In America, not all Christians are in lockstep with each other on religious and social issues, especially with the many ethnic differences. Presumably the same may apply to Muslims throughout the world. But just as Muslims seem to band together when they are challenged, so do America's Christians. Perhaps Americans do not have as much concern with Muslims here as Europeans seem to in their countries. Too often racial and ethnic aspects are added to the mix of religions. Pres. Obama has made an effort to avoid worsening all this. He will have to do more.
 

I honestly do not see that the President can do a great deal to change the views of most of these people. It is too easy to dismiss him as simply a more polite warmongering U.S. bully.

I do not mean to say I agree with this characterization, but that I cannot imagine how he can dissuade them. If we pull out of Afghanistan, many will say it was simply because we were getting beaten and quit. (Probably not altogether a false claim.) If we stay, we continue as occupiers. If we pull out and give tons of aid, many will say we are simply shoring up a government to keep our hands in the oil till.

And so on. At this point, I think all we can do is leave in a measured and orderly way and offer help as possible. It will be many, many years before the majority of the world's Muslims change their opinion of the US government, no matter who leads it.
 

"It will be many, many years before the majority of the world's Muslims change their opinion of the US government, no matter who leads it."

Yeah, essentially until a Muslim leads it, or we at least accept our dhimmi status, which could be an awfully long time.
 

The poll you cite shows that a large majority of Muslims want strict Sharia law, a significant number have favorable views of al Qaeda and/or Bin Ladin, and only a small minority recognize al Qaeda as being responsible for 9/11. If this is what you would call "measured" opinions, I wonder what it would take to have you label them as extremist?
 

Brett:
Yeah, essentially until a Muslim leads it, or we at least accept our dhimmi status, which could be an awfully long time.

I was thinking more generally of a passage of time during which our govenrment does not do anything to feed the existing profile. That might be near to impossible, of course; perhaps we can only hope for a gradual reduction in animosity.
 

For those who might want yet more titles, there's a considerable number to be found in my bibliography for Islamic Studies, in particular (but not only), among the titles in Sec. 11, "Culture, Economics, and Politics." See here: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2009/06/islamic-studies-bibliography.html

For direct download of the Word doc., this should work: http://www.jurisdynamics.net/files/documents/IslamicStudiesBibliography.doc
 

I have been fortunate in that I know a number of people from different regions of the middle east, some muslim some christian. I have also studied the Quoran and Islam, with the advantage of asking friends about things I read and did not understand.

I have discovered that the Quoran is NOT a book of peace. Islam is far more militant than most Christians would believe. Average Muslins, not extremists, believe that they are destined to rule the world under Sharia Law. Dhimmi (jews and Christians) will be allowed to live and pay massive taxes IF they accept second class citizen status.

If the West allows the Muslims to gain sufficent power to exert their will over the West, our way of life is over. We will find ourselves either killed or subjigated.

This is not hatred against muslims, this is a conclusion drawn from Islamic writings and discussions with folks from the middle east.

I believe that previous administrations have realized this and have, quite wisely, tried to keep the Muslim nations from uniting in Jihad, somthing they have done in past centuries. History shows that when the Muslims gain strength and march out, many many people die. It could, absolutely, happen again.
 

I can't imagine how any Christian who's read the Bible could possibly describe the Koran as unbelievably militant.

I can't imagine how anyone familiar with history could be confused about the body counts for each religion either. When it come to religious murder and mayhem, Christianity is #1 by a big margin.

Which is not to say that all of that butchery was carried out by good Christians mind you -- you can't judge god / allah by his fan clubs.
 

What portion of Christians in America believe in the fierce God of the Old Testament? I think there are plenty. The New Testament portrays a kinder, forgiving God. It's too late in life for me as a long lapsed Christian, now an agnostic leaning towards atheism (keeping my fingers crossed just in case), to get embroiled in the Koran (my next assignment is from Mattski to read 280+ pages of Barron and Lederman on the American executive power). But I shall take the time to go back and reread Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth" to restore my lack of confidence in religion, especially the major ones. And then there are the words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"
 

The Quoran has little resemblance to the New Testament. The History revisionists would have you believe that the Muslims were sitting peacefully in their villages and towns when the evil Crusaders swooped down on them and killed all in their path.

One should ask onesself, what were Muslims doing in Jerusalem and the surrounding area? They had taken the area by the sword a few humdred years before the Crusades and began a policy of extorting money from European Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Many Christians on pilgrimage were slaughtered. The first Crusade and the subsequent ones were all about taking and holding a route to Jerusalem, as well as holding the territory for the Pilgrims.

In the first jihad, the muslims marched out of Arabia and went on a killing spree that left many thousands dead, Christian, Jew and pagan. Many more converted and some were allowed to live with their religion under sharia law, a very uncomfortable way to live. Ever wonder where the women in a harem came from? they were the widows and daughters of slain enemies. The guards were to keep the women in, not unwanted visitors out.
 

Yes, I occasionally laugh about the modern portrayal of the Crusades, which were mostly a reaction to Muslim conquests. How do people think the Muslims ended up in Spain, by peaceful immigration?

"I was thinking more generally of a passage of time during which our government does not do anything to feed the existing profile."

What feeds the existing profile is that we're a powerful nation that's not Islamic.
 

This thread and news that Paul Anka is suing Michael Jackson's estate suggest a song parody:

"I DID IT YAHWEH"

How far back in time should we go? Perhaps back to Africa?
 

It's too late in life for me as a long lapsed Christian, now an agnostic leaning towards atheism (keeping my fingers crossed just in case)

This is totally OT but, Shag, since you mentioned reading assignments & loss of confidence in religion may I add a book to your list? 'What the Buddha Taught' by Walpola Rahula. An unusually lucid volume.

In my opinion Buddhism meets the standard of rationality that theistic religions can't. I would say Buddhism meets a rigorous rational standard.
 

J Parker,

Sometimes silence is golden if not wise: No matter who you may have known or presently know or what you may have read, your knowledge of Islam and Islamic history as crystallized in your comment here bespeaks appalling ignorance and, what is worse, stereotypical and false generalizations of the egregious variety. Even the most prosaic student of Near or Middle Eastern Studies or Islamic Studies would dismiss your remarks as not worthy of serious consideration owing to the transparent display of pretense couched in the crude and timeworn rhetoric of the "ugly American." No doubt a Fox News correspondent somewhere anxiously awaits to grant you an interview .
 

A somewhat germane book that I found insightful is Blood That Cries Out From the Earth: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism by James W. Jones. The book discusses various religions.

Since we are dealing with U.S. troops occupying foreign countries and U.S. policy that results in negative results in the same [this is why when Northern "invaders" entered the South of this country, even those no big fan of slavery wanted them out and supported violence against their troops], it also might be useful to remember that "the people" in "Muslim countries" (a broad term, like comparing the U.S. to some "Christian" countries in Europe) are a mixed lot, many not even Muslim.

The way forward also should keep in mind that the views of the "Muslims" are often quite rational, and in various cases, quite arguably sound. OTOH, if we view them as "different" while our pragmatically of mixed morality path presumptively both best for us and simply "good," we might have difficulties.
 

mattski,

If I may: while I probably share your affection for Buddhism, I doubt there exists "the standard of rationality," as the criteria of what counts as "rational" are several at least. What is more, there are different forms of rationality and we seem capable of discovering yet novel applications of the concept of reason (cf. the Introduction to Jonardon Ganeri's Philosophy in Classical India, 2001).

And there are any number of reasons to value religious traditions apart from the question of whether their cognitive claims meet our putative standards of rationality, if only because the holding of beliefs is merely one and often not central component of what it means to live a religious life: indeed, we would be better off according primacy to praxis if we're phenomenologically sensitive to what religions (or spirituality) are all about (see, for example, John Cottingham's The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value, 2005; for a nice treatment of the cognitive dimension of religions, please see James Kellenberger's The Cognitivity of Religion: Three Perspectives, 1985; lastly, and by way of countering some academic and philosophical biases against religious worldviews, I would also recommend, despite its horrific title and numerous typographical errors, Ninian Smart's Religion and the Western Mind, 1987). In fact, religions (including Buddhism) by nature are frequently focused on that which is non-rational, arational, para- or supra-rational, in Pascal's words, "le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point." Religions may help us discover the limitations of reason and rationality, which in no way diminishes the necessity or importance of reason.
 

There is a large measure of cultural shame behind purported Muslim dislike of the US in particular and the West in general. The West repeatedly humiliated the Muslim world by colonizing them, then allowing European Jews into Israel to thrash their Arab neighbors in a series of wars and then the necessity to allow the US into the Holy Land of Mecca to free Kuwait when the Arabs were unable and then the US liberation of Iraq when the Iraqi uprising failed. This is a lot for a proud civilization to take.

Nothing the US can do will change the Muslim view of America until the Muslims become self sufficient and deal with their own problems. Only then can the Islamic world deal with the US as equals.

However, America has vital interests in the area and cannot merely walk away as many here would like. Thus, the best we can hope for is for the Muslim world to respect and/or fear us as the "toughest MF in the valley" and to reject the Islamic fascist movement as a threat to Islam and Muslims. That has bought us peace at home and now in Iraq and hopefully later in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When fighting a medieval foe, surrender will not buy you peace, but simply further conflict.
 

"However, America has vital interests in the area and cannot merely walk away as many here would like."

Perhaps such "vital interests" should be spelled out. What are America's "National Interests" in the area? What are the "National Interests" of other nations in the area? Whose "National Interests" should dominate? Colonialism was a form of "National Interests."

Yesterday was Columbus Day. There were no Muslims in the Western Hemisphere back in those days of conquests by various European Christian nations. The conquerers were not Muslims. The conquerers were Christians, mostly Catholics, doing "God's work." The conquerers had "National Interests" that were not in the best interests of the indigenous. In addition to religion, racism was involved.

"When fighting a medieval foe, surrender will not buy you peace, but simply further conflict."

Does this suggest an American mission to fight medieval foes, perhaps wherever they are located? Think of colonization in Africa and "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad.
 

Bart,

You write:

"Nothing the US can do will change the Muslim view of America until the Muslims become self sufficient and deal with their own problems."

The contradiction in your observation is that is precisely why they object to our presence. They want us to leave them alone to deal with their own problems, but we keep putting our thumb on them.

Here is a passage on point from the DOD 2004 report:

"Today we reflexively compare Muslim 'masses' to those oppressed under Soviet rule. This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies--except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends."

Your comments suggest that we are their saviors; but they see us as aggressive interventionists who prop up their oppressors. They have much support for this assertion--as we have hugged dictators in the region for decades (including Saddam himself, ironically).

It would be more honest and credible to simply admit--as you also allude to--that we have our own interests in the region that matter to us above all else. Anything beyond that is B.S., which they aren't buying.

Brian
 

I occasionally laugh about the modern portrayal of the Crusades, which were mostly a reaction to Muslim conquests.

A reaction? The Muslims took Jerusalem in 650. The first Crusade was in 1099. That's 350 years. By this logic, Sweden should attack Austria "in reaction" to the Thirty Years War.

The word "reaction" is also silly in another way: Jerusalem was ruled by Byzantium in 650. The Crusaders who took Jerusalem in 1099 were Catholics from France and Germany (mostly). Perhaps Russia should attack Austria "in reaction" to the Thirty Years War.
 

Bart:

The West repeatedly humiliated the Muslim world by [...] the necessity to allow the US into the Holy Land of Mecca ...

U.S. troops were never allowed into Mecca.

... to free Kuwait when the Arabs were unable and ...

Why pay for an army when you can rent one as needed ... and even let the rental company pay right down to the gas?

... then the US liberation of Iraq when the Iraqi uprising failed....

The uprising we encouraged? But Iraq is hardly "liberated" (other than of a few hundred thousand lives), and we purportedly weren't there to create the [Shia] Islamic Republic of Iraq (even if that's essentially what we did).

Nothing the US can do will change the Muslim view of America until the Muslims become self sufficient and deal with their own problems....

... says the guy whose SUV wouldn't move two inches if it weren't for Muslim oil....

However, America has vital interests in the area and cannot merely walk away as many here would like....

Yes. As one of the suggested names for the Iraqi invasion went, "Operation Iraqi Liberation" ... until the obvious acronym proved too embarrassing.

Cheers,
 

"The Muslims took Jerusalem in 650. The first Crusade was in 1099. That's 350 years"

That's 450 years.
 

