posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:57 AM
Interesting post, and I believe I will chime in on this:
In the years between the revolution in Iran, that overthrew the Shah, and 9/11, when the main stream media was actually doing its job and reporting
the facts and not opinions, I recall seeing a news show that went into the world of Islam, to educate the general public about what this religion is,
and the people who followed it. The main part was looking at the different groups, and the terrorist that were causing alot of the troubles in Isreal
and Jorden. What I do recall on this program makes the best sense of all, as it was the opinion of a lot of researchers and western experts all
agreed on the following: Those who follow Islam, can not be physically defeated, it has to be done on an ideological level.
The other thing that I remember about Islam and the discussion as to why those in Islamic countries do not like the western world, another person
pointed out, using computers as an anology for such: Take the Muslims, they believe that they have a version of God, say 2.0, that those of Judasim
have version 0, and Christianity has version 1.0. Then they look at how they are living and their neighbors, and they slightly feel embarassed and
upset. They believe that they are devout, following the protocals as it is told to them, and then they see how their neighbors are living, who are
not so devout. It is natural that they would be upset and angry. In their point of view, the fact that those who have excelled are somehow
shortcutting the system and they feel cheated.
Now in one of the prior post the person talked about the history of the Middle east, yet fails to mention 3 major events in history. Before the
Crusades, the Islamic world dominated from India all of the way to West Africa, and up into Spain. Then there was the Mongol invasion from the east,
which devistated the area, and following that, up to before World War I, there was the Ottoman Empire, who by the way, were muslim that dominated the
region. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire following the conclusiion of World War I, there was alot of infighting in the territory that was held by
the Ottomans in their reign.
The problems of the middle east will never be solved easily, as the divisions in the different sects of Islam go too deep, where old hurts are not
allowed to heal. Even if we did not get involved, there would still be problems as the Sunni Muslims do not like the Shiites, who do not like those
who were once the Ottomans, who are still wanting to be back ontop of the Islamic world. None of the different groups like the other, and will often
seek to subvert or even cause problems for the other. And to complicate matters, they will often go outside to different countries to seek support
and help, so then other countries, seeing the resources there in that part of the world, would naturally give such help, to gain favorable deals on
those resources. It is a total mess, cause then by default those who give aid, become the targets and enemies of the other groups.
Even before Sadam was removed from power in Iraq, the other Muslim countries did not like the man, did not trust him, yet none would move against him
or try to remove him from power, rather relying on the intervention of the Western Powers to do the job that they themselves would not do. Why dirty
their hands when they can get someone else to do it for them and still look like they had very little to do about such?
The final thought on this topic, is this: Tolerance has to swing both ways and right now the people in the Western World are tired of being tolerant
to the muslim population of the world. They really are ceasing to care or be concerned about what goes on in the middle east as the violence never
ends. None of the more moderate clerics will stand up and speak out, not even those in the Western Countries, and if they do, it is in a language
that is soft and tends to leave them hanging in the rear of that issue. Want the Western world to care about the Islamic world, then tell them to
stop. Stop with the death threats, stop with the endless violence. Tell the Islamic world to use stronger language against those in its own
communities who are doing the acts of violence, take a strong stand and stick to it. If they are going to profess a higher moral standard, then put
teeth to it. It is easy to condone an action, like terrorist activities, but what has more of an impact, We condone the actions of the terrorist who
committed these acts. Or would this have a greater impact: If you committ an act of violence, then not only are you not going to Heaven, but we are
going to ensure that the entire group that you have are turned over to those who you just attacked, and we will demand to be on the Jury and we will
make sure to demand that your group pays the greatest price, death by the choosing of the victims.
What would have more of the world stopping, the first statement or the second statement? I would think that the second statement would have a greater
impact on the part of the Islamic world and would sent a stronger message that they intent to be a religion of peace and of higher morals, and it
would get the world to actually start caring about what all is going on in their countries.