I appreciate your examples. Obviously this was multi-layered Cold- War saber rattling on the part of the US and USSR in the midst of a large war between India and Pakistan. Yet more pressure for control of spheres of influence around the globe. (The Vietnam War starting to wrap up right around the corner of the Indian Ocean..a costly debacle for the US. But one which had interests to contain the spread of communism. And then India's maybe provocative Friendship Treaty with USSR. I seem to remember some tension between the US and India over Vietnam peace negotiations. I'd have to look that back up...India felt snubbed somewhere along the way.. probably justifiably) Obviously there is much to this history(which I have never studied)that unfolded to have the results of the existing situation today. Nukes, Islamic Fanaticism, India's rise as a mega-economy etc.... That's the world narrative. It has good stories and bad stories. My point directly above is that you shouldn't let ideologues with a very narrow, prejudiced and limited view of history influence your posts so much that you have to place unnecessary caveats in your language. You're posting what you're posting and it stands on its own.India's friendship treaty with the USSR was for the Indian prime minister to try to ensure that the USA would not help the Pakistani brutes when her country played the key role of liberating Bangladesh. It was no provocation against USA; it was for India to be on the side of innocent and nonviolent humanity, who were actually not communists, against the Islamic barbarians of Pakistan. In fact, during the cold war, the USA was on the wrong sides, including those of despots and Islamists, on many occasions. You are right, I should not place unnecessary caveats in my language.
In fact, during the cold war, the USA was on the wrong sides, including those of despots and Islamists, on many occasions.Ok at face value we'll entertain that point. The "wrong sides". We can see this now. Hindsight is 20/20. I like to understand and study history in a sense of the time then. It is completely useless to understand history objectively by looking at the past in the context of what we know now. People seem to forget this. This is where ideology creeps into revisionism and re-writing of history. That's not to say that one can't look back on history and study what was at that time folly or error or grave blunders. But to color it with ideology or bias based on what has transpired since then is stupid. To study it as a living thing that has transpired up til now objectively is sensible. I have never studied the US-Soviet-India-Pakistan situation. So I don't know too much about it. Just like now, back then there were huge actions taking place for control of spheres of influence. Between the USA and the USSR. Everybody else was: 1. already on one of those sides. 2. off the radar due to insignificance 3. trying to become a world player by playing the game between US and Russia. By choosing a side or walking a tightrope between the two players. For trade, weapons, treaties etc... It's far more complicated than "right side-wrong side". Reference SEATO and the developments that took place right around the corner of India in the 1950s. Post WWII, Post British rule of India etc etc.... Obviously India felt justifiably snubbed. Of course. The weaving of the fabric of history.
In fact, during the cold war, the USA was on the wrong sides, including those of despots and Islamists, on many occasions.Ok at face value we'll entertain that point. The "wrong sides". We can see this now. Hindsight is 20/20. I like to understand and study history in a sense of the time then. It is completely useless to understand history objectively by looking at the past in the context of what we know now. People seem to forget this. This is where ideology creeps into revisionism and re-writing of history. That's not to say that one can't look back on history and study what was at that time folly or error or grave blunders. But to color it with ideology or bias based on what has transpired since then is stupid. To study it as a living thing that has transpired up til now objectively is sensible. I have never studied the US-Soviet-India-Pakistan situation. So I don't know too much about it. Just like now, back then there were huge actions taking place for control of spheres of influence. Between the USA and the USSR. Everybody else was: 1. already on one of those sides. 2. off the radar due to insignificance 3. trying to become a world player by playing the game between US and Russia. By choosing a side or walking a tightrope between the two players. For trade, weapons, treaties etc... It's far more complicated than "right side-wrong side". Reference SEATO and the developments that took place right around the corner of India in the 1950s. Post WWII, Post British rule of India etc etc.... Obviously India felt justifiably snubbed. Of course. The weaving of the fabric of history. You have not studied the subject, but made conclusions with conjectures. For me, the US being on the wrong side is no hindsight analysis. I was born in rural East Bengal, which used to be called East Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh. In 1971, I witnessed Pakistani military brutality on absolutely innocent people just because they were Hindus. They burned village after village and killed anyone that were within the range of their guns. They killed one of my best elementary school teachers and two of my aunts. None of the victims in those villages did anything against the state of Pakistan or its military or Muslims or any other kind of people; they were just living a simple life in their homeland of centuries. Here are two articles for your reading: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16207201 http://tarekfatah.com/genocide-the-june-1971-article-about-pakistans-mass-murders-in-east-pakistan-by-tony-mascarenhas-in-londons-sunday-times-that-woke-up-the-world/ And, the USA was supporting the military brutes of Pakistan. You can certainly read more about the history of Bangladesh and of many other nations, which would convince any neutral observer that the USA was in the wrong sides, including those of Islamic barbarians. Even today, the despots of Saudi Arabia are in power a lot due to the US support that they get. I would not justify brutality on innocent people with any excuse, including the Cold War.