Shag from Brookline said...

BD:"However, America has vital interests in the area and cannot merely walk away as many here would like."

Perhaps such "vital interests" should be spelled out.

1) Energy.

2) Denying WMD to enemy nations in the region.

3) Denying sanctuary and support to terrorist organizations.

Sorry, adding these nations to a mythical American empire is not a real life national interest.
 

Brian Tamanaha said...

BD: "Nothing the US can do will change the Muslim view of America until the Muslims become self sufficient and deal with their own problems."

The contradiction in your observation is that is precisely why they object to our presence. They want us to leave them alone to deal with their own problems, but we keep putting our thumb on them.

Our interventions to advance our national interests are not keeping these peoples from becoming self sufficient. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the Afghan and Iraqi peoples could have become self sufficient if we had not removed the totalitarian dictatorships terrorizing those peoples.

Despite our own mythology, it is similarly difficult to see who America could have gained its independence without the assistance of France, which was acting out of its own national interests rather than for any love for our radical republicanism.

Sometime you need a little help from your friends, even if they are merely friends of convenience.

Here is a passage on point from the DOD 2004 report:

"Today we reflexively compare Muslim 'masses' to those oppressed under Soviet rule. This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies--except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends."

This is patent nonsense. Ask the Iraqis and Afghans as they line up to vote if they want to return to the good old days of mass murder and terror under Saddam and the Taliban before the evil US showed up.

Your comments suggest that we are their saviors; but they see us as aggressive interventionists who prop up their oppressors.

That depends upon the country. I can see the argument for Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It has no merit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps, we need to amend our national policies toward the former nations.
 

Thanks to Patrick for the course links and to Mark for getting in on the history.

'Muslims' are no more a monolithic group than are 'Christians.' Those I know tend to be highly educated and highly rational. They do not read their holy book[s] as warrant for world domination or for violence.

Imagine if someone who regards herself as a Christian heard that Muslims look only to prosletyzing fundamentalists as representing all Christians. Imagine the very violent passages in the Bible are pointed out as 'proof' that all Christians are violent. She would be offended and surprised, and justly so.

As long as we are thinking about history, let's not forget the Moorish rule in Spain, especially Andalusia. Culture and science flourished, and there was peace among religions. Until the Catholics took over.

Humans can and do move beyond their histories. We should not assume that Muslims the world over are reducible to any one sect or any one historical moment.
 

"Sorry, adding these nations to a mythical American empire is not a real life national interest."

How about 850+ air, sea and other military posts throughout the world? Is that mythical?
 

That's 450 years.

Of course. Thanks.
 

It has no merit in Iraq and Afghanistan.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:47 PM

Yes, it does. They despise us, just as you would despise them if they were occupying Colorado. The only ones who "like" us are the ones who have figured out how to get us to fight for them, and they probably also hate us.

until the Muslims become self sufficient and deal with their own problems....

I love Arne's response to this pantload.

Ask the Iraqis and Afghans as they line up to vote if they want to return to the good old days of mass murder and terror under Saddam and the Taliban before the evil US showed up.

We did ask them, and they promptly started a civil war. Don't worry, they'll replace Hussein soon after we leave, if they haven't done so already.
 

The far left cannot resist idealizing Islam. I suppose that this is because Islam is an "Eastern" religion. All liberals know that the East is good and the West is bad, so Islam must be good.

Remember the Muslims all over the Middle East as well as in this country dancing and celebrating after 9/11. This is the true face of Islam. They hate u According to most Imams and the Quoran, we are Dhimmi. There are three ways to deal with Dhimmi. You either kill them, conquor them and convert them or allow them to keep their religion, pay ruinous taxes to Islam and give up their civil rights.
 

Anyone want to bet on whether "J Parker" and "Mark" are the same racist asshole?
 

Really its a war on terrorism. But I would say we cannot achieve success in this until we are all united in getting desired results. As far as how Muslim Countries see US, then I would say it is just their perception, but once they will see the reality with their own eyes their thinking will definitely change.
Best Home Mortgage Rates
 

that all you got? Calling anyone who disagrees a racist and an asshole? I see that you are just as smart as most lefties.

ps: up yours, bartbuster
 

that all you got? Calling anyone who disagrees a racist and an asshole? I see that you are just as smart as most lefties.

ps: up yours, bartbuster

# posted by J Parker : 3:22 PM

It's not all I've got, but it's all I need when dealing with the likes of you.
 

Bartbuster and Obama sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g.

There, Bartbuster. An argument on your level.
 

j parker:

Ignore BB. He is my personal pathological cyber stalker. He will rant on for pages if you feed him.

The profs here have nearly closed down the blog to comments. We conservatives should not be the reason for them to close down the rest.
 

There, Bartbuster. An argument on your level.

# posted by J Parker : 3:51 PM

That wasn't any different from your original argument.
 

He will rant on for pages if you feed him.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 3:52 PM


Physician, heal thyself!
 

J Parker,

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Islam is yet another Semitic "religion of Abraham," which places it alongside the two monotheistic traditions that preceded it: Judaism and Christianity, it is therefore a Western religious tradition. Indeed, the argument has well been made for an "Islamo-Christian" civilization, as in The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization by Richard W. Bulliet (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). It's clear you've never read the book (or any other book on topic?).

The "far left" is more often than not anti-religious or at least of a secular persuasion, and thus when it amounts to a worldview tends to be naturalistic (in its essential presuppositions or assumptions). That, by definition, precludes idealizing Islam or any religion for that matter, of either western or eastern provenance. There are, however, a significant number of those of Leftist and Liberal persuasion who, at the same time, are religious and, more often than not, this means their worldviews are aptly characterized or defined by Jewish or Christian religious commitments and ways of life.

In any case, the "far left" and "liberals" are two different things, although your willingness to equate or conflate them speaks volumes about your capacity for mental discrimination and discernment. As Muslims would remind you, it's a terrible thing (i.e., sinful) to waste your God-given intellectual powers ('aql). Furthermore, both Liberals and Leftists, despite their differences, have in common a proud and indissoluble identification with philosophical and political ideas and traditions as far back as ancient Greece (e.g., the Stoics) and that come to flourish in the European Enlightenment (some of those ideas were not geographically confined to the West), so they they are, quintessentially, "western," NOT "eastern," and thus it makes no sense whatsoever to claim, as you do, that they invariably see the West as "bad" and the East as "good."

Your comments are truly an embarrassment to this blog and its readers deserve better.
 

No informed person thinks the goal is to get the Islamic world to give up deep-seated beliefs.

The goal is rather to get the world, which includes the Islamic world, to generally see our Nation as a positive force in the world.

Since that was once the case, it doesn't seem unrealistic to aim and hope that it may some day once again be the case.

My guess is our words will have little influence on perceptions without action. For instance, if we stopped propping up dictatorships in the Middle East, our words about standing for freedom would be more convincing.

I believe with the right actions and the right words, there is much we can do to improve how the world views us.

Hey, look on the bright side: there's a lot of room for improvement :-)
 

Saudi Arabia, the seat of the Islamic faith, is in Asia, which is East of Europe and the Americas. While technically it is not an “Eastern Religion”, I was referring more to geographical location as opposed to an encyclopedia definition. Most westerners identify Islam with the East simply on the basis of geographical location as opposed to historical roots and traditions.

As for the far left versus liberalism, you are correct in as far as the definitions go. The far left, however, has long since co-opted the term Liberal. The far left is defined by egalitarianism, wealth redistribution and radical social and political change. Communism, socialism, Marxism/Lenninism, Maoism, feminism and green politics/environmentalism are all associated with the far left. In essence, the far left is not only non-patriotic, they are anti patriotic. They want social revolution. As these views are unpopular with the majority of Americans, the far left has chosen to call themselves Liberal to mask their real core beliefs. I consider myself a Classical Liberal. I certainly would not want to be associated with the majority of those calling themselves Liberal today.

As for the far left’s love affair with eastern religions, all you need to do is look at the Hollywood Left to see the truth of this. I do not say that it makes sense for an avowed athiest to toy with such things as anamism or nature worship, but if you are intelectually honest, you must realize that many of those in the environmental movement have made it into a religion and have adopted many aspects of Eastern religion.

I find it very revealing that you find my comments stupid and embarassing but you have nothing to say about Bartbusters vitriol. Try a little intellectal honesty, it is good for the soul.
 

As for Richard W. Bulliet and his writings, no I have not taken the time to read them. I do know that he is very pro Palestinian and anti Israeli, that he has publicly statedthat the US was responsible for 9/11 and he invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University. I doubt that I would find his writings interesting.

Have you read "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World's Fastest-Growing Faith" by Robert Spencer, or "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century" by Bat Ye'Or? I highly recommend them.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This is growing tedious and tiresome, so I'll leave one last comment.

By your criteria, then, both Judaism and Christianity are "Eastern"--look at a map (all three traditions being in the Near, or Middle East).

The motley you identify as the "far left" is, once more, lacking in discrimination and distinction and thus not at all useful. Should you care to understand what "the Left" (and 'far left') has been, historically, at least in this country, please read Richard Flacks' book, Making History: The American Left and the American Mind (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).

I admit to ignorance of the "Hollywood Left," although there are many in Hollywood (i.e., the entertainment industry) that are self-described "liberals" of one sort or another.

You should look up my bibliography for "environmental and ecological worldviews" and pick a handful of titles to read for, once more, you display an appalling degree of ignorance on yet another subject. The bibliography is here: http://www.jurisdynamics.net/files/documents/environmental_and_ecological_worldviews.doc Once you become acquainted with the representative literature on the subject, you'll discover that those in the environmental movement (with a statistically insignificant number of exceptions) are not motivated by nor involved in either animism or nature worship. While "Deep Ecology" Greens have been attracted to or inspired by principles and practices found, say, among Buddhists or Daoists, so what? And they happen to be comparatively few in number. Some of these individuals are likewise inspired by the science of ecology. For a sensitive if not sophisticated discussion of religious worldviews and ecological awareness and praxis, you should explore the material found at the website of the Forum on Religion and Ecology. And Eastern religious worldviews such as Daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism are not about "animism" and "nature worship."

I addressed your comments in particular because they had to do, tendentiously and indirectly, with the subject matter of the post and were about a religion (Islam) and civilization I've studied for several decades now. I'm perfectly free to call out anyone of my choosing and feel no obligation (nor do I have the time) to counter whatever nonsense may happen to appear in a blog thread. Your concern for my intellectual honesty, however, is touching, although I'm afraid you lack a familiarity with those things to which the adjective applies.
 

The Forum on Religion and Ecology website is here: http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/
 

I suspect J Parker studied Islam (1:16 a.m. post) with the same diligence and accuracy which s/he applied to learning about Liberals and the Left (6:18 p.m. post). The words of Job 15:6 come to mind when reading that latter post.
 

Addendum to last comment:

I just realized why you raised the issue of environmentalism, as I found it wholly inexplicable. I take it you confused my reference to "naturalism," as a philosophical or metaphysical (and as a methodological principle in science) doctrine with "nature worship" and "animism." The two, in fact, have nothing to do with each other. For a discussion of naturalism in the sense I intended, please see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
 

Patrick wrote: I doubt there exists "the standard of rationality," as the criteria of what counts as "rational" are several at least.

With respect, Patrick, I don't think this is a complicated matter. The test of rationality is whether or not a belief is supported by evidence. We are endowed with faculties of observation and--as a rule--we are in a position to evaluate evidence for substance. That is all.
 

Mattski,

There's quite a bit of literature as to what might count as "evidence" and whether or not, indeed, evidence is even applicable to religious belief, given its "object" (I happen to think it is, so I'm a cognitivist in this regard, but the non-cognitivists have some compelling arguments on their side as well, as Kellenberger's discussion makes plain), so I beg to differ: it is, in fact, rather complicated (as one will discover in several of the works I referenced). In any case, in the "giving of reasons" or in the provision of evidence we at some point must rest on fairly arbitrary starting points, "for sooner or later the process of explanation and rationalization must--to all appearances--come to a halt in the acceptance of unexplained explainers." This state of affairs applies to the attempt to justify both religious and non-religious beliefs.

