Afraid of life
The only difference between Saudi Islam and that of the ultra-hardline Afghan Taliban is the opulence and private self-indulgence of the al-Sauds. The Saudis are the Taliban, in luxury. Veiled Kingdom (p.168
( Read more... )
Comments 62
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
To me it suggests reluctance or a sense of guilt in taking part in life at all, and/or a feeling that all of life is really a necessary evil on the way to paradise.
That's a reasonable take. I guess what I mean is that life is seen as dominated by pitfalls, as mostly being an opportunity to sin and fail, as full of pain, and trials and tribulations. That life is full of negatives.
It is worth thinkinig more on, thank you.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Carmen bin Ladin suspects that Osama not only had, but continues to have, supporters within the al-Saud. I think it is very clear that Osama saw S11 as a way of displaying the prowess of his movement to galvanise support within Islam. Now, whether that is against all the al-Saud or merely a grouping within the al-Saud, not at all clear.
How he conceived US reactions, not sure. It may be he expected them to be as passive as they had to previous attacks, thereby demonstrating their decadence and weakness. His pre-US election video, with its subtext of if you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone did suggest he had been shocked by the vigor of the response.
Israel and Palestine are obviously not key issues for Osama, they are add-ons. The model of the original break out of Islam from the Arabian peninsula -- overthrowing the Persian empire and half the "Byzantine" (i.e. Roman) Empire after they had exhausted each other in a bitter, decades long, struggle -- is obviously in the jihadi mind, with the fall of the ( ... )
Reply
Or, alternately, without it being any less 'specifically Muslim', it could still be a reaction to the US and/or globalisation. Your Latin American analogy is inapt - Latin America is predominately Catholic, and has also had rather more money poured into the efforts of scaring it into quiescence by the US.
Reply
But it is also true that Latin America has a lot less angst about the US: they seem to be more able to take the concept of responsibility and acting to improve their situation, rather than projecting blame and excuses on others, as is endemic in the Arab-Islamic world.
Moreover, Latin Americans typically don't have any global ambitions. They don't respond to their situation by seeking to proselytize and expand outwards.
Of course, that the core areas of Latin America were subject to European control and settlement a good century before North America also weakens scapegoating. There is always the PJ O'Rourke joke:
American to Mexican: Why do you Mexicans hate us?
Mexican to American: Because you stole half our country and, what's more, you stole the half with all the paved roads.
What Latin Americans often want to do about the US is move there. It is a different outlook.
Reply
Well that explains so much why the U.S. invaded Iraq.. Wait a minute.. Didn't you say Saudi?
Ahh, I guess a compliant regime is a friendly regime...
Reply
Reading The Veiled Kingdom, I had more sympathy for the Reagan Administration officials who were reluctant to give Stingers to the muhadjadeen because of where they might end up.
I still don't agree with them, but I understand their concerns more. Just as I don't agree with those who wanted to keep help to Stalin in WWII to a mininum. The current enemy still has to be defeated, even if it does mean helping a future enemy.
Reply
So let me get this right... Iraq, who couldn't even control it's own borders, was a bigger enemy that Al-Qaeda? That had a worse human rights record that say, Saudi Arabia or Turkmenistan?
Reply
Reply
Not Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm
Concern about "human rights" and "democracy" my fsking arse.
Reply
If the Americans don't use their military power against human rights violators, they're guilty of tolerating the same.
If they do against any one violater, their guilty of hypocrisy because they don't take on all the other violators.
This is a nonsense position: a 'heads the American are evil, tails the Americans are evil' position.
Human rights is never going to be more than a factor in American or anyone else's foreign policy. The question is how big a factor.
Reply
No, it is not a nonsense position.
They are guilty of hypocrisy because they claim that their military actions are justifiable for the purpose of "liberating" people, when it is a clear as day that is a patent lie.
Reply
It is a nonsense position, because there is no policy America could take which would be considered "right" under that rubric. If we invade no human rights violators, we are tolerating evil; if we invade one, we are applying the rule selectively; if we invade all, we would be megalomaniacs.
A rule under which one is always wrong is a rule which one rationally ignores.
Reply
Leave a comment