You have not studied the subject, but made conclusions with conjectures.Where have I used conjecture? If I used conjecture in relation to your point of view than what your saying is that the US supported Pakistan solely because they were brutish. We picked Pakistan only because they were savages....Really?
And, the USA was supporting the military brutes of Pakistan.Well did I hear you say that you emigrated to the US and now live here as a citizen? Maybe your conscience will feel better if you lived in another country. I don't know why you would come to a place that supported your mortal enemies? I'm serious.
I would not justify brutality on innocent people with any excuse, including the Cold War.Well I don't want to get into philosophy or idealism on this topic. Not with any biased observer anyways.
You have not studied the subject, but made conclusions with conjectures.Where have I used conjecture? If I used conjecture in relation to your point of view than what your saying is that the US supported Pakistan solely because they were brutish. We picked Pakistan only because they were savages....Really?
And, the USA was supporting the military brutes of Pakistan.Well did I hear you say that you emigrated to the US and now live here as a citizen? Maybe your conscience will feel better if you lived in another country. I don't know why you would come to a place that supported your mortal enemies? I'm serious.
I would not justify brutality on innocent people with any excuse, including the Cold War.Well I don't want to get into philosophy or idealism on this topic. Not with any biased observer anyways. I have the same question for Sam. Sam, why would you choose to stay in a country where you "know" the governmemt is deliberately brutish and that was the ONLY reason they support Pakistan? There are many countries in the world that don't engage in "brutality" as you describe it, but you CHOSE to come here and you CHOOSE to stay when you have a choice not to. . To my mind, that means you actually support the brutal actions and motives of the US government in Pakistan that you imply, despite your words here. Otherwise you'd be long gone. That's blatant hypocrisy. You're trying to eat your cake and still have it.
You have not studied the subject, but made conclusions with conjectures.Where have I used conjecture? If I used conjecture in relation to your point of view than what your saying is that the US supported Pakistan solely because they were brutish. We picked Pakistan only because they were savages....Really?
And, the USA was supporting the military brutes of Pakistan.Well did I hear you say that you emigrated to the US and now live here as a citizen? Maybe your conscience will feel better if you lived in another country. I don't know why you would come to a place that supported your mortal enemies? I'm serious.
I would not justify brutality on innocent people with any excuse, including the Cold War.Well I don't want to get into philosophy or idealism on this topic. Not with any biased observer anyways. I did not say that 'the US supported Pakistan solely because they were brutish' or that 'we picked Pakistan only because they were savages'. What I said is that the USA supported Pakistan without caring that the Pakistani rulers through their military were committing heinous crimes against humanity. One immigrated to the USA, one accepted its citizenship or one was born in the USA does not mean he/she has to like everything of the USA, or that he/she has to give up his/her sense of humanity just because some people in this country do not seem to have that sense. I think most worthy intellectuals would agree that people in most places on Earth have been progressing by criticizing and giving up a lot of the problems that their earlier generations had. Mortal enemy?? I do not have any. Even when I call someone barbarian, I have no mind to harm him/her; I just want him/her to get civilized. My motto: "I am a humanist who is against any kind of injustice, hatred or atrocity on any kind of humans. In my book, even when a judge gives a serious punishment to a heinous criminal, he/she should do it to fit the crime, not due to his/her hatred against the criminal." I am no biased observer, at least I try not to be. That is why, for example, I do not trash Donald Trump the way some secular humanists do; I do see the virtues and vices of competing sides. In any case, I think we have diverted quite a bit from the subject of this thread, and that is that Islamic fanaticism is not a creation of the West.