Faculties of observation--or the senses--hardly suffice for our justificatory enterprise unless one is a rather crude empiricist, but why should empiricism be the arbiter for what counts as rational? If theism posits a reality beyond the empirical world, how can we rely on a model of scientific evidence applicable to the natural world to assess such belief? How does one deal with the fact that, for example, Christians (like Jews) stress that it is difficult if not impossible for mortals to reach God by ordinary cognitive means? Theism, for instance, is ill-understood if viewed on the order of an "inference to the best explanation." As Cottingham explains, "it is by no means clear that the claims of religion ARE typically advanced as the most plausible inference to be drawn from the empirical facts; moreover, it is by no means clear that the religious adherent needs to advance them as such."

If religious claims are not on a par with scientific claims, then the question of evidence is no longer a straightforward or obvious one. (And thus how people arrive at or come to religious belief is of some importance in assessing its rational cogency.) And the alternative need not be a non-cognitivist fideism of the Kierkegarrdian sort, even if some have have chosen that option.

Is it thereby fair to use ordinary cognitive means to assess belief in God? We should be naturalists about nature but what about that which is considered "beyond" nature? Perhaps the proper tests arise from personal experience. Consider, again, Cottingham, this time in the context of examining theistic belief and the theodicy question:

"The religious believer, having committed her allegiance to God...is not required to conduct an impartial assessment of the evidence and show that the hypothesis of God's existence is the most plausible inference to be drawn from the balance of suffering in the world.... What is required, if the theistic commitment is not to be rankly irrational, is the production of a narrative which is consistent with the balance of suffering, and which shows, as it were, that an innocent construction can be placed on the relevant divine acts or omissions. [....] The position now approximates to that described in Immanuel Kant's account of faith: 'I WILL that God exist, and I will not let this be taken from me.' All that is reasonably required now is an account of the suffering world in which we live that is consistent with that faith."

Here, narrative consistency of a sort is decisive with regard to belief in God in light of the question of theodicy, often thought to present an insuperable obstacle to (rational) belief in God.

Much more could be said about this but as it is tangential to the main thread I'll leave it at that, and thus conclude that we see things rather differently on this score.
 

Patrick, I don't know much, but I do know a surfeit of verbiage when I see one. (!)

If theism posits a reality beyond the empirical world, how can we rely on a model of scientific evidence applicable to the natural world to assess such belief?

If we're interested in testing a belief for rationality then all we need ask is "what is the evidence?"

OTOH, if you have some belief X and after careful consideration you conclude that you don't have any evidence for it, but in all probability your reasons for believing it are essentially cultural indoctrination then X doesn't meet a rational test.

Anyhow, here is present for you.
 

Is all this a challenge to Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"?
 

It is interesting to note that J. Parker invites readers to study the writings of Gisèle Littman née Orebi,who writes under the pseudnym of Bat Ye'or.

Those who wish to read more of Mrs Littman's creative propaganda may consult Mrs Littman's web site Dhimmitude.

Mrs Littman was born in Cairo of a middle class Jewish family who were forced to leave Egypt in 1957 as one of the many victims of the disaster which was the Suez Canal conspiracy between the United Kingdom, France and Israel and the Israeli invasion of the Sinai penninsula.

She was admitted to the UK as a stateless refugee in 1957 (the UK could hardly do less since our collusion with France and Israel was at the origin of her expulsion) and she subsequently acquired British nationality by her marriage to David Littman, a British historian.

It is worth noting that Jews in other historic centres, such as Baghdad, had the same experience post-Suez (there is a large Iraqi Jewish community in Manchester).

Obviously, her early life experiences left her deeply traumatised, but grave though they were, the treatment of Jewish populations by the Arabs in 1950 and since then pales into utter insignficance when compared to the treatment of Jews by supposedly Christian nations - think of the pogroms in Russia and elsewhere or the obscenity of the Holocaust. And let us not forget the sufferings of the Jews and Muslims in equal measure during the "Christian" Reconquista of Muslim Andalusia - something experienced by my own forebears.

However, in Mrs Littman's case, her trauma finds its expression in an unfortunate way. Her works are about as objective as might be a History of the Jewish People written by Herr Doktor Goebbels.

Neverthless since Bernard Lewis cited her in a rather shoddy work of his own, her writings have been taken up by the Neoconservatives in the USA and the Likudniks in Israel. Presumably more of the "noble lies" Neocons are exhorted to spread in furtherance of their cause.
 

As a Muslim, a believer in the separation of religion and state, a believer in multiculturalism and tolerance, I am grateful to those who have not used this thread for the purpose of spreading the calumnies of the far right about my religion.

I have to recognise that there are those who claim to be Muslims and hold beliefs I find heretical, obnoxious and downright dangerous.

I regret very much that recent actions of your government and mine have served to reinforce those heresies. I can see the consequences even here in the UK where we now have a home-grown terrorism problem.
 

Mourad:

Attacking Islam is the same as attacking Judaism and Christianity. We all believe in the same God and many of the same basic laws. We just take different routes to get there.
 

"We all believe in the same God and many of the same basic laws. We just take different routes to get there."

What you mean "we"? Have the religions of the God of Abraham brought us peace? Are the "different routes" often wars?
 

Shag:

By "different routes," I meant different prophets preaching different ways of expressing love for God and our fellow men and women.

The concept of killing men to express our love for God and man - a religious war - is a perversion of God's law. War is sometimes necessary to prevent the evil done by men, but never to come closer to God.
 

War is sometimes necessary to prevent the evil done by men, but never to come closer to God.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 11:02 AM

Sometimes? There appears to be no situation where it isn't the first, and only, option for you.
 

Re-reading some of the posts of this thread, I am reminded of a Mass in St Peter's Basilica in Rome on 6th July 2003 celebrated in Aramaic, the language of Jesus, presided over by His Beatititude Ignatius Moussa I Cardinal Daoud, Syriac Patriarch-emeritus of Antioch and the 134th Patriarch of the Holy See of Antioch established in apostolic times and Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches of the Vatican.

The mass was concelebrated with His Beatitude Emmanuel III Delly, the newly elected Patriarch of Babylonia of the Chaldeans [Baghdad], who reminded the congregation that the day was the 50th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood.

Preaching in Arabic, Cardinal Moussa I underscored the responsibility incumbent upon the newly elected patriarch in "a country as ancient as Iraq in the midst of a huge crisis" and awaiting a "spiritual and physical reconstruction."

After the ceremony Patriarch Emmanuel III told a press conference that Christians in Iraq, even if they had many material needs, needed prayer above all things, so that peace may return and chaos come to an end not only in Iraq but in the entire Middle East.

Speaking of the dangers threatening Iraqi Christians, he said: "There is no difference between Christians and non-Christians. All Iraqis want stability in our country. Once we attain peace and stability, there won't be any problems. Christians and Muslims have lived together for 1,500 years in love and fellowship."

There can be no East-West divide on matters of religion. All three of the great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam had their origin in the Middle East, and Muslims are commanded to respect Jews and Christians because they also are "umm al kitab" - people of the book - who worship the same deity.

While all three of these faiths have seen terrible things done to others in the name of religion, it has to be acknowledged that the Jews have much more often been the victims, in part because they were never an expanding proselytsing religion as are both Christianity and Islam.

My own belief and that of numbers of my co-religionists is that revelation is a gift from the Almighty and may take different forms. The Almighty commands that we strive to do His will in accordance with the revelation vouchsafed to the individual.

Such a person is a "muslim" - one who submits. Thus the animist who worships a crocodile, the jew who seeks to live according to the law as received by him, the christian who seeks to live according to God's will as revealed to him, is every bit as much a muslim as I am, perhaps more so and with better prospects of being "with the sheep rather than the goats" on the great day of judgment.
 

I just caught the Colbert Report segment of 10/13/09: "The Word: Symbol Minded" that addresses the meaning of the cross in the Mohave Desert in the Salazar case before SCOTUS. Colbert includes references to certain recent statements made by Justice Scalia on the meaning of the cross. Discussions on the cross can get cross, especially as the separation of church and state gets challenged.

By the Bybee (judge not, lest ye be ...), I wonder if this reference in a response to me:

"I meant different prophets preaching different ways of expressing love for God and our fellow men and women."

misspelled "profits," as in the case of the military, industrial, congressional complex. Also, there is a distinction between religious wars (e.g., the Crusades?) and your typical wars that were not commenced on religious grounds but religion was later invoked to justify such wars. Let's see, who, pray tell, did George W. Bush say directed him to invade Iraq, what higher authority? Dick Cheney? What, an even higher authority? What a cross to bear. (CHORUS: ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS, ....)
 

With all due respect to Mourad, and I mean this seriously (thanking him for his many contributions at this Blog), we should all be aware that religions, faiths, etc, exist beyond those of the God of Abraham. Mattski recently reminded me (us) of Buddhism. There are others. Most deserve respect. But here in the western world, the historical focus ignores much of the rest of the world. Also deserving of respect are those who profess no faith, whether agnostic or atheist, especially since they do not proselytize.
 

Shag:

As the example of the animist makes clear, I include all religious belief in my concept. Just a bit lengthy to sent them all out by name.

Incidentally, the Saudi Ulema has apparently recently concluded that Hindus may be granted visas (unbelievers may not) on the footing that although there are many deities, these are really manifestations of a single deity. But I think the decision was under the pressure of the major hospitals which want to be able to recruit nurses on the sub-continent. Such are the artifices when religions gets mixed up with the state.
 

All religious beliefs genuinely seeking the truth and God have merit. However, they obviously all cannot be correct. Indeed, at the risk of blasphemy, I doubt that any of them are completely correct because they implemented by fallible men and women.

Mourad, I find much to admire about Islam and have found my reading of the Quran to be immensely instructive. We simply disagree about the nature of Jesus.
 

"All religious beliefs genuinely seeking the truth and God have merit. However, they obviously all cannot be correct. Indeed, at the risk of blasphemy, I doubt that any of them are completely correct because they implemented by fallible men and women."

Can someone set this up in the form of a syllogism? The use of the word "correct" (twice here) is most troublesome. In my handy dandy dictionary, under "correct" appears:

"SYN.-correct connotes little more than absence of error or adherence to conventionality; accurate implies a positive exercise of care to obtain conformity with fact or truth."

Must a religious belief to be genuine and meritorious seek both the truth and God? Or can truth exist without God? Or can God exist without truth? How can the fallible rank which religion is more correct or, as Steven Colbert would say, truthier? Can we benefit from a bottom line "prophet and loss" statement? And can the Bible survive originalism? Perhaps it's time to dig up a Thomas Jefferson quote. Better yet, I introduce in evidence Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" and rest my case. (Mind, I am not proselytizing.)

As for avoiding blasphemy, don't open that backpack.
 

All religious beliefs genuinely seeking the truth and God have merit.

If "God" doesn't exist their "seeking" is a complete waste of time.
 

Re: "All religious beliefs genuinely seeking the truth and God have merit. However, they obviously all cannot be correct. Indeed, at the risk of blasphemy, I doubt that any of them are completely correct because they implemented by fallible men and women."

Some religions, Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism, for instance, do not involve theistic belief.

As to the question of truth(s), please consider the following:

I don't believe we can assess the truth of any philosophical or religious worldview qua worldview (i.e., in toto), if only for the reason proffered here by the late Ninian Smart:

"Who can say that Christianity is false because it is supposedly not rational? What if it be rational to expect worldviews to proceed substantially form symbolic sources? What if it is rational to expect revelation from the Beyond if God is ever to address the world that she, having created other than herself, is hidden behind? And if it is not irrational to believe in God, why not the Qur’an, why not Islam? Can the Christian prove her revelation or the Muslim his, over against the other? So [perhaps] it is not rational to think there are clear rational answers to the question of the truth of worldviews." (From Smart's Religion and the Western Mind, 1987, pp. 12-13)

The philosopher Hilary Putnam puts Smart's point this way: "'Is our own way of life right or wrong?' is a silly question, although it isn’t silly to ask if this or that particular feature of our way of life is right or wrong, and 'Is our view of the world right or wrong?' is a silly question, although it isn’t silly to ask if this or that particular belief is right or wrong." In any case, and in many respects, sensitive, empathetic, reflective, and critical global worldview description and analysis is in its infancy, and thus it seems highly unlikely anyone is (at least today) sufficiently well-versed in all the planet's religious and philosophical worldviews to engage in such an enterprise. For we are only now beginning to appreciate the unique logic and forms of rationality found in non-Western worldviews. And we are still in the process of formulating the possible candidates for acceptable cross-cultural and comparative criteria for the analysis and evaluation of worldviews, especially if we grant that the assumptions and methods of modern Western philosophy are not necessarily privileged in such an enterprise, and in fact remain open to learning (about contemporary philosophy's own myths and presuppositions, for example) from this cross-cultural encounter. Another way to put this would be to concede that Western philosophy (or science for that matter) does not possess an a priori monopoly on, or privileged possession of, the truth in any absolute sense.

