Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Arab Psychologist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oren
    replied
    TheAdlerian, I personally miss your presence on the forums. Could you drop me a line to doueko (AT) hotmail (DOT) com?

    Thanks,

    Oren

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Originally posted by Pietro_Mercurios
    However, The British Government may be less worried about some sort of Islamic unrest in Britain and more worried about a series of changes in the World (Global Warming, over population, disease epidemics and economic/political unrest) leading to increasing numbers of 'illegal immigrants' turning up in Britain from former British colonies and the like, as well as the sort of related civil unrest and increasing lawlessness that could be a sideproduct.
    I guess you're right. Any far-sighted person can see there's all sorts of shit going to hit the fan. Personally I fear that resistance to 'globalisation' is likely to take a right wing authoritarian turn rather than the traditional left wing / trade union form. Islamicism is just one possible facet of this. Not a pretty picture...

    Leave a comment:


  • Morgan Kane
    replied
    Originally posted by Pietro_Mercurios

    However, I have to agree with your analysis of the adaptive nature of the armed struggle in the Middle East, from secular/political to religious/fanatical. The reasons you give also make sense.

    .
    It is up to us to maintain the conflict on political lines democracy and rights of humankind against religious fantism

    and it is for this reason that Bush and Blair cannot be our allied.

    it is true that the war against terrorism is a good diversion from other matters .

    Leave a comment:


  • Pietro_Mercurios
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    Another link in the chain is that in many cases these groups are filling the vacuum left by the elimination of progressive, left-wing political movements.

    The U.S. administration may have temporarily scored a victory, but in the long term its enemy is going to be so much harder to expunge, if not impossible. You can squash collective political hopes, but Islam is a death cult whose adherents are out for individual "martyrdom". It changes the rules completely.

    I've been thinking about this. Left-wing wisdom at the moment is that Bush and Blair are using the inflated threat of terrorism as an excuse to "attack civil rights". But why? Because the U.S. and U.K. are on the brink of social revolution?

    Cast your mind back to the 70s when there was a constant threat of atrocities from the IRA, but no such attacks on liberties were imposed on the mainland population. Back in those days there was serious industrial unrest, and talk of revolution didn't sound quite so ludicrous.

    So, either Blair wishes to attack civil liberties just because he's an evil nasty man, or else the authorities are indeed taking the threat of Islamicism very seriously indeed. You do actually hear a note of nostalgia in the way politicians talk about the IRA these days; "Well, they might have been bloodthirsty murderers, but at least they had clearly defined goals and you could negotiate with them..." (We now know that negotiations were going on, even though they didn't admit it at the time).

    Here's an interesting report from a Muslim Labour MP about the government's recent meeting with "Muslim leaders" to discuss the implications of the latest terror plot; worrying - these are supposed to be the "moderates"...


    The IRA didn't look too cosy at the time and it certainly wasn't the way that they were sold.

    However, I have to agree with your analysis of the adaptive nature of the armed struggle in the Middle East, from secular/political to religious/fanatical. The reasons you give also make sense.

    However, The British Government may be less worried about some sort of Islamic unrest in Britain and more worried about a series of changes in the World (Global Warming, over population, disease epidemics and economic/political unrest) leading to increasing numbers of 'illegal immigrants' turning up in Britain from former British colonies and the like, as well as the sort of related civil unrest and increasing lawlessness that could be a sideproduct.

    Similiar legislation curtailing human rights and increasing surveillance is gradually being rolled out throughout Europe, on one pretext, or another. I attended at least one conference on 'Fortress Europe' (worth Googling for info.), In London, way back towards the end of the Eighties, so all this stuff is really nothing new.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morgan Kane
    replied
    Fight against IRA has justified breaches in human rights, as torture and murders .....

    ( bloody sunday for instance )

    The problem is that there is an islamic threat ( not a muslim one ) but the means are more than adequate.

    For Blair, the fight against islamism is a part of the fight against insecurity.

    The bombers in london were identified and their last travel was followed from begining to end by vidcams. This can be the case for anybody .

    An experiment is going to let common people have access to the pictures taken by public vidcams and serve as auxiliary delators .

    Is it not a first step to " 1984 "

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc
    I guess the only thing worse than Muslim extremists were athiest totalitarians.
    Another link in the chain is that in many cases these groups are filling the vacuum left by the elimination of progressive, left-wing political movements.

    The U.S. administration may have temporarily scored a victory, but in the long term its enemy is going to be so much harder to expunge, if not impossible. You can squash collective political hopes, but Islam is a death cult whose adherents are out for individual "martyrdom". It changes the rules completely.

    I've been thinking about this. Left-wing wisdom at the moment is that Bush and Blair are using the inflated threat of terrorism as an excuse to "attack civil rights". But why? Because the U.S. and U.K. are on the brink of social revolution?