In any case, I think we have diverted quite a bit from the subject of this thread, and that is that Islamic fanaticism is not a creation of the West.It was a friendly diversion nonetheless. I agree that Islamic Fanaticism is not a creation of the West.
I agree that Islamic Fanaticism is not a creation of the West.
Hereâs some more background
The pivotal role played by the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology in radicalizing Muslims all over the world is an indisputable fact; this Wahhabi-Salafi creed has been generously sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States since the 1973 oil embargo, when the price of oil quadrupled and the contribution of the Arab petro-sheikhs towards the âspiritual well-being" of Muslims all over the world magnified proportionally. However, the Arab autocrats are in turn propped up by the Western powers since the Cold War; thus syllogistically speaking, the root cause of Islamic radicalism has been the neocolonial powersâ manipulation of the socio-political life of the Arabs specifically, and the Muslims generally, in order to exploit their energy resources in the context of an energy-starved industrialized world. This is the principal theme of this essay which I shall discuss in detail in the following paragraphs. Peaceful or not, Islam is only a religion just like any other cosmopolitan religion whether itâs Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism. ... ________________ How the West is Complicit in Nurturing Islamic Radicalism By Nauman Sadiq | Aug 20, 2016 http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/08/20/how-the-west-is-complicit-in-nurturing-islamic-radicalism/
I agree that Islamic Fanaticism is not a creation of the West.
Here's some more backgroundThe Wahhabis/Salafis have used Islamic fanaticism that existed in the peoples that they have been trying to take advantage of. The Wahhabis/Salafis did not concoct the Koran and the Hadits; that credit goes to Mohammad. The so-called good interpretations of those Islamic books are due to the fact that humans, including the ones that have grown up thinking that they are Muslims, are humans first and foremost. Most Muslims are good people in spite of Islam, not because of it. The author of this article is certainly wrong when he compares the violent and prescriptive religion, Islam, with Buddhism.The pivotal role played by the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology in radicalizing Muslims all over the world is an indisputable fact; this Wahhabi-Salafi creed has been generously sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States since the 1973 oil embargo, when the price of oil quadrupled and the contribution of the Arab petro-sheikhs towards the âspiritual well-being" of Muslims all over the world magnified proportionally. However, the Arab autocrats are in turn propped up by the Western powers since the Cold War; thus syllogistically speaking, the root cause of Islamic radicalism has been the neocolonial powersâ manipulation of the socio-political life of the Arabs specifically, and the Muslims generally, in order to exploit their energy resources in the context of an energy-starved industrialized world. This is the principal theme of this essay which I shall discuss in detail in the following paragraphs. Peaceful or not, Islam is only a religion just like any other cosmopolitan religion whether itâs Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism. ... ________________ How the West is Complicit in Nurturing Islamic Radicalism By Nauman Sadiq | Aug 20, 2016 http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/08/20/how-the-west-is-complicit-in-nurturing-islamic-radicalism/
Sam, find a withering little plant, spend lots of time nurturing it back to health, add extra fertilize to supersize it, transplant shots with loving care into reinvigorated fields.
Whoâs responsible for the final product? Plant or the gardner?
You seem to be desperately trying to cling to western innocence - thatâs why I have such a low regard for your utterances.
Itâs your decidedly one-sidedness.
Until you grow up and are able to acknowledge and understand how much western imperialism and arrogant disregard for the countries,
their peoples and their self-interests while ruthlessly exploiting whatever we found of value and returning little beyond an endless supplies of weapons
that we sell to pretty near anyone - if not directly, youâll be put in touch with someone who can finesse arrangements.