This is not equivalent to denying we can or should strive to make rational and ethical assessments of particular beliefs or practices within worldviews (cf. Martha C. Nussbaum's Sex and Social Justice, 1999, or think of Gandhi's critique of Hinduism and his belief that no religion should countenance in theory or practice the violation of fundamental ethical values and precepts), for we do and should. And this is all the more urgent if we happen to believe religions are first and foremost about "ways of life" and personal conduct, rather than dogmas, doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., more a question of orthopraxis). Smart himself argues, and I think persuasively, that it is through the comparative analysis of worldviews that we will generate the normative conceptual resources and categories for worldview evaluation, if only because the process itself will serve to “detribalize Westerners,” that is, enable us to overcome our dispositional tendency to “treat our tradition normatively, either explicitly or secretly.”

So ends Part !
 

Part 2:

In some measure, of course, and particularly in the beginning, we unavoidably treat our own tradition(s) as normative in the comparative study of worldviews. (As Henry McDonald has argued, we 'see' or act and think on the basis of our own norms, rules and values, i.e., 'on the [normative] basis of our own concepts, because they are the logical space in which we move and without which we could see nothing at all.') Smart and others who have thought long and hard about the comparative examination of worldviews, being at the same time pioneers and trailblazers in this enterprise, believe that it will eventually allow if not encourage us to become more self-critical about our own worldviews, and that the result of such encounters and dialogues need not lead to either absolute relativism or radical scepticism.

So while we may be critical of specific worldview beliefs, practices, interests or themes (the latter in the sense perhaps of undue or misplaced emphasis), it is fruitless to make truth claims about worldviews as worldviews. With regard to this more modest critical endeavor, for example, we might assess the potential or capacity of a particular worldview to rationally, ethically, and creatively respond to various urgent issues and problems in our contemporary (and future) world: be it nationalism, uneven or unfettered technological development, public health and general welfare, various kinds of violence, ecological deterioration and devastation, the recognition of basic human rights, the commodification of values, global distributive justice, the awakening and exercise of functions and capacities thought essential for human flourishing or eudaimonia, and so forth and so on. This serves to remind us that, at bottom, our traditions and worldviews are the repositories of our normative conceptions of the good life, and only a clear and deep understanding of such conceptions will enable us to find the evaluative criteria essential to critically assessing ideologies and worldviews in the interests of our shared humanity or individual and collective flourishing.

How might we make ourselves structurally suited, so to speak, to a better appreciation of the worldviews of others? What reasons might we have, apart from the sheer facts of pluralism, for concluding that our own lifeworlds and worldviews can benefit from a comparative study of philosophies and religions (keeping in mind that in the Asian context these are not always or everywhere discrete categories)? To begin to answer the second question first, we might learn from history that cross-cultural cognitive fertilization, borrowing, lending, trading and raiding has been taking place since the time of the pre-Socratics, and that our traditions and worldviews have historically demonstrated a belief that they could benefit from an encounter with "foreign" traditions and worldviews, even if such learning was purchased at the price of exploitation and imperialism, or took place despite presumptuous, arrogant, or self-confident ideological claims to the contrary.
 

Part 3:

How might we cultivate the possibility of becoming dispositionally suited to understanding and thereby learning from Asian worldviews like Buddhism? We could, with Hilary Putnam, consider an analogical lesson from the Copenhagen School in physics, specifically, Neils Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation, which enables us to appreciate the concept and possibility of complementarity, for "even 'the empirical world,' the would of our experience, cannot be adequately or completely described with just one picture, according to Bohr. Instead, we have to make a 'complementary' use of different classical pictures—wave pictures in some experimental situations, particle pictures in others—and give up the idea of a single picturable account to cover all situations." An appreciation of complementarity may require setting aside or rejecting the more robust versions (what Kitcher calls the 'grander doctrines') of metaphysical realism in science (as distinguished, say, from a more modest and minimal realism like Kitcher's), or we might even go so far as to argue for metaphysical pluralism, as Michael Lynch has done in Truth in Context: An Essay on Pluralism and Objectivity (1998). For Lynch, such metaphysical pluralism is in fact compatible with realism of a kind, for he argues that we need not be anti-realists in claiming that propositions and facts concerning the nature of reality are relative to conceptual schemes of worldviews. A comparable lesson concerning the value of metaphysical and epistemological modesty might be drawn from Kurt Gödel’s demonstration that one cannot definitively prove the formal consistency of an axiomatic system from within the principles of that system. At any rate, foundationalist epistemic projects and exclusively Euclidean approaches to cognitive systematization are no longer plausible in epistemology. We now realize the significance of categorial and conceptual mediation in our descriptions of the world, a realization that commits us to neither a thorough-going relativism nor a subectivist conception of truth.

The final post, Part 4, follows.
 

Part 4:

By way of conclusion, consider the following from my former teacher and dear friend:

To affirm that there can be several different systems all giving us, at the same time, varying and yet legitimate ‘true’ metaphysical descriptions of the world does not…necessarily entail that there are many realities, that nothing is absolutely real, or, put less dramatically, that there is no such thing as a single, context neutral description or account of the world, that is, as the world really is. It only means that no metaphysical description of it can be outside every possible conceptual framework, but Reality itself is. Nor does it follow that any assertions about this ‘real’ or ‘true’ world beyond all conceptual frameworks, are nonsense. We need not accept a very different solution, such as that offered by Kant—that there is a world in which there exists the ‘thing-in-itself,’ but that we can never directly know this world. [....] The conceptual frameworks we build in the realm of rational thought are not useless just because they cannot describe Ultimate Reality. Serious examination of, reflection on, these explanatory and interpretive schemes, their differences and overlaps, are crucial to expanding and deepening our understanding of reality, even if these conceptual frameworks (any or all possible combinations and collections of them) cannot bring us the Absolute Truth. If nothing else, they enable us to understand the relativity of conceptual truths and structures, and make us see what Pascal meant when he said that the highest function of reason is to show us the limitations of reason. (Nandini Iyer, "It Ain't Necessarily So," in Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Theory and Practice of Yoga: Essays in Honour of Gerald James Larson, 2005, p. 123)

A more circumspect expression of Iyer’s principal point is provided by Nicholas Rescher: "For all practical purposes—and for all implementable theoretical purposes as well—a plurality of beliefs about the truth (a plurality of visions) is a plurality of formulations of the true (a plurality of versions). And this fact is something we must somehow come to terms with." The various ways we might speak of pluralism that are distinguished by Rescher: conceptual, logical, ontological, axiological, and practical, for instance, are jointly germane to the study of worldviews. And we have hardly exhausted the possible ways we might come to uphold the virtues of pluralism: with B.K. Matilal, we could infer analogies from Quine’s thesis on the indeterminacy of "radical translation" or Goodman’s "radical relativism" (Matilal in Jonardon Ganeri, ed., The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal, 2002: pp. 175-195 and 218-262); and with both Matilal and Ganeri, we might look to the Jaina doctrine of anekānta, which understands truth to be like a many-faceted gem, each facet possessing “a completeness and coherence of its own” (cf. Ganeri, Philosophy in Classical India, 2001: pp. 128-150).
 

Even if God does not exist, the search for God's path might be useful. This is clearly the case since many seem to use "God" in a symbolic way anyway.

"Religion" to me is a complex animal and it is useful to remind that it is not limited to "God" as such. Likewise, aspects of what many think of as "religious" such as ceremony, "sacred," and matters of conscience all need not involve belief in a God or some forces that non-theists believe in that also seem off to some people.
 

I guess Mr. O'Donnell is a believer in the adage " if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullsh--. He may not see it that way, as he obviously sees himself as clearly brilliant. He is, however, like so many people today, a coward, unwilling to state that one set of values or religious beliefs is superior to another, or that one belief is right while another is wrong. To call somthing a religious belief does not make it a universal truth.
If you do not take a stand on somthing, then you will fall for anything.
 

Even if God does not exist, the search for God's path might be useful.

As a lesson in futility? If God doesn't exist you're not searching for anything, you're just wandering aimlessly.
 

When I'm searching for a bug in my code, I almost always find other bugs along the way. That would continue to be true if the original bug turned out not to exist.

Of course, just an analogy.
 

BB it's how you search.

If in the process, you enlighten yourself in various ways and do good for yourself and others, it is not just a waste of time.

Again, it seems many use "God" symbolically anyway. They don't spend much time thinking of God as some independent entity, but some representation of "good."

But, those who don't search for God -- especially if their culture is more accepting of that -- might be using their time best. That's quite possible.
 

Again, it seems many use "God" symbolically anyway. They don't spend much time thinking of God as some independent entity, but some representation of "good."


I have no problem with people searching for "God". I waste plenty of time on the internet, so I'm in no position to be pointing fingers at other time wasters.

It just seems that far too often the search for "God" involves dropping bombs on other people.
 

This thread has strayed, albeit interestingly, from the original question which related to the perception of the United States in Muslim countries and I should like briefly to return to that issue.

The poll findings to which Professor Tamanaha refers are to some extent mirrored in Pew Center polling which shows that while there has been a major turnaround in perceptions of the USA since the election of President Obama in Europe, Africa and Latin America, that has not carried through into the Middle East.

Painful though it will be to some to recognise this, that perception will remain for so long as there is no solution to the question of Palestine and for so long as Israel is able to count on a most favoured relationship and support from the USA, no matter what it does.

Secondly there is the genuine question of US support for incompetent and corrupt regimes in the Arab World. I am thinking in particular of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In other words, in quite a few Arab countries, the populace does not think much of the government in place and really want the United States to manifest its displeasure. The perception is that US foreign relations are guided by self-interest and not by the principles the USA professes to hold.

Think in particular of countries like Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia (and others) where the police have been known to abuse and torture prisoners in their custody. The State Department and NGO's routinely criticise - and then the USA stands indicted of doing precisely the same thing to Muslims in in secret sites, in Abu Ghraib, Baghram, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

Then there is the chatter on web sites and blogs especially. The younger generation has taken to the blogosphere. They may not post all that often on English language blogs - but my, do they read them.

There they see a gross distortion like "Average Muslims, not extremists, believe that they are destined to rule the world under Sharia Law." which is absolute tosh. And theywonder why people should spread such calumnies.

For a start, very few Muslims by numbers live under a Sharia law regime. Most states, and certainly the more populated ones, have a civil and a criminal code often based on a European model. Very few Muslims numerically want to rule the world - they would however quite like to take control of their own destinies.

Yes, there is a desire to see the US forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. But of all the inevitable causes of friction, I think that it is the Palestine issue which is the most pernicious.
 

Mourad:

Then there is the chatter on web sites and blogs especially. The younger generation has taken to the blogosphere. They may not post all that often on English language blogs - but my, do they read them.

I am curious what young Muslims are saying, if anything, about what they propose to deal with the issues for which they take American to task:

1) What do they propose to do to liberate themselves from their own despotic governments?

2) If they oppose America sending in its military to deal with terror done in the name of Islam, what Muslims willing to do themselves to stop the carnage? Are they even willing to publicly condemn it?

After the cessation of the Persian Gulf ground campaign, my unit was assigned to provide security and assistance to a Shia town in southern Iraq. When my platoon provided security for the medics or supply folks delivering aid to the town, I often spoke with the towns people who knew English. They were great people and deeply appreciative of the assistance because Saddam often denied them goods and services. They hated Saddam with a passion.

However, when the powers that be finished the ceasefire agreement and we told the locals that we would be returning home, the townspeople were terrified. They pled for us not to leave because "Saddam's army will come." I told them that the desert was littered with weapons abandoned by Saddams' Army when we chased them out of the area the month before. They could arm themselves and fight. The men I spoke with were horrified at the idea of fighting for themselves and again begged us to stay. Needless to say we went home and Saddam filled mass graves across the country with people like the one's I left behind.

That experience made a profound impression on me. Islamic society often seems to be so paralyzed with fatalism that they decline to act to change their circumstances. I noticed that the Iraqis I spoke with often said "Insha Allah" or "as God wills" rather than take action themselves. In contrast, the comparable statement from my Protestant Christian tradition would be "God helps those who help themselves."