    Cast your mind back to the 70s when there was a constant threat of atrocities from the IRA, but no such attacks on liberties were imposed on the mainland population. Back in those days there was serious industrial unrest, and talk of revolution didn't sound quite so ludicrous.

    So, either Blair wishes to attack civil liberties just because he's an evil nasty man, or else the authorities are indeed taking the threat of Islamicism very seriously indeed. You do actually hear a note of nostalgia in the way politicians talk about the IRA these days; "Well, they might have been bloodthirsty murderers, but at least they had clearly defined goals and you could negotiate with them..." (We now know that negotiations were going on, even though they didn't admit it at the time).

    Here's an interesting report from a Muslim Labour MP about the government's recent meeting with "Muslim leaders" to discuss the implications of the latest terror plot; worrying - these are supposed to be the "moderates"...

    Last Tuesday, after a 90-minute meeting with John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, to discuss the challenges of extremism and foreign policy, I emerged and was immediately asked by the media whether I agreed that what British Muslims needed were Islamic holidays and sharia (Islamic law). I thought I had walked into some parallel universe. Sadly this was not a joke. These issues had apparently formed part of the discussion the day before between Prescott, Ruth Kelly, the communities minister, and a selection of “Muslim leaders”. I realised then that it wasn’t me and the media who were living in a parallel universe — although certain “Muslim leaders” might well be.


    Maybe some of these “leaders” believed that cabinet ministers were being alarmist, that the terror threat posed by British extremists was exaggerated. Maybe they thought that the entire plot and threat were the “mother of all smokescreens”, a bid to divert our attention from the killing fields of Lebanon. Or maybe it was another symptom of that epidemic that is afflicting far too many Muslims: denial. Out of touch with reality, frightened to propose any real solutions for fear of “selling out”, but always keen to exact a concession — a sad but too often true caricature of some so-called Muslim leaders.


    Other members of the Muslim community I am sure would have cringed as I did when listening to Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary-general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, who explained his demand for sharia and more holidays: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.” He has done much good work over the years but this is clearly not one of his better moments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    First of all, what a well-reasoned post, Zilch! Welcome to the trenches!

    Morgan and Mikey, I'm glad you pointed out how the U.S. once supported those groups we are now fighting in Afghanistan. The same is true of Iraq. Funny how that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing can work out. Everyone seems to treat it like a hot potato, because everyone has blood on their hands. Rummy is almost personally responsible for the weapons that Saddam H. had and used, but Democrats' hands are no cleaner. After the beating the Dems took with Carter's handling of Iran, they would have supported anyone against Iran.

    As for Afghanistan, funny how things like women's rights and elections were not important to the west when the Cold War was happening. I guess the only thing worse than Muslim extremists were athiest totalitarians.

    Leave a comment:


  • zilch
    replied
    Transience

    She makes some good points, the destruction of the statues was terrible if you value ancient monuments, however the Buddhist response was to thank the Taliban for a lesson about transience. The issue of women's rights is a major issue, but no long lasting change can be imposed from outside without causing a great deal of suffering. Who has the right to decide this.

    However she makes many gross generalizations, as far as I am aware not every great scientist was Jewish, and I believe western science owes a huge debt to Muslim mathmeticians. Considering the rate at which we are consuming resources it is debatable whether this obsession with "advancement" is really doing humanity a lot of good.

    Similarly not every Muslim is an oppressor of women, a church burner or a terrorist, such sweeping arguments are a sign of a limited experience of real life with real people, who are generally kind and fairly tolerant. Afghanistan is a country with great extremes of temperature, blazing hot summers and freezing cold winters, it is no surprise the people there tend to be on the hardy side. However Muslims in Malaysia for example are a very friendly and relaxed people.

    She fails to acknowledge many of the good things about Islam, the breath taking beauty of the interior of the Dome of the Rock is one of many examples of the serenity of Muslim art and architecture.

    She scores 10 out of 10 for passion, rhetoric and balls, but 4 out of 10 for content. She failed to grasp the basic rule of democracy : reasoned debate, not bombastic argument. She also completely fails to address the issue of whether democracy really is the best way to govern a country, it is taken as a self evident truth these days, personally I'm not convinced.

    MTV will do more to change Islam than politicians and bombs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Originally posted by Morgan Kane
    The U.S. administration was not adverse to help the islamists when theses were fighting the soviets .......
    You could almost say it invented them! They were very useful to the Germans in breaking up Yugoslavia as well. Now they all have a problem with what is termed "blowback". Politics, eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Morgan Kane
    replied
    The war is not against the west per se but against democratic values and rights of humankind !

    The U.S. administration was not adverse to help the islamists when theses were fighting the soviets .......

    The religious leaders agree on many terms relating to the interdiction to change religion except to convert to their religion, statute of women and so .....

