was allowed to inspect Pasdaran facilities. Russia and China are amongst the UN nations that insist Iran open up to inspections and stop enriching uranium because Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA and you know it but still you come with the same argument.
The west cares greatly to alleviate people’s suffering and you know it, after the tsunami in the Indian ocean western nations donated billions of US$ in support of those affected, US aid to Pakistan after the earthquake there created massive goodwill for the US in Pakistan because it became evident to people that the US cared; the US and Europeans through the UN and otherwise are the largest contributors to the welfare of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and you should know it. Western people and their nations care a great deal, it is in evidence and yet you disregard it and if you are not an amnesiac then that is disingenuous.
You seem to say that the US is directly or through proxy responsible for the death of over a million Iraqis when it was Saddam Hussein who refused to feed and provide healthcare to his own population when he had the opportunity to do so through the food for oil and other programs. Many Iraqis have died after the invasion as a consequence of the fomenting civil war and of the attacks against the government there, not because they were killed by US forces, and all that is in evidence too.
Next time you see fit to discuss these items you will have forgotten the above and whatever other people wrote and you will pursue the same agenda of smearing the US and its allies with the same zeal and with the same thorough lack of intellectual accountability you have displayed so far.
Have you ever read George Orwell? Although he died in 1950 he still is one of the greatest authors of our time because not that much has changed.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | June 15th, 2007 at 3:23 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
WIth thinking of yours, muslims countries will never be successful. The idea of blaming others all the time is self defeating.
Even if the West is the Empire from the Star Wars, bashing it will not solve any of your problems. Your problems come from your leaders. If you disagree thats fine, we have other things to worry about, but it is your country and your people who will keep suffering.
Posted by: Chen | June 15th, 2007 at 6:51 pm | Report this commentHi Chen,
I have merely pointed out the role of the “civilised” West in abusing the Third World and making matters worse.
You are absolutely correct that people should put their own houses in order instead of blaming others but I don’t think I am wrong to point out the malevolence of the interventions by the outsiders.
best,
P
Posted by: Anonymous | June 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Report this commentHi Felix,
I like talking to you because you are the only one who communicates from a parallel universe where all is sweetness and light and the US/K (the occupying powers) are not responsible for the security of the occupied land (Iraq) (damn the Geneva conventions, I guess!!)
In your universe, it is not strange that there used to be no Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq under any regime prior to 2003 (be it the B’athists, other republicans, the period under the Hashemite monarchs, during the British or Ottoman rules or even before that).
In the same universe, one cannot look at the “before” or “after” situations and see that under Saddam (a brute, himself installed with CIA assistance), people in general had more security than under the “friendly” US/K occupation.
You ask what is in it for the US/K to foment civil wars? I could only guess at the motives but they could include the following:
1-) A break up of all larger Muslim nations in the Middle East nations and redrawing of the Sykes-Picot boundaries has been an important goal of the Israel-first NeoCon lobby groups in the US and a break up of Iraq and Iran is very much desired by them.
2-) A democratically elected Iraqi government will reflect the nearly 2/3rds majority Shia of Iraq and will be:
a-) An ally of Iran and hence a threat to to USrael.
b-) A beacon to the Shia in US satraps like the medieval monarchy in Saudi and hence a threat to them.
c-) In a position to ask the US invaders to leave without realising their ambition of having large and permanent bases there.
As for the Iranian nuclear effort, Iran voluntarily signed the additional protocols (much more intrusive than they were obliged to) and let the IAEA inspectors went where they wanted and when they wanted. Nothing was found. The Iranian nuclear weapons are in the same place as the Iraqi WMD’s: In the poisonous propaganda of the warmongers and nowhere else. If America has arm-twisted Russia and China by threats and promises, like acceptance to the WTO, to sign up to another baseless resolution, it doesn’t mean that there is any real evidence of the weaponisation of Iran’s nuclear effort. The same body passed the same kind of resolutions against Iraq whilst being lied to profusely and shamelessly by Washington and London.
Felix, the West takes from the Third World in shovels and gives back in aid in teaspoons. I guess you will tell me that colonialism was for the benefit of the Asian-African savages, right?