Thus, I wonder how much of Muslim problem with America arises from shame that they are unwilling to do the things we are doing for them over in the Middle East.
 

Bart De Palma poses an interesting serious series of questions:-

He might care to pose them to the Kurdish Iraqis who live in London who will instruct him on what happened at Hallabjah as a consequence of Kurdish rebellion. As Wikipedia puts it:-

The attack instantly killed thousands of people (3,200-5,000 dead instantly) and injured 7,000-10,000, most of them civilians. Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack. The incident, which some define as an act of genocide, was as of 2009 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

The gas attack began early in the evening of 16 March 1988, after a series of napalm and rocket attacks, when a group of up to 20 Iraqi MiG and Mirage aircraft began dropping chemical bombs. According to pro-Iranian Kurdish commanders in Halabja, there were up to 14 aircraft sorties, with seven to eight planes in each group. Iraqi helicopters coordinating the operation were also seen. Eyewitnesses have told of clouds of smoke billowing upward "white, black and then yellow"', rising as a column about 150 feet (46 meters) in the air. Survivors said the gas at first scented with the smell of sweet apples.

The attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, soman, tabun and VX. Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide. The survivors said people died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals: some "just dropped dead" while others "died of laughing"; still others took a few minutes to die, first "burning and blistering" or coughing up green vomit. Most of the wounded taken to hospitals in the Iranian capital Tehran were suffering from mustard gas exposure.

Long-term medical effects included permanent blindness, disfigurement, respiratory, digestive, and neurological disorders, leukemia, lymphoma, and colon, breast, lung, skin, and other cancers, increased miscarriages and infertility and severe congenital disorders and other birth defects. Many survivors suffered from mental disorders. Some of those who survived the attack or were apparently injured only lightly at the time, later developed medical problems stemming from the chemicals. There are increasing fears that the attack may be having a lasting genetic impact on the Kurdish population.

The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company, while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.

The trouble with many of the despotic regimes is that the United States has armed them to the teeth it what it has perceived to be its interests. As they did in Iraq under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.

As they did with Latin American dictators such as Pinochet, the Argentinian Junta etc. As they did two successive Pakistani dictators, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharaf.

As they are doing today in Egypt and Saudi Arabia where dissidents are often simply thrown out of US supplied helicopters from a considerable height over the Empty Quarter.
 

1) What do they propose to do to liberate themselves from their own despotic governments?

# posted by Bart DePalma : 6:28 PM


For the most part they're probably hoping that we would stop sending weapons to said despotic governments (see Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.).
 

Apparently the fun starts in August 1953, when the CIA organized a coup to get Iran's oil flowing readily and cheaply to American companies. The Shah's prisons set the standard for routine torture.

Mourad has mentioned Iraq; a picture helps capture our relationship with Saddam for many years.

And today we prop up brutally repressive states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I can see how the Islamic world doesn't have such a great perception of us.

In fact, it seems to me an inconvenient truth that if we stopped all aid and comfort to Israel tomorrow, all of the above would still remain good and sufficient reason for the Islamic world to have just as bad a perception.
 

A fairly brief response to Mr. Parker:

I do not see myself as "clearly brilliant" and you can rest assured you possess no insight whatsoever as to the content of my self-knowledge or how I "see myself." And it's rather doubtful, in the shadow of your string of feeble comments to date, that you're qualified to call anyone a "coward" with regard to belief commitment and or any matters concerning anything remotely "intellectual" or having to do with things of the mind given your pellucid demonstration of a conspicuous inability to articulate thoughts of intellectual heft. To undestand such cowardice presumably entails the possession of a standard of intellectual courage and commitment, and you've given us no reason to think it even remotely possible that you understand what that means, let alone that you're capable of exemplifying same.

There was nothing in my series of posts that required I "state that one set of values or religious beliefs is superior to another, or that one belief is right while another is wrong." I happen to think some religious beliefs are in fact superior to others, but as I believe the religious or spiritual life is something far greater than a question of beliefs or dogma and thus, as I noted earlier, more about religious praxis and a way of life, my interest in the latter trumps my concerns about the former. Furthermore, whatever my particular beliefs, I'm fairly confident that I'm unable to logically disprove or dethrone once-and-for-all the sincere and respectable religious beliefs of others. Morevover, given my limited perspective and experience, it's entirely possible that I may be mistaken in whole or in part with regard to my beliefs and that thus may need to revise them in light of what I learn from others. As Nicholas Rescher has explained,

"We have to come to terms with epistemic realities, which include: 1) the diversity in people's experiences and cognitive situations; 2) the variation of 'available data;' 3) the underdetermination of facts by data (all too frequently insufficient); 4) the variability of people's cognitive values (evidential security, simplicity, etc.); and 5) the variation of cognitive methodology and the epistemic 'state of the art.' Such factors—and others like them—make for an unavoidable difference in the beliefs, judgments, and evaluations even of otherwise 'perfectly rational' people."

In conclusion,

"[W]e can (quite appropriately) disagree about what it is that is true and what good reasons are at hand, while yet maintaining an (appropriately) absolutistic view of what truth and good reasons are. The ideal nature of actual truth and of actual good reasons that inhere in our (defining) conceptions of inquiry establishes a clear limit to the implications of cognitive relativism. To re-emphasize: a pluralistic contextualism of potential basis-diversity is altogether compatible with an absolutistic commitment to our own basis. One can accept the prospect of alternatives as available to the community at large without seeing more than one of them appropriate for oneself. One can combine a pluralism of possible alternatives with an absolutistic position regarding ideal rationality and a firm and reasoned commitment to the standards intrinsic to one's own position. We ourselves are bound to see our own (rationally adopted) standards as superior to the available alternatives—and are, presumably, rationally entitled to do so in light of the cognitive values we in actual fact endorse. The crux of the pluralism issue lies in the question of just what it is that one is being pluralistic about."
 

I do not wish to interfere with a universal discussion on religion, but since this Blog provides much attention to the Constitution, I thought I might reference Laszlo Blutman's article "In Search of a Legal Definition of Religion" that focuses on the First Amendment and federal statutes. The article is available via SSRN; see Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog for the link. Perhaps someone might attempt a universal definition of religion for comparative purposes. But hopefully our wall of separation will not be breached, although Justice Scalia seems to be trying, despite getting mortar dust on his robes.
 

Mourad said...

Bart De Palma poses an interesting serious series of questions:- He might care to pose them to the Kurdish Iraqis who live in London who will instruct him on what happened at Hallabjah as a consequence of Kurdish rebellion.

The dictator massacres a town and you suggest surrender is the proper response. Was this intended to be your answer to what young Muslims propose to do about their own dictators?

BTW, if you are looking for the countries who actively assisted Saddam in his sarin program, start with the Russians and Germans, with the French coming close behind.

The trouble with many of the despotic regimes is that the United States has armed them to the teeth it what it has perceived to be its interests. As they did in Iraq under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.

Mourad, the Soviets provided nearly all of Iraq's military equipment, with very small amounts coming from the EU. Indeed, the only dictatorship in a major Middle East country using primarily US equipment is Saudi Arabia.

You are confirming my thesis.

Enough of your personal opinions based on the usual misinformation. Would you be so kind as to respond to my question about what the young Muslims are saying about these subjects on the blogs?

Thanks.
 

Shag from Brookline,

I have to think more, with Blutman, about what a "legal definition" might involve and the article is helpful on that front. Perhaps you'd be interested in the following which I give to the students in my course on "world religions." It is inspired by (but differs in several respects from) a list first composed by William P. Alston in 1963 for a philosophy of religion reader. Convinced that definitions of one sort or another fall short for most purposes, Alston calls these "religion-making characteristics:"

1. Belief in supernatural beings (spirits, gods, etc.), God, or a supreme divine principle or force. (A doctrinal, theological and/or philosophical dimension.)

2. A distinction between sacred and non-sacred (or ‘profane’) objects, space, and/or time. (An experiential or emotional dimension.)

3. Ritual acts centered upon or focused around sacred events, places, times, or objects. This includes such activities as worship, prayer, meditation, pilgrimage, sacrifice (vegetable, animal, or human; literal or figurative), sacramental rites, lifecycle rituals, and healing activities. (A ritual, praxis and anthropological dimension.)

4. A moral code (ethics) or ‘way of life’ believed to be sanctioned by the gods or God, or logically derived from adherence to the divine principle or force. (A doctrinal, theological, ethical, philosophical and praxis dimension.)

5. Prayer, worship, meditation, and other forms of communication or attunement with the gods, God, or the divine principle or force. (An experiential or emotional, ritual and praxis dimension.)

6. A worldview that situates, through (usually mythic) narrative, the individual and his/her community and tradition within the cosmos, world, and/or history. It is a significant, if not primary source of one’s identity, both in its individual form and group aspect. The worldview articulates the meaning—makes sense of—the group’s cultural traditions: its myths, history, rituals, and symbols.(A mythic, narrative, anthropological and praxis dimension.)

7. Characteristically religious emotions or attitudes: a peculiar form of awe and fear, ‘dread’ or angst, existential anxiety, sense of mystery, adoration, reverence, love, devotion, hope, a sense of guilt or shame, serenity, compassion, etc. (An experiential or emotional and praxis dimension.)

8. A more or less total organization or structuring of one’s life based on an understanding (hence interpretation) of the worldview. (Experiential, narrative, anthropological and philosophical dimensions.)

9. A social group wherein personal and collective identity is forged by the aforementioned factors. (An organizational or anthropological/sociological dimension.

10. Artistic or creative expressions related to any of the above. (An artistic and praxis dimension.)

The handout is prefaced by this comment from the contemporary philosopher, John Cottingham:

"Current attitudes to religion among philosophers are highly polarized, some impatient to see it buried, others insisting on its defensibility. But as long as the debate is conducted at the level of abstract argumentation alone, what is really important about our allegiance to, or rejection of, religion, is likely to elude us. There is, to be sure, a cognitive core to religious belief, a central set of truth-claims to which the religious adherent is committed; but it can be extremely unproductive to try to evaluate these claims in isolation. There are rich and complex connections that link religious belief with ethical commitment and individual self-awareness, with the attempt to understand the cosmos and the struggle to find meaning in our lives; and only when these connections are revealed, only when we come to have a broader sense of the ‘spiritual dimension’ within which religion lives and moves, can we begin to see fully what is involved in accepting or rejecting a religious view of reality."
 

Indeed, the only dictatorship in a major Middle East country using primarily US equipment is Saudi Arabia.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:21 AM

Baghdad, the fact that we're not the "primary" provider does not change the fact that we have helped arm several ME dictators. In short, you are a lying sack of shit.
 

Within Christianity there are many differences that sometimes result in conflicts. The same is true for Muslims. The same is true for Judaism. Perhaps this is inevitable for any religion as it grows in size, with or without proselytizing. But when Christianity is attacked by other religions, Christianity bands together. The same is true for Muslims and somewhat less true for Judaism. And when all religion is attacked, it seems that somehow at least the major religions seem to band together to respond to the "infidels," e.g. a Richard Dawkins, even though these "infidels" do not proselytize. (For the time being, differences in these religions are put on the back-burner.) This demonstrates that religions are competitive like businesses but find a way like via the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to band together to thwart consumers, say, with health care reform. Maybe some religions are too big to fail. Maybe this screed can aid in defining religion (but not regarding the Constitution).
 

Here's the challenge to Mourad:

"Would you be so kind as to respond to my question about what the young Muslims are saying about these subjects on the blogs?"

Assuming Mourad responds, perhaps a response from the Backpacker to a similar question substituting "Christians" for "Muslims" would be appropriate. (Query: are Limbaugh and Beck young?)
 

Where is the equal or greater concern for largely non-religious political and other ideologies that were primarily responsible for the catalogue of horrors that helped define the 20th century and appear to be continuing into this century?

Think (in no particular order and with plenty of omissions) Belgian Congo, World Wars I and II, Stalinist Gulags, the Holocaust, Ida Amin Dada in Uganda, the Great Chinese Famine (1958-1961), the Vietnam War, Cambodian genocide of the Khmer Rouge, Rwandan genocide, etc., etc. Even conflicts that involve religious identity are frequently about something else altogether, as in Northern Ireland and, I would argue, Sri Lanka. Not a few of the conflicts that have involved religions of late have not been ABOUT religion as such, it just so happens that religious identity is the main form of personal and collective identity of the respective parties to the conflict and thus while it may be a variable, it is not necessarily a significant, let alone the prime variable in that conflict.