Look there for understanding whatâs driven the modern descent into violence,
(which just may be on the edge of a destructive up turn now that we have a fantasists in the White House)
before you get all uppity about the snot-nosed kids whoâve had enough of being shat on - and are pathetically fighting back.
Itâs human nature.
1 Like
Sam, find a withering little plant, spend lots of time nurturing it back to health, add extra fertilize to supersize it, transplant shots with loving care into reinvigorated fields. Who's responsible for the final product? Plant or the gardner?The gardener. However, childhood and long-term brainwash with religion is no 'withering plant'; nor is the West the principal nurturer (gardener) of Islamic idiocy and fanaticism. Here is a news item for you and others in this forum: http://www.newagebd.net/article/1790/hindu-houses-temples-attacked-in-bbaria The accusation against Rasaraj has been found to be false by the police later. False or true, the accusation was against only one person; but the Islamic sentimental and fanatic mobs went on a rampage on the whole Hindu community there. I do not see any Western role there. Do you? Call me politically incorrect, but I think the West would be foolish if they are not careful about admitting this kind of religious (Islamic) sentimental people into their countries.
Call me politically incorrect, but I think the West would be foolish if they are not careful about admitting this kind of religious (Islamic) sentimental people into their countries.Every bit as foolish as not recognizing the hateful poison within our own tribe. er religion
Here is a news item for you and others in this forum: http://www.newagebd.net/article/1790/hindu-houses-temples-attacked-in-bbariaWell that was, was, what? It's got nothing to offer in regard to your thesis. It's not much better than blaming the cow that got out of the barn for eating your grass, even though you're the one that left the door open. Although I imagine there were all sorts of local factors that led to this particular violence. People are too easily swayed towards violence, don't you think?
America's Devil's Game with Extremist Islam A Timeline of US-Cold War Politics and the Rise of Militant Islamism MELANIE COLBURNJANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/americas-devils-game-extremist-islam It is often difficult to trace the history of the United States' involvement withâand responsibility forâthe evolution of radical Islamism around the world; many of the CIA's activities in support of Islamist groups were often covert, and a great deal of misinformation exists. Robert Dreyfuss' new book, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, is an attempt at a comprehensive overview of this story, recounting how the CIA, guided by the belief that radical Islamist forces could act as a bulwark against communism, helped fuel the rise of political Islam and militant fundamentalism in the Middle East and Central Asia. Below is a timeline of major events in the U.S. government's 70-year flirtation with and support for the militant forces that would, in the late 1990s and on September 11, 2001, come back to haunt the United States.
US Sponsored âIslamic Fundamentalism": The Roots of the US-Wahhabi Alliance By Benjamin Schett Global Research, September 07, 2012 http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-islamic-fundamentalism-the-roots-of-the-us-wahhabi-alliance/5303558 The alliance between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia helped spread the ideology of fundamentalist Sunni Islam all over the globe. The majority of its victims are not citizens of Western countries, but citizens of countries that U.S. elites consider a threat to their economic and geopolitical interests. Many victims of Sunni extremism (often called Wahhabism or Salafism[1]) are in fact Muslims (often with a secular leftist or nationalist political background), moderate Sunni or members of ShiĘżite Islamic faith. This article addresses the history of Wahhabi fundamentalism and the examples of Afghanistan in the 80s, as well as the current situation in Syria. Both cases illustrate Americaâs responsibility for the destruction of secular, socially progressive societies in the Islamic world and elsewhere. The Origins of Wahhabism ... {some informative history here}
How the West used radical Islam and unleashed global terror 20 August 2016 RAKESH KRISHNAN SIMHA, SPECIALLY FOR RIR http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2016/08/20/how-the-west-used-radical-islam-and-unleashed-global-terror_622551 If you are outraged by the spate of terror attacks that have occurred in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, you are entirely justified. However, do not forget that it is western policies in the Middle East that created the conditions for the growth of these extremists. Before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq there was no al-Qaeda or ISIS. President Saddam Hussein was the enemy of radical Islamists and in his eyes Osama bin Laden was a âzealot". Decades prior to Iraqâs descent into chaos, it was Afghanistan that became a focal point for Islamic mercenaries from around the world. It was when the West started destabilising Afghanistan â in order to bait the Soviets â that the Mujahidin, and its later version the Taliban, were born. Afghanistan used to be a country where women wore skirts and it was considered normal, but today Afghan girls are shot dead for going to school or merely talking to boys. This has happened because western governments â led by the United States â have destabilised secular nationalist leaders, while cosying up to fundamentalist groups. From the extremist Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia to the Egyptian cult of the Muslim Brotherhood, western nations have backed fundamentalist forces at the expense of nationalist Muslims.