The treatment of the Palestinians, after they democratically elected a government that was not to the liking of the West is a great example of the hypocrisy involved in the so-called “freedom agenda”. You shall “democratically” somebody we like!! If, instead, you dare to elect somebody that you like, we shall punish you by economic siege, stealing of your tax revenues and indeed fomenting of civil wars by giving weapons to the goons that are the private army of Mohammed Dahlan.
I have read George Orwell and it has come true in the propaganda that the US espouses. The demonisation of Iranians and Muslims is exactly the warmongering portrayed in 1984. Admittedly, the staging of US missiles in Poland to counter Iranian-missile threats would have sounded too amazingly silly to put in 1984 but you are otherwise correct there.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm | Report this commentPacifist/Felix,
I enjoy very much following your exchange of opinions. i hope I can add a couple of my views.
I agree with P that Iraq was not a “let’s do good” mission. It clearly was motivated by ideology - albeit grossly of the mark. However, I don’t agree with P that the US/K has any incentives to keep the civil war going. Of course, US and UK soldiers will keep dying as the war continues - and of course locals (civilians, militias etc… ) will keep dying too, though in much larger numbers. Yet - had the self-destruction of Iraq been the end-game, it would have made more sense to get rid of saddam, promptly organise elections, send the defense industry sales people to both the shia and the sunni and get out as quickly as possible… I believe the main culprit for the never ending civil war is Rumsfeld - through he stubborn insistance that modern wars are different and that you don’t need that many soldiers on the ground. I feel had Bush listen to his generals and not Rumsfeld, and send the 400,000 - 500,000 that they reckoned was need to lead an occupation force, the US would have had a chance to pacify Iraq for a hand-over. (whether they would have pushed for a democratic hand-over, in that favourable situation is another question altogether).
On the matter of colonisation, I’ve heard and seen too many times the views that some countries did better while colonised than now. (Ivory Cost, Algeria etc… ) I think it is dangerous to think like this. The whole point is that these countries fought the colonial empires because they were not free. Whether they are free now or more than before is besides the point. I believe human beings have a strong inherent desire for freedom and that soon or later it comes out. Self-determination is essential. Individual and countries don’t always make the right decision - what is important is that it is their decision to make.
And with this principled defense of freedom - I have to agree with P re Hamas’ victory at democratically held elections. While I thought it was disastrous for the peace process, the fact is Hamas won the election. And the West clearly lost moral credibility by essentially saying “do as i say - not as I do”. That said - this is where things are not black and white - the West cannot fund a Palestinian authority led by Hamas or anybody else and intend on arming itself.
And P, as much as you apportion blame on the US/West for a lot of things - the fact is that it is possible to critize US, UK, German, French, Italian and other Western government’s actions without fearing retributions. I do not think dissidence is welcomed or even tolerated in many other parts of the world.
Posted by: a | June 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm | Report this commentDear a,
Thanks for your fair-minded contribution.
In respect of your last paragraph, I would like to clarify that I admire a great number of things about the West, for example, its technical and scientific achievements and the relative freedoms afforded to the citizenry. I wish those could be achieved in the Third World too.
My beef has not been with what happens domestically in the West (which is the business of the Westerners only) but with the unethical and exploitative actions of the West against the “South”.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm | Report this commentPacifist, what about Iranian support for militias in Iraq?? It is more than unethical to support terrorists to keep the country unstable.
Posted by: John | June 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
The fact that there is no enough freedom in Iran is not only iranians problem but the west’s too because extremism is born in a poor and repressive environment. Thats one of the reason there are many extremist jihadists in the Muslim World whilst there is no ‘jihadists’ in Latin America though it is also poor.
Posted by: Chen | June 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm | Report this commentHi John,
Iran provides support to the Shia militia as they protect the Shia population against the Sunni attacks.