I do not intend thereby to in any way excuse or ignore the role of religions in propagating or fueling violence but perhaps our focus on religions reveals something of our own predilections and biases about religion(s) and thus less a principled concern for the reduction of the more egregious forms of violence in general
 

As to BB's latest reply to me, I refer back to the book I referenced: some believers in God are drawn to force; others are not. Thus, we hear of a "prince of peace." And, "blessed are the peacemakers."

POD's summary of what "religion" means is interesting. I welcome such a broad understanding not limited to theistic groups. It also shows that focusing on an "original understanding" approach in this context for constitutional reasons is problematic.

For the general reader, the Wikipedia entry on "religion" is useful.
 

BB:

Middle East weaponry broke down along Cold War lines with the USSR supplying enemies of Israel and the US, while the US supplied Israel and the Gulf States.

The US has not supplied Iran since the Shah and that equipment did not stop the Iranian revolution. Shipping one load of non-functioning TOWs to Iran for triple the market value to fund the Nicaraguan resistance does not count.

The US did not supply Iraq with any substantial arms prior to the liberation in 2003.

Egypt did not receive US arms until after the peace treaty with Israel. Even now, Egypt's arsenal is primarily Soviet.
 

The US has not supplied Iran since the Shah and that equipment did not stop the Iranian revolution.

Numbnuts, the point is that we did supply the Shah with arms. It's Exhibit A in the list of reasons why we are so disliked.

And as soon as the Iranians come to hate their current government as much as they hated our puppet, they'll revolt again.
 

My lunch with a Charlie Rose rerun today (last night's show) included a short but interesting interview of Tuft's professor Vali Nasr whose new book is "Forces of Fortune" that addresses the Muslim world and some of the problems with the current fundamentalism. Nasr is of the view that Muslim countries are not, except for Turkey and Malaysia, part of the global economy, such that middle classes are not developing. Charlie Rose responded that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are part of the global economy but Nasr effectively challenged this. Nasr pointed out that China, India and Latin America have become engaged in the global economy, resulting in certain improvements in those countries, including in the direction of democracy and especially capitalism. There wasn't time to discuss why the fundamentalists have so much control in the Muslim world in comparison to past pluralism in some Muslim countries.

By the Bybee (testify!), we've had some problems with fundamentalists in the U S of A as well of late.
 

Thus, I wonder how much of Muslim problem with America arises from shame that they are unwilling to do the things we are doing for them over in the Middle East.

Incredible. And to base this claim on your [anecdotal] evidence of Iraqis afraid of Saddam...people who did not have weapons, people who had been brutally repressed for years... it just makes me gag.

I don't like Bartbuster's lapses into vulgarity, but sometimes, Bart, your combination of arrogance and stupidity is just nauseating.
 

Patrick and Shag:

One step in moving from POD's list of 'relgion-making'characteristics to a legal definition would be deciding which of those characteristics are necessary and which not. (I assume no one is sufficient.)

I think the Supremes have been wise in moving away from any legal defintion. Neither the courts nor Congress, in my opinion, should be in the business of deciding what counts as a religion. It's bad enough when the CT. pronounces on the sincerity of someone's religious belief.
 

Bart De Palma writes:-

The US did not supply Iraq with any substantial arms prior to the liberation in 2003.

The chronology of the United States' nvolvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way:

The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.

The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

The US supplied the materials and technology for these WMD at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.

The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

- Timeline follows
 

The Arming of Iraq Timeline

September, 1980: Iraq invades Iran.
February, 1982: President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.
December, 1982: Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.
1982-1988: Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.
November, 1983: A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.
November, 1983: Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
October, 1983: The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
November 1983: George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support:
July, 1984: CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
January 14, 1984: State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology.
March, 1986: The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.
May, 1986: The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May, 1986: US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

- more follows
 

The Arming of Iraq Timeline (cont)

Late 1987:The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.
February, 1988: Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq
using chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.
April, 1988: US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.
August, 1988: Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.
August, 1988: Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.
August, 1988: Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.
September, 1988: US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.
September, 1988: Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."
December, 1988: Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.
July 25, 1990: US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations".
August, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War.
July, 1991: The Financial Times reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.
August, 1991: Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime.
August, 2002: "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times.
 

I repeat Bart De Palma's assertion:

The US did not supply Iraq with any substantial arms prior to the liberation in 2003.

That assertion involves a rewriting of history. Many countries, including the Soviet Union, England, France and Germany were involved in the shipment of arms and technology to Saddam's Iraq in order to defeat Iran. But the US involvement was unique, in that it provided a great deal of the material necessary to enable Iraq to use the Iran-Iraq war as a test-bed for US chemical and biological warfare technology.

When a truce between Iraq and Iran was arranged, Iraq found the war had cost it dear. Its $30 billion in foreign currency reserves had been converted into debts of $80 billion, owed largely to the Gulf monarchies and Western powers. The Iraqi oil industry had been crippled from Iranian attacks and oil revenue had declined substantially. The Bush Senior Administration had expected Iraq to reward it for the support it had provided during the Iran-Iraq war. It had hoped there would be preferential opportunities for US interests in the post-war state. As these failed to materialise, the Administration's opinion started to swing against Iraq. A 12th January 12, 1990 State Department policy document set the new tone.

After stating that in the Gulf region, “For the US, the starting point is oil,” the document concluded that while it might be preferable to support an important regional ally, there was no power suitable for that role. It said:-

“The US was comfortable with actively supporting the Iranian build-up in the 1970s because (1) we trusted Iran and (2) Iran was willing and able to assume the role of defender of our oil interest. The US trust in Iran was based on mutually shared perceptions on the nature of the Soviet threat, about the need to preserve the political status quo in the Gulf, and about the importance of Israel’s security.
While the US is prepared today to act unilaterally to defend its interests in the Gulf, in an ideal world it would be preferable to do so in concert with a friendly, regional hegemon. However, none of the Gulf powers have (a) the capability to play that role and (b) share a vision of Gulf order with which we are comfortable. Iraq, for example, might meet requirement (a) - especially for the northern Gulf - but not (b). Saudi Arabia meets requirement (b) but not (a)."

The document concluded noting that a “key objective” will be to “force Saddam to make hard choices.” The Bush Senior Administration expected Saddam Hussein to reward the USA by creating a more favourable climate for the US oil majors to operate in Iraq. As is by now well known, in a move which can only be characterised as insane, Saddam Hussein elected instead to invade Kuwait, thereby forfeiting all the support he had received from the West and the Arab World in his war against Iran. Saddam may even have believed that the USA would stand by and allow this to happen. He could not have been more mistaken.

George Bush Senior was to characterise the move as "a betrayal". There followed the 1st Gulf War, in which a large coalition with UN support proceeded (largely at Saudi/Kuwaiti expense) to liberate Kuwait. But for whatever reason, the Bush Senior Administration was not prepared to topple the Saddam Hussein regime.

George Bush Snr then elected to leave Saddam Hussein in power at the end of the 1991 Gulf War at the behest of Gulf States in the coalition who did not want to risk a majority Shia administration in a post-Saddam Iraq and made this a condition of their financial underwriting of the US costs of going to war.
 

Free exercise might be treated via personal belief of what is religion for the individual in question.

Since this freedom is not absolute, the state still can limit it in narrow cases (e.g., protecting children).

But, how about establishment? How does the Court determine what is establishment of religion if "religion" can't be defined? The state has to know beforehand what not to do.
 

Mourad:

I am going to do my best to hold my temper in rebutting your malicious lying slanders about my country.

The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.

Stuff and intentional nonsense.

Almost the entire Iraqi TO&E was and is Soviet. The Republican Guard units - the only units Saddam possessed with true offensive capability - used Soviet equipment. The idea that the US created the Iraqi military machine is simply a lie.

The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

Bullcrap.

The Soviets/Russians supplied all the chemical and biological delivery systems, NBC defensive systems and the training to use them.

Germany was the prime supplier of the equipment to manufacture Iraq's WMD.

The US Government supplied no WMD or equipment to make WMD to Iraq - period. Nothing in your unsupported timeline even suggests anything different. The Commerce Department failed to stop Iraqi dummy companies from buying perfectly legal medical biologicals, computers and machine tools. The Pentagon stopped shipments of machinery with plain nuclear weapon usage. There is no evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy to provide Iraq with WMD capability.

Commerce has a long history of approving export of dual use technology, equipment and materials under business pressure, not because of any intent to supply enemies with weapons. During the Reagan era, almost all resources were used to deny access to technology and equipment to the Soviets. With KGB running an enormous acquisition program through various third countries, this was more than a full time job.

The US supplied the materials and technology for these WMD at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.

Your insinuation that the US supplied the Sarin and the delivery systems Iraq used to murder Kurdish civilians is a slanderous lie. The weapons and training to use them were all Soviet. The Germans assisted the Iraqis in making the Sarin used to kill the Kurds. See the above link.

The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.

Your lying insinuation that the US military or intelligence agencies supplied Iraq with WMD battle plans is beneath contempt. The US gave the non-enemy Iraqi dictatorship military intelligence to stop the offensive of the enemy Iranian dictatorship. Welcome to real world real politic where free countries support non-threatening dictators to counter threatening dictators. See Lend Lease to the USSR to fight Nazi Germany.

Even with 20/20 hindsight, I would still have provided Iraq intelligence to stop the greater threat of Iran to our oil. When Iraq decided to threaten our oil, we supported the dictatorship in Saudi to stop them
 

our oil

You'd think the Muslims living over "our" oil would have the decency to move somewhere else.
 

I am going to do my best to hold my temper in rebutting your malicious lying slanders about my country.

By the way, "your" country just kicked warmongering assholes like you to the curb.
 

" ... our oil ... our oil ...."

Bartbuster, you missed one. So this was our National Interest according to our Backpacker:

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

in invading Iraq. We were protecting " ... our oil ... our oil ...." There were no WMD. And our Backpacker's hindsight is myopic.
 

It's "Our" Oil - 1

Not for the first time, when poor dear Bart De Palma gets excited, his mask of reasonableness slips and the real ugliness beneath is revealed. He writes:-

Even with 20/20 hindsight, I would still have provided Iraq intelligence to stop the greater threat of Iran to our oil. When Iraq decided to threaten our oil, we supported the
dictatorship in Saudi to stop them.

As others have noted, the expression "our oil" is something of a giveaway. Bart does not explain why he considers Iraqi oil to be "his" or "ours" or that of the USA.

The the oil issue is very germane to the perception people in the Middle East have of both the UK and the USA and it is high time that Bart and others of his ilk realised that that the history of UK and US involvement in the region is not a pretty one and that it is entirely unsurprising that we are resented.

The West's desire to control Middle Eastern oil goes back to the Anglo-Iranian cartel in Iran, encompasses the manner in which the Kurds were denied nationhood in 1918 when Iraq was formed out of the corpse of the Ottoman Empire so as to keep Kurdish oil-fields under the control of the Iraq Petroleum Company, involves several conspiracies to overthrow governments in Iran and Iraq and includes US support of the Saudi royal family in the interests of Aramco and two major invasions all of these being justified as being in a "national security" interest.

If Bart and others whish to learn a modicum of the history of the region and the impact of oil on policy, I suggest consultation of the British Archives once held in the India Office Library and now published by the Cambridge University Press in its Archive Editions - Near & Middle East Titles. Also to be studied are the 17 linear metres of the papers of the Iraq Petroleum Company held in the BP Archive at the University of Warwick.

[to be continued]
 

"It's "Our" Oil 2

The Iraq Petroleum Company Limited was incorporated in 1911 as the African and Eastern Concessions Limited. Its name was changed to Turkish Petroleum Company Limited in 1912, and to Iraq Petroleum Company Limited in 1929.

On 28 June 1914 the Grand Vizier of the Sublime Porte (Ottoman Turkey) granted IPC under its then name of Turkish Petroleum Company a Letter of Intent for a petroleum concession in the then Ottoman provinces (Vilayets) of Mosul and Baghdad.

Formalisation of binding agreements was halted by the 1914-1918 world war and, the incorporation of the Kurdish province of Mosul into the new state of Iraq was the fruit of the Sykes-Picot agreement for the post-war carve-up of much of the Ottoman Empire into UK and French zones of influence.

British interest in Iraq was very far from being enlightened. It was above all economic. The Sykes-Picot Agreement denied the Kurds a state and forced them into the new state of Iraq for one reason only. The British wanted control of Iraq's northern oil fields.