long-term brainwash with religion is no 'withering plant' (not after all the infusions its received); nor is the West the principal nurturer (gardener) of Islamic idiocy and fanaticism.Just the financiers, that's why it's got such a tendency to blow up in our own faces. But then we get the march of apologists such as yourself, who are too busy peddling their position, to have any time or interest in learning about the 'rest of the story.'
long-term brainwash with religion is no 'withering plant' (not after all the infusions its received); nor is the West the principal nurturer (gardener) of Islamic idiocy and fanaticism.Just the financiers, that's why it's got such a tendency to blow up in our own faces. But then we get the march of apologists such as yourself, who are too busy peddling their position, to have any time or interest in learning about the 'rest of the story.' One reason why I post news items from some otherwise remote places on Earth is that the religious brainwash in many of those places are not due to any 'infusion'. While financiers like the Saudis have helped Islamic fanaticism and terrorism in many places, the root cause of fanaticism and atrocities are none other than the religion itself. That is why it is critical to have more rational people among those that have grown up to think themselves as Muslims. It should be like the way Christians have been turing into atheists and agnostics in the West. I am confused about your 'apologists such as yourself' comment. Better not talk about me, talk about the subject of the discussion. (I am surely not interested in talking about any individual in this forum.)
Recently there was another case of arresting a non-Muslim in Bangladesh for âinsulting Islamâ. Vendor held for 'insulting Islam' | The Daily Star
Bangladeshi Muslims are considered moderate by the standards of their co-religionists in many other parts of the world. But Bangladesh has laws to punish âinsulting Islamâ.
Most Muslim-majority countries have similar or harsher laws. Here are two other news items from two so-called moderate Muslim-majority countries.
Malaysian singer Namewee held for 'insulting Islam' - BBC News
LogosPost.com is for sale | HugeDomains
I am getting sick of the nonsense of âinsulting Islamâ. Canât the Muslims leave the âinsults on Islamâ to be punished by their almighty Allah?
I think countries that care about human and citizenship rights of people irrespective of religious affiliations should give preference to immigration-seekers that are persecuted based upon their religion in their native country. The USA should generally give the Christians and the Yazidis of Syria preference over the Muslims from that country; although some individual cases of Muslims could get as much preference because of their individual cases of persecution. The Democratic Party, claiming to be more humane, should have been better at that than what Donald Trump seems to be trying to do now.
Suicide attack on Pakistani shrine kills 72
Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this. However, as this news article has concluded: âMost of Pakistanâs myriad radical Sunni militant groups - including the Pakistani Talibanâs various factions and Islamic State loyalists - despise Sufis, Shiâite Muslims and other religious minorities as heretics.â The reality is also that, while most of the so-called moderate Muslims are human enough to not kill other people and themselves so senselessly, they do consider the Sufi and Shia Muslims as heretics.
The prime minister of Pakistan says, âBut we canât let these events divide us, or scare us. We must stand united in this struggle for the Pakistani identity, and universal humanity.â But his nation has extremely poor records on human rights, especially for religious minorities. While people like him talk insincerely about unity, the religious minorities keep getting brutalized and leaving their ancestral homeland of centuries.
Seeing a disaster slowly unfolds in front of my eyes⌠I have to say yesâŚ
The Islamic world only have itself to blame for nurturing this idiocy, but it wonât turn into a full-blown disaster such as a civil war as long as the west doesnât intervene.