This is not the cause of instability but because of instability. Since the “surge” by the us (which was mainly an assault on the Shia militia), the number of Sunni atrocities against the Shia has increased because the occupying powers (responsible for security under the Geneva conventions) failed to protect the Shia against the Sunni attacks
Moreover, as professor Juan Cole pointed out, accusing Iran of helping the Taliban or the Al Qaeda is simply not credible:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/gore-on-bush-propaganda-us-bombs-shiite.html
Quote
…the Bush administration
is trying to hang the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq on Iran (and even
trying to hang the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan on Iran). The
message of administration and military spokesmen is that Iran is
deliberately killing US troops and is a major source of insurgency in
Iraq. No convincing evidence has ever been presented for either
allegation, nor is it reasonable to assume that Iran plays a
significant role in funding hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing death squads
to deliberately destabilize its client governments in Baghdad (al-
Maliki) and Kabul (Karzai). Yet the New York Times and even the
Guardian put this b.s. on the front page, and of course it is all over
CNN, Fox Cable News, MSNBC, etc”
Unquote
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 19th, 2007 at 2:38 pm | Report this commentDear Chen,
Your theory falls down on the fact that the extremist Jihadis mainly come from countries whose governments are the clients of the US and are supported by the West in their tyranny.
There were no Iranians aboard the 9/11 planes. There were 15 Saudis and 3 Egyptians. The suicide bombers in Iraq include no Iranians either. In addition to Iraqi Sunnis, they are mainly Saudis, Jordanians and Moroccans, all from governments that are in the pocket of the West.
The Pakistanis (applauded by Bush and B Liar as partners in the war against terrorism)are the ones who created and currently arm and support the Taliban. (Don’t forget that only 3 governments recognised the Taliban: Pakistan, Saudi and the UAE, although the Saudis fell out with them over Bin Laden.)
So, my friend, as you see above, the West’s attitude is part of the problem and not part of the solution. They support unpopular, corrupt and repressive governments and then plead amazement when they are hated by the population of those countries.
Of course, wreaking “shock and awe” on Muslim populations and the one-sided, blind support for Israel does not help either. (Funny sods these Muslims. They fail to understand that it is a privilege for them to be bombed by the latest cruise missiles and other fancy, modern weaponry. They are such luddites, you know.)
Please note that I am not blaming the West entirely for the situation but you should excuse me when I laugh at your suggestion that the West has genuinely supported freedom in the Muslim world.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm | Report this commentPacifist, if US and Iran could discuss things like we do in this blog, we all would be better off. But we can’t talk to normal iranian people, what they learn every day from goverment propaganda is that US is devil and its people are immoral etc. In Iran busses are separeted for men and women, and if you look at women in the buses, they don’t smile, look unhappy etc.
Posted by: Chen | June 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm | Report this commentIn USA many people like Iranians, no one things they are immoral bastards. May be there, but they are like 0.1% of population.
What we are saying is that people in Iran should be less brainwashed in Iran and talk more openly to us, then Iran wouldn’t be axis of evil etc. Instead of teaching pupil in schools in Iran that US is the great satan, iranian students should be allowed to speak to US people, be more open to them.
Though we disagree greatly with you on political things, we respect you (me and Felix,and others). If people in Iran could talk to us with open minds, they would disagree with us on many issues like religion etc, but they wouldn’t should ‘death to america’ all the time.
You say ‘Yes we lack freedom’. Do you fight for your freedom with the same courage in Iran as you fight for more respect for Iran with us??
Dear All,
This is, imho, a very fair-minded article published in the FT today, written by an American. I post it here, in case you have missed it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ce2a727c-1ecb-11dc-bc22-000b5df10621.html
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pm | Report this commentDear Chen,
Firstly, about US-Iran dialogue please refer to the FT article by Selig Harrison I posted above. I think he makes a number of good points. What he omits to point out is the preference of those currently in charge in Washington for the use of military force, despite the clear debacle in Iraq and the unfolding shambles in Afghanistan. These people are either so ideologically driven that they cannot get over their own prescriptions in the PNAC or they don’t really care for the American interests as they are devoted to a Zionist-Christian Zionist creed. Either way, the US policy is not currently run on rational grounds of national self-interest and sane people like Mr. Seligman are voices in the wilderness.
As for your other points, again, I refer to the observations made in my response to you yesterday.
Please do read the article I posted by professor Juan Cole as well.
If government propaganda is effective in forming attitudes, why has it given the opposite effect in Pakistan and Saudi (whose governments are staunch US allies)?
Why is it that Washington focuses on Iran when the Jihadi terrorists come (or have very strong connections with) US allies, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan etc.? Which countries did the 9/11 perpetrators or 7/7 murderers (in London) come from or had strong connections with? (US allies Saudi, Egypt and Pakistan).