The San Remo Conference was a meeting of the Allied and associated powers to settle the Middle East. However, the Conference did not include the USA which had not fought in the Middle East nor declared war on Turkey. The subsequent Treaty of Sèvres signed between the Allies and the Turks confirmed Allied oil rights as well as granting Britain 75% and France 25% of the new Turkish Petroleum Company with ratified rights of exploration in the Vilayets of Mosul and Baghdad.

By the San Remo Oil Agreement of 1920 the shareholding in IPC was arranged as Anglo-Persian (Iranian) Oil Company Limited (47.5 %), Shell (22.5 %), Compagnie Française des Petroles (25%), C. S. Gulbenkian (5 %). Oil was first struck by the Company in 1927.

[to be continued]
 

"It's "Our" Oil 3

Until WW1 American oil companies had been profoundly uninterested in the Middle East. The USA had always been self-sufficient in petroleum. But scattered shortages during WW1 gave rise to a deep-seated fear among some US oil barons that the United States might be running out of oil.

According to an industry source, "Fear of an oil shortage in the United States was uppermost as a factor in international relations after World War I. It was a hold-over fear from a narrow escape from scarcity in 1917-1918 when in the midst of war."

But there was also an economic motive. The US oil companies had discovered that the cost of leasing land for oil exploration from private US landowners (usually at a one-eighth royalty rate) was generally higher than what had to be paid to securing rights from foreign governments.

The US oil majors were livid about the Sevres Treaty of 1920, the San Remo Oil Agreement and the Treaty of Lausanne and they persuaded the US Senate to launch an investigation, which in due course found that American interests were indeed being systematically excluded from foreign oil fields. Under pressure from the US oil majors, the US Government started to seek an "open door" policy on oil concessions, specifically that favoured treatment not be accorded nationals of any one country, that concessions not be so large as to be exclusive, and that no monopolistic concession be granted.

In July 1922, under US government pressure, negotiations began for American entrance into the Iraq Petroleum Co.; with the US oil companies represented by W. C. Teagle, president of Standard Oil of New Jersey. After six years of seemingly interminable haggling, the U.S. firms, on July 31, 1928, were granted a combined 23.75 % share which was held by Near East Development Corporation. The shareholdings in NEDC were: Atlantic Refining Company 16.666%, Gulf Oil Corporation 16.666%, Pan American -AMOCO- Standard of Indiana 16.666%, Standard Oil of New Jersey 25% and Standard Oil of New York 25%).

The US oil majors, backed by their government had got their foot into the Middle East oil door and the US "open door" policy for oil concessions was quickly dropped.

[to be continued]
 

"It's "Our" Oil - 4

Under what was known as the "Red Line Agreement" of 1928 IPC became a closed cartel in which all of the parties to the Iraq Petroleum Company agreement agreed only to act in concert within the Red Line, the boundaries of the old Ottoman Empire.

The "open door" policy which had been so strongly advanced was discarded in subsequent years without a single test of its adequacy as a practical operating principle. (Quoting United States. Federal Trade Commission, The International Petroleum Cartel, staff report to the Federal Trade Commission submitted to the Subcommittee on Monopoly of the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1952, p. 109-110)

Competition among the owners themselves was precluded by retaining the "self-denying" clause of the old 1914 Foreign Office agreement. Within an area circumscribed on a map by a "Red Line" encompassing most of the old Ottoman Empire (including Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and adjoining sheikdoms, but excluding Iran, Kuwait. Israel, and Trans-Jordan), the owners agreed to be interested in oil only through the Iraq Petroleum Company. When Gulf Oil, a member of the American group, sought permission to exercise an option to purchase a concession in Bahrein, IPC denied the request.

As one writer commented, "the Red Line Agreement .... is an outstanding example of a restrictive combination for the control of a large portion of the world's supply by a group of companies which together dominate the world market for this commodity."

In a confidential memorandum, the French described the objectives of the agreement: "The execution of the Red Line Agreement marked the beginning of a long-term plan for the world control and distribution of oil in the Near East."

"IPC was so operated as "to avoid any publicity which might jeopardize the long-term plan of the private interests of the group…" Source: John M. Blair, The Control of Oil (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), pp. 31-34.

IPC was not operated as an independent profit-making company, but was essentially a cartel for producing and sharing crude oil among the oil corporations which owned it.

Profits were kept at a nominal level by charging the member groups an arbitrarily low price for crude - a practice which reduced IPC's tax liability to the UK, the place of its incorporation. This model also permitted IPC to negotiate royalties payable to the governments of the countries were it operated on the basis of an artificially low profit margin, since the low price per barrel permitted the refining and marketing subsidiaries of the cartel which owned IPC to locate most of the profits resulting from the exploitation of Iraq's oil resources outside of Iraq.

Beginning on 24 March 1931 a series of 75 year concessions were granted to the IPC by the government of the Kingdom of Iraq - advised and pressurised, of course, by its tutelary the Government of the United Kingdom. The wholly owned IPC subsidiaries, Basrah Petroleum Company Limited and Mosul Petroleum Company Limited obtained further concessions in 1938 and 1942 respectively. Pipelines to the Mediterranean were completed in the 1930s and 1940s.

[to be continued]
 

It's "Our" Oil - 5

For a history of the development of the demand for nationalisation of Iranian oil from 1949 onwards see Oil Nationalization, and see also A Short Account of 53 Coup. That initiated the sequence of events which led in due course to the Iranian Revolution and gave us all the wonderful state of affairs we have in Iran today.

Meanwhile in Iraq, oil and trade had brought relative prosperity to Iraq and the country developed a highly westernised and educated middle class and became one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East.

Iraq had been one of the birthplaces of Arab secular nationalism and the 1920 Arab revolt against British colonial rule was one of the defining moments of the modern history of Iraq. The British decision at the 1921 Cairo Conference to establish an indigenous Iraqi army was significant. In Iraq, as in most of the developing world, the military establishment has been the best organized institution in an otherwise weak political system. Thus, while Iraq's body politic crumbled under immense political and economic pressure throughout the monarchic period, the military gained increasing power and influence. In 1958 in a military coup led by General Abdul Karim Qasim overthrew the Iraqi monarchy in a bloody coup.

Quasim's "July 14 Revolution" had caused a radical shift in Iraq’s social structure. It all but destroyed the power of the landed sheikhs and the absentee landlords; enhanced the position of urban workers, peasants, and the middle class; and revived long-suppressed sectarian, tribal, and ethnic conflicts, particularly those between Kurd and Arab, Sunni and Shiite. From the beginning Prime Minister Qasim’s rule was marked by ambiguity, as he was forced to compromise his centrist principles to remain in power. Of mixed Sunni-Shiite parentage from south-eastern Iraq, Qasim was unlike his mostly Sunni military. His ability to rule depended, therefore, on a skilful balancing of Communist and pan-Arab interests.

For most of his tenure, Qasim sought to counter the growing pan-Arab trend in the military by supporting the Communists who controlled the streets. He permitted the formation of a Communist-controlled militia, the People’s Resistance Force, and he freed all Communist prisoners. The USA, still in the deep frost of the cold war and McCarthyism was horrified.

Qasim’s economic policies reflected his disadvantaged origins and his Communist ties. Qasim supported the trade unions, and sought improvement of workers’ conditions and the implementation of land reform aimed at dismantling the old feudal structure of the countryside. Qasim’s careful balancing act soon began to fall apart. Qasim first cracked down on the Communists, arresting some of the more unruly rank-and-file members and temporarily suspending the People’s Resistance Force.

Then, following an assassination attempt by Baath Nationalist Saddam Hussein, Qasim softened his stance against the Communists and suppressed the activities of the Baath and other Nationalist parties. Throughout 1960, sensing that the Communists had become too strong, Qasim again moved against the Communist party, eliminating members from sensitive government positions, cracking down on trade unions and peasant associations, and shutting down the Communist press.

[to be continued]
 

It's "Our" Oil - 6

Then in 1960, Qasim took a fateful step by convening a meeting of the representatives of the oil-rich Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela in Baghdad in September 1960 to form the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Had IPC been entirely European-owned, the crisis would probably have blown over. After all, the Qasim government was only doing in Iraq what the British and French governments had done to coal, gas, electricity and railways in the wake of World War II. The right of sovereign states to nationalise their vital industries was well established. The International Court of Justice had ruled in favour of Iran following its nationalisation of its oil.

Cartels, such as IPC, had historically been formed by the oil majors to maintain their profits - Cartels had never been allowed to operate against big oil - to limit the oil companies' dominance. The idea that a sovereign state has the right to set the rules by which its natural resources are to be exploited is not one which the oil companies find attractive and to some figues in the US oil industry the idea that the producing states should make common cause against the international oil majors was conduct they considered to be on a par with the US negro seeking civil and political rights.

At this time, US policy in the Middle East was dominated by ARAMCO (the concessionaire in Saudi Arabia) so much so that the State Department's Middle East policy desk was practically a branch office of ARAMCO - and ARAMCO's policy was to keep the profits in Saudi Arabia to itself. The thinking was that if Iraq was allowed to get away with nationalisation, Saudi Arabia would be next. The stage was thus set for the first US government intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq to protect "their" oil.


From its early years, the Iraqi Baath recruited converts from a small number of college and high school students, intellectuals, and professionals--virtually all of whom were urban Sunni Arabs. A number of Baath high school members entered the Military College, where they influenced several classmates to join the party. Important military officers who became Baath members in the early 1950s included Ahmad Hasan al Bakr, Salih Mahdi Ammash, and Abd Allah Sultan, all of whom figured prominently in Iraqi political affairs in later years.

During the 1950s, the Baath was a clandestine party, and its members were subject to arrest if their identities were discovered. The Baathists had hoped that the new, republican government would favor pan-Arab causes, especially a union with Egypt, but instead the regime was dominated by non-Baathist military officers who did not support Arab unity or other Baath principles.

Some younger members of the party, including Saddam Hussein, became convinced that Iraqi President, Abd al Karim Qasim had to be removed, and they plotted his assassination. The October 1959 attempt on Qasim's life, however, was bungled: Saddam Hussein fled Iraq, while other party members were arrested and tried for treason. See Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot

[to be continued]
 

It's "Our" Oil - 7

The Baath party's second attempt to overthrow Qasim, in February 1963, was successful, and it resulted in the formation of the country's first Baath government. The Baath was successful largely because again it had CIA help.

"In early 1963, Saddam had more important things to worry about than his outstanding bill at the Andiana Cafe. On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. Support for the conspirators was limited. In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup. What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States. He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil. In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. "We really had the t's crossed on what was happening," James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East,told us "We regarded it as a great victory."

Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. "We came to power on a CIA train," admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful.

To the end, Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his supporters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the
newspapers." - from "Out of the Ashes, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein", by Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, published by Verso, 2000

The totality and enormity of the crimes of Saddam Hussein are not in dispute. As was the case with Herr Hitler, he had his fanatical supporters, achieved total control of the apparatus of the state and crushed those he viewed as his enemies with the utmost cruelty.

When Saddam Hussein seized power in 1979 petroleum made up 95% of Iraq's foreign exchange earnings. The country with the world's second largest reserves of petroleum, the 'black gold' of the 20th Century was a prosperous country with a well educated middle class, with a developed heath service and a good school system. Iraq's GDP rivalled that of many European countries. Iraq looked set to become the first Arab country to make it onto the list of fully developed nations.

But fascist dictators have a way of stifling all that is good and productive in society, of turning gold to dross. Saddam Hussein was no exception.

Time after time, Saddam Hussein led his country to disaster from his underground bunkers. The war with Iran from 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War in 1991 following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, together with the subsequent imposition of international sanctions, had a devastating effect on Iraq's economy and society made worse by the ill-fated "Enterprise of Iraq" to remove the very tryrant, the oil majors had persuaded the CIA to put in power in pursuance of their "it's our oil" policy.
 

OIL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL

Some may recall this Three Stooges episode featuring Larry, Moe and Joe Besser. But this title serves as an expose of our Backpaper who is in reality an extreme liberal working undercover as a neocon nudge at this Blog, self described as a DUI legal specialist minoring in economics and with extensive military expertise, to incite liberals to respond to his neocon rants in detail, with facts. There is no Backpacker. Finally, with his recent " ... our oil ... our oil ... " screed he has achieved the heights of his undercover assignment, his true goal, truly exposing that the National Interests of both the U.S. and the U.K. in the Greater Middle East are for " ... our oil ... our oil ...." We've been well duped, we liberals who have responded to our Backpacker's neocon rants over the past several years, but like the Three Stooges episode:

"OIL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL"

A round of applause to our Backpacker, "Well played." But one question: Was Mourad pulling our Backpacker's strings? If so, Mourad deserves a "Well done" as well.
 