    I agree, there is a war but do not make mistakes about the enemy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Here's some background on the woman. That video is an impressive document of human courage whether or not you agree with her views. She knows the risk she is taking: "she was shocked into secularism by the 1979 atrocities committed by the Muslim Brotherhood against innocent Syrian people, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor in her classroom in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo where she was a medical student."

    It's quite clear which "war" she is referring to: it's the war declared by Islamists on the West. Some of us may be in doubt as to whether this has actually been declared, but they are not. Unlike the Adlerian, I do believe a peaceful version of Islam is possible (as indeed are peaceful versions of Christianity, Judaism and any other religion you care to name - holy books, however bloodthirsty, can always be interpreted as allegories for the spiritual life), but its voice is sadly muted at present.
    Last edited by Mikey_C; 08-18-2006, 03:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Mosley
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    If you look at dueling in European culture you'll find that it was thought that the winner was favored by god, and was correct in his views because of the win.
    At the risk of inflaming this debate anymore than it already is, I'll just like to say:

    That was bullshit then and it's still bullshit now.

    (By which I mean the belief is wrong, not that people didn't believe it once upon a time.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Oren
    replied
    I think that Wafa Sultan's dichotomy was a mean to stress her point. I'm sure she's aware nothing is black and white. There are extremists on both sides. However, in our modern times, there are indeed more Muslims willing to got to such extremes than Christians or Jews, and this is something that has to be studied and dealt with. While some label Bush as an extremists, he's still incomparable to, let's say, Ahmandinejad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morgan Kane
    replied
    I repeat, the fight is not beetwen civilisations but beetwen values and the situation is much more complex than islam against chrisitandom.....

    If you reduce the fight to a fight beetwen civilisations, you make a big strategic mistake and religion will win !

    I hope for the victory of secularism, tolerance, personnal rights and freedom ...... and neither Bush and fiundamentalis chrisitians, neither islamists ( i don' t say muslims ) are my allies. Both are my ennemies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Fundamentalist christian:

    These people do not have any kind of state or real power.
    Are you kidding? Bush may pander to them as a smokescreen for his support of corporations, but they have forced both Bush and the Republican Congress to deliver on some of their pet issues. Look at who the newest Supreme Court Justices are, and what their litmus tests were.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    What they have is rhetoric and they endorse lots of basic moral/ethical ideas that many people in, for instance, the US tend to agree with. Bush and his class are capitalists with a pragmatic view. He is not a Christian, because if he was, then he would not be rich, and he would not be making war.
    I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I certainly disagree with your theology. Good Calvinists are supposed to make lots of money (or war) if that is how they see their calling from God.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Bush and most capitalistis in the west want to maintain their "kingdom" and it's potential to continue to exist and bring in money. They want a stable world in which to conduct business. So, on one hand, they are sinister in that their desire for peace, and so forth, is motivated by a type of greed. On the other, they are a lesser and more sensible evil as compared to a culture that opperates, at best, on a psychotic supernatural fantasy, and at worst uses that fantasy to create ignorant slaves for a cynical elite.
    I cannot disagree with this.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    What's really going on in the world is, as mentioned in the video, a clash of civilizations. As long as transport and technology maintain themselves the world will have these problems, because people with clashing ideas about life will be constantly encountering each other. If you look at recorded history, then it's easy to see that this is true.
    Trade and cultural exchange is also an outcome of this. Not just war.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Additionally, it's pretty much a fact that "culture" is a construct of the mind and nothing else. Chinese people raised in America are American far more than they are Chinese, so that is the "experiment" that invalidates any steadfast view of culture.

    So, if there exists a negative culture (which is relative) then how does one get rid of it? Since "culture" rests in the mind, then one must eliminate the minds of the people in the culture. Simply, this is done via killing them, or using propaganda to change their minds.
    I'm not sure how you see this as "factual," as this is just wrong, even by Jungian standards. (Either that or every cultural anthropologist and cultural sociologists I've ever known and read is wrong.) Culture certainly exists in the mind, but it is a lived experience, with tangible artifacts that outlive any one person. You aren't going to eliminate language, for instance, simply by killing people, any more than you can kill engineering or philosophy.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    War is very effective in changing and killing minds and is repeatedly turned to by humans as an effective means of controling human behavior, thus far there is no alternative that has ever worked.
    So all of that diplomacy in history has been ineffective? In just the short history of America, I think you'll find that Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, and Reagan (just to name a few) would disagree with you.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    If you look at dueling in European culture you'll find that it was thought that the winner was favored by god, and was correct in his views because of the win. Western and mid-eastern humans continue to express these beliefs and so war is an excellent method of killing and changing minds.

    It's sad but true.
    I'm not sure how this is germaine. Dueling and war are certainly two different things.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X