In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that Iranians don’t dislike the American (and generally Western) people and culture (this has been commented upon by many visitors).
They dislike the role of the CIA in supporting the previous regime’s coup against the democratically elected Mossadeq government (and the subsequent reign of terror that lasted 26 years until the revolution in 1979) and the role of the US government in numerous anti-Iranian activities (such as supporting Saddam Hossein’s assault on Iran, supporting armed opposition groups which are considered terrorists even by the US State Department, fomenting ethnic unrest in Iran and the shooting down of an Iranian airliner flying over Iranian airspace).
A military attack on Iran or a tightening of sanctions against Iran will quickly change the Iranian peoples’ attitudes towards the American people in the same way as it has in all other places America has bombed, sanctioned and invaded.
As for the situation of women in Iran, I would say it is better than in most of the Middle East. There are more Iranian girls being accepted to Iranian universities than there are boys. In Iran you see women driving taxis and buses, teaching in schools and universities and elected as MP’s and there is even a female vice president. In Saudi, women aren’t even considered mature enough to drive a car.
And…in what way do you think the Iranian women will be helped by an Iraq-style invasion of Iran? Would destroying their country’s infrastructure and killing their sons and husbands make the Iranian women happier? Would removal of physical all security from their neighbourhoods in the way that has happened in Iraq help them? (BTW, Iran is a very safe country for women. Most women I know in London, are uncomfortable being out on their own in the hours of darkness. Not so in Iran.)
Can the lot of women in Iran be improved? OF COURSE!! Who should do it? ONLY Iranian women and men. You cannot bomb people into social progress nor would foreign-installed goons (who may be clean-shaven and expensively dressed in Western clothes like the Shah of Iran was), would help matters.
Freedom is achieved for men and women of any country through their own struggles and social evolution of that society. This is how it happened in the West and this is how it has to happen elsewhere.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm | Report this commentPacifist, there are thousands of other articles saying the opposite of what you say. You have only one idea in mind and only stick to it, instead of trying to understand and embrace other ideas. Thats called extremism.
Posted by: Chen | June 20th, 2007 at 2:38 pm | Report this commentFor example you support the ideas of Iranian government, but Iran as a country is not successfull at all. I won’t argue about that, if you think that Iran is more successful than America or Japan, thats not my problem but yours.
I know some people from Iran who live now in the West but originally from Iran, and they say though officially prostitution is not allowed there, it is abundand and people use their services are usually from the government.
If Iran can’t get things done at home, it can’t help in Iraq. You are probably a rich iranian if you have constant access to the internet, so you are happy with your life. Your parents probably are rich bla bla bla. What has Iran given to the World in the last 20 years??
Ahmadinejad is saying ‘Iran must be wiped off the map’, ‘I can see the World without the USA’. Your pro-Iranian arguements will never make sense to ordinary people in the West, no matter how strong you want them to be true. Get real and learn to solve the problems instead of pointing at others.
You know, George Bush is probably not the best president, but despite that American economy has done well in the last 6 years. America has lost some of its power during Bush’ presidency, but despite that virtually in every component USA is the strongest country in the World. May be US is doin some mistakes, but still, you can’t put all the blame on US and pretend to be ‘the nice guy’.
US military said Iran is sponsoring insurgents. You say its not so they do it for propaganda purposes. You accuse media of making a thing out of it. Well its the medias job to report news and it makes sense to believe US military rather than Iranian one. I read that during Iran-Iraq conflict Iranian army used children to detonate mines, in order not to risk the lives of aduls soldiers. Also they told people in the army ‘If you are in the front line and you die, you will go to Heaven’.
Of course I would rather trust US military rather than Iraninan propaganda. If US is saying that, why would they lie?? If US was based as a country on lies, it wouldn’t become superpower ever.
You still haven’t answered Felix’s question on why would republicans be interested in the civil war in Iraq. If thing had gone well in Iraq, they wouldn’t worry about 2008 and loosing the Senate and the Congress. You don’t answer hard questions, you avoid them and put your propaganda here.
Dear Chen,
Yesm I did answer Felix’s question I gave two reasons and the second one even had two parts to it.
If you choose to believe the US government’s propaganda, post Iraw, that is your prerogative. Obviously you have made up your mind and facts are mere inconveniences.
I really have no idea what the greatness of the American economy has got to do with their actions against Iran and Iraq but they are obviously connected somehow in your mind.
Ahmadinejad didn’t actually say that Israel should be wiped off the map but we have one US politican after another threatening to nuke Iran.
This John Mccain singning Bomb Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Would we ever hear the end of it if an Iranian presidential candidate (and a front-runner) had song “bomb Israel” or “bomb America”?
You obviously don’t think Iranians’ lives are worth much.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm | Report this commentEhehehe P:-)
Israel is democracy. To have a strong economy you need lots of brains and knowledge. So that is why it is connected - if you have strong economy you have lots of brains in there. If you have brains you are good.
When US says bomb Iran, they don’t mean bomb iranian people, they say bomb iranian government. Also, Ahmadinejad said ‘ayatollah al-knomeini said Israel must be wiped off the map, and he was right’. It is pretty clear isn’t it. Please don’t say that’s not true, that’s true, that’s what he said and don’t deny it.
Also, with strong economy, people have lots of opportunities, and they don’t go angry around saying ‘Someone must be killed bla bla bla’. Strong economy is not something given for free. For example currently some people are harming it(by restricting immigration, trade etc), and US economy is suffering. Iran imports half of its petrol.
US is not interested in destabilising muslims countries. East Asian countries are developing very fast these days, and partly due to security provided by american forces. Their leaders don’t take irrational decisions of confronting US, even China. They can stand up to it and hurt US in some way, but they will get hurt more.
The most successful muslim countries are open minded pro-US (relative to other muslim countries) countries - Malaysia, Turkey. I don’t include UAE because it is rich because of oil, not knowledge based.
Best wishes:-)
Posted by: Chen | June 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm | Report this commentLOL Chen!! This staement of yours says it all “When US says bomb Iran, they don’t mean bomb Iranian people, they say bomb Iranian government”.
Yeah…like they said “bomb Saddam Hossein”
The connection of brains with democracy also exists in your mind…how many Soviet scientists and engineers made fantastic contributions during those times? Were they are brainless?
As for what Ahmadinejad said, I suggest you read this:
http://edstrong.blog-city.com/lost_in_translation_ahmadinejad_never_said_israel_should_be_.htm
But then, you only believe the US military so you won’t read or believe this
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm | Report this commentP
Hey man,
Posted by: Chen | June 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentPeople die in Iraq not because US soldiers kill them, but because terrorists blow themselves up (incidentally, all suicide bombers these days are also muslims).
I am originally from Soviet Union. So I know something about it. Scientists in the Soviet Union were praised by the government on the condition they don’t talk politics. They had nice cars, houses, good salaries. In case you don’t know, you had to wait in the queue for about 3-5 years to buy a car even if you have money because there isn’t one available outright.
Also, Soviet Union broke up because it couldn’t sustain itself. Many soviet scientists eventually went to the West because artificially its hard to keep science on a high level.
Soviet science was behind USA in technology. It had to buy IT computers from the USA, when Reagan blocked it, USSR suffered. Politicians in the USSR were like ‘Why we don’t have our own Bill Gates’. If Bill Gates was born in the USSR he wouldn’t flourish.
ALso, the good things that soviet scientists achieved, were used for military purposes and not for industrial uses, so it wasn’t very good to ordinary people. In USSR washing machines start being a common thing only in the 90’s when people could import them.
Hi Chen,
How old are you?!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm | Report this commentI am in my early 20’s but the age doesn’t really matter.
Posted by: Chen | June 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentPacifist, if you think you are so smart, why don’t you stand up to your government and make Iran a better place instead of arguing with us?? If you are so talented, why don’t you use it to do good deeds instead of arguing??
This discussion is getting personal, and is not really furthering the debate. Please keep comments to the topic, or we may have to consider closing this discussion for the time being.
Many thanks
Rob
Posted by: Rob Minto, Interactive editor, FT.com | June 20th, 2007 at 4:49 pm | Report this commentTo Rob Minto.
Sorry. Mea Culpa (at least partly).
Apologies to all.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 5:42 pm | Report this comment