I have a couple of comments. First, CTS nails Bart's unique and paradoxical endowments. Arrogance and ignorance are a disgusting and dangerous combination.

I believe people of Bart's psychological profile engage in projection as a matter of routine. Look at his speculative application of "shame" to the Iraqis for supposedly being infantilized by the paternalistic Yanks. This brings back other memories like Bart explaining (months ago) how he likes to "shame" us "lefties" by accusing us of being on the side of the terrorists. Bart shows no sign of actually paying attention to whether or not his tactics are effective, that is, whether his interlocutors on this blog respond to him with anything resembling remorse. But his use of "shame" says a lot, I think, about the state of his own mind which I would guess is deeply colored by such feelings.

My other comment has to do with Iraq & oil. Please--anyone--correct me if I'm wrong, but possibly the most straightforward reason for Bush's remarkable decision to invade a country which posed no credible threat to us was simply the fact that he was selling most of Iraq's oil to other countries, notably Russia, France & Germany if I'm not mistaken. So while ideologues like Bart carry on under a delusion of high principles, what often actually happens, with his approval, is the crudest sort of "goon capitalism" where vendors who make a "free-market" decision to sell to our competitors are subject to "a gentle bit of the boot" in the memorable words of Anthony Burgess.
 

Mattski:

Back in my first semester of law school (1951), Personal Property was a required course. (I understand in later years the subject matter may have been combined into a property course that focused primarily on real property.) I learned a new word: "fungible." It became one of my favorite words, perhaps for it sound. (In more recent years "penultimate" is my favorite word.)

Oil is fungible. So it really doesn't matter that the U.S. itself used very little Middle East oil. For the U.S's role as global hegemon, the entire world's oil (and gas) sources was pivotal. Keep in mind FDR's deal with the Saudis.
 

Another hilarious clip from the Daily Show...

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90005937
 

Mattski asks about Iraq oil sales.

Actually, it is the sales to Japan and China which are probably of most strategic interest - but you are on the right track

Try reading a document entitled "Strategic Energy Challenges for the 21st Century". Strangely, the document does not now appear on the original Baker Institute web site but a copy is archived on the Information Clearing House here.

The report was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr. It was written by the experts of the US oil and energy industries and submitted to then Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001.

While oil is still readily available on international markets, prices have doubled from the levels that helped spur rapid economic growth through much of the 1990s. And with spare capacity scarce and Middle East tensions high, chances are greater than at any point in the last two decades of an oil supply disruption that would even more severely test the nation’s security and prosperity.

The situation did not develop overnight. But one of the fundamental reasons it could develop is unambiguous. The United States has not had a comprehensive, integrated strategic energy policy for decades...

Tax policy was not utilized—as it was in Europe and Japan—to discourage use of hydrocarbons or to promote environmentally friendly fuels. Transportation's share of petroleum use had risen to 66 percent by 1995 from 52 percent in 1970, and could hit 70 percent by 2010 if new technologies are not put in place...

Bitter perceptions in the Arab world that the United States has not been even handed in brokering peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have exacerbated these pressures on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and given political leverage to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to lobby for support among the Arab world’s populations...

The bombing of Iraq by the United States led coalition in February 2001 spurred anti-U.S. demonstrations in support of Iraq in traditional U.S. allies such as Egypt. Moreover, Saddam Hussein is trying to recast himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause to some success among young Palestinians. Any severe violence on the West Bank, Gaza, or Southern Lebanon will give Iraq more leverage in its efforts to discredit the United States and U.S. intentions...

Middle East Gulf crude oil currently makes up around 25 percent of world oil supply, but could rise to 30–40 percent during the next decade as the region’s key producers pursue higher investments to capture expanding demand for oil in Asia and the developing world. If political factors were to block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf, the ramifications for world oil markets could be quite severe...

This report made a lot of very sensible suggestions. By way of examples, it recommended action to reverse the trends for motorists to use SUV's. It recommended review of the hostile US attitude to the global warming debate and to Kyoto. It recommended a review of policy towards the Arabian Gulf countries - recognising the inevitable fact of US and world dependence on Arabian Gulf supplies.

But it also recognised that US oil and energy policy dictates were in conflict with US policy on the Israel-Palestine issue..

It does not take a genius to recognise that the recommendations of this highly expert assessment will have gone down like a lead balloon in Neoconservative circles.
 

Yes children, "our oil."

The oil we purchase from the Gulf States is ours just as the food, technology, and various consumer goods the Gulf States purchase is theirs. Both of us depend upon the other.

Yes children, nations will go to war to protect trade upon which their economy depends.

To use Mourad's example of Israel and Palestine, the primary reason the Clinton peace treaty effort fell apart is that Israel and Palestine wanted to secure the water sources in the disputed area. Palestine walked out and went to war with Israel again.

The folks who post here are in no position to murmur even a peep of protest when the nation goes to war to protect the energy that each of you use in large amounts starting with the computers on which you make your posts. You on the left have repeatedly blocked the removal of oil and natural gas in our own territory and the construction of nuclear power plants. Thus, this is a dependency of your own creation and we will continue to use all means necessary to defend "our oil" obtained from overseas.
 

Bart,

When your domestic reserves of oil, even if you could get them without the risk of unthinkable environmental damage, don't add up to more than a few percent of your use, it's pointless to recommend that we go digging.

Also, when you've committed an enormous floater like referring to oil in the ME as "our oil", you should also stop digging.

You can refer to it as "our oil" when you've paid for it. Probably not in dollars, the way things are going, thanks to the way people see the US in Muslim countries. That exchange rate ain't going to get better, either.

How's about this for a reply to your "tu quoque" argument? If millions of nitwits like yourself, enamored beyond all reason by your SUVs, would get fuel-efficient vehicles, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and maybe get out of this mess.
 

Right from the time he took office, President Bush talked about "an energy crisis".

VP Cheney was appointed to head a Task Force to come up with recommendations. In May 2001, the Task Force published its Report and Recommendations of which the best thing that can be said is that it contained some very pretty photographs. While the Cheney report recognised many of the defects in national energy policy and made some quite sensible recommendations on matters such as improving the quality of transmission systems, the report played down the fact that US energy consumption is set to grow much more rapidly than any other industrialised nation, purely and simply because of the American love affair with the motor car. Although it admitted the centrality of the Arabian Gulf to US security of supply, the Cheney report also ducked the issue of how US policy would change to achieve that.

But the re-appraisal of oil policy took place - and it concluded that regime change in Iraq and the development of US hegemony over the Middle East was the objective to be pursued - by the invasion of Iraq. Michael Renner wrote an article published in Foreign Policy in Focus in January 2003 entitled Post-Saddam Iraq: Linchpin of a New Oil Order which quite accurately sets out what was at stake.

Prior to the invasion the Heritage Foundation published some papers setting out proposals for the how the occupying power could force a post-war Iraq to privatise Iraq's state oil company, by selling off the shares to the oil majors and bind a post-war Iraqi government by concession agreements to a tax policy limiting Iraqi Petroleum Revenue Tax to 8% and corporation tax to 20% - making a total tax take on a privatised US-owned Iraqi oil company as little 28% - and the tax paid in Iraq would be deductible against US income tax (a deal worked out with the IRS for Aramco in Saudi Arabia). That contrasts with the cost of obtaining oil from the North Sea where Norway charges a Petroleum Revenue Tax of 50% and corporation tax of 28%. Unsurprisingly, the papers have disappeared from the Heritage Foundation website.

In the event, the Neoconservative privatisation plans actually came up against Big Oil - see this 17th March 2005 BBC Newsnight Report - Secret US plans for Iraq's oil and watch Gregg Palast's Report.
 

"Yes children, 'our oil.'"

Let's add to "our" list certain strategic (militarily and economically) rare metals, rubber, drugs for medicinal (and recreational?) use, etc, that "we" obtain from other countries that lack "our" military, economic and political power. If they will not supply it to "us," then "we'll" just have to invade them, a form of armed globalization, to get it. Now that's not very democratic (small "d"), is it?
 

As I have said, when poor dear Bart De Palma gets excited, his mask of reasonableness slips and the real ugliness beneath is revealed.

He now writes: "The oil we purchase from the Gulf States is ours just as the food, technology, and various consumer goods the Gulf States purchase is theirs. Both of us depend upon the other."

Quite true. But that involves a transaction in an open market where the US purchasers pay what others are prepared to pay.

"The folks who post here are in no position to murmur even a peep of protest when the nation goes to war to protect the energy that each of you use in large amounts starting with the computers on which you make your posts."

The Bush/Cheney/Neocon plan was to grab oil which was not theirs. Just like the big kid in the school playground beating up the little ones to steal their sweeties.

But Bart's belated admission that the "Enterprise of Iraq" was about grabbing oil and not about WMD, or "liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrant" who was previously an ally is, I suppose, progress of a sort.

Perhaps he could now reconcile that admission with his previous post:-

"Attacking Islam is the same as attacking Judaism and Christianity. We [presumably including Bart] all believe in the same God and many of the same basic laws. We just take different routes to get there.".

As I recollect the King James Bible contains certain fundamental precepts in Exodus 20: 13-17:-

13: Thou shalt not kill. 14: Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15: Thou shalt not steal. 16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

How, I wonder, does dear Bart reconcile his position and the Bush Administration's actions with the 13th, 15th and 17th verses - or does he add to each of these Commandments a rider "unless it's me or the US Government doing the killing, the stealing and the coveting!"
 

So, the veil has dropped.

It's for liberty! It's for oppressed women! It's for national security! it's for ...their oil.

I wonder how long it will take for Bart to recover from the facts and return to the same falsehoods and dissembling.
 

Mourad:

Thank you for supplying so much information. I found the Renner article especially helpful.
 

Shag from Brookline said...

"Yes children, 'our oil.'"

Let's add to "our" list certain strategic (militarily and economically) rare metals, rubber, drugs for medicinal (and recreational?) use, etc, that "we" obtain from other countries that lack "our" military, economic and political power. If they will not supply it to "us," then "we'll" just have to invade them, a form of armed globalization, to get it. Now that's not very democratic (small "d"), is it?

The best solution yet devised to avoid trade wars is the Anglo American world free trade system enforced by our naval power. Under this system, there is a democracy of the market so that nations can trade what they produce for what they need from other nations without resorting to war.

Wars occur when the free trade system breaks down:

Napoleon's attempts to impose a Continental System regime to limit continental trade with England was a root cause of alliances against France.

England nearly went to war with the United States when it embargoed Confederate cotton.

And yes we waged the Persian Gulf War to protect our oil from the Middle East. Absent oil, we would not have sent a half million men across the world to save the spit of sand known as Kuwait.
 

C2H50H said...

Bart, When your domestic reserves of oil, even if you could get them without the risk of unthinkable environmental damage, don't add up to more than a few percent of your use, it's pointless to recommend that we go digging.

The oil shale reserves here in CO, WY and UT alone have between 3 to 5 times the Saudi reserves and can be recovered at about $60 per barrel. The current recession depressed oil prices are around $80 per barrel. Then there is easily obtained oil in Alaska and offshore. Obama has blocked all these sources of energy.

We could follow France's lead and shift to nuclear power for our electricity needs. I believe we are nearly self sufficient in uranium. The federal government has not approved a new nuclear power plan in over a generation.

The rest of the utilities could go clean coal, in which we are swimming. The Obama administration wants to tax the hell out of coal power plants.

Natural gas could be shifted to powering our cars far more economically and without the drop in performance offered by battery cars being subsidized by the Obama Administration.

The resulting drastically reduced need for imported oil would then allow us to pick and choose between foreign producers. Our current course is for ever increasing dependency or spiking our energy costs with uneconomical alternative energies.
 

"The best solution yet devised to avoid trade wars is the Anglo American world free trade system enforced by our naval power. Under this system, there is a democracy of the market so that nations can trade what they produce for what they need from other nations without resorting to war.

Wars occur when the free trade system breaks down:"

There is no such thing as truly free trade. How can trade be free if it is enforced by means of naval power. (Query whether air/space power is also a suggested means of enforcing free trade.) And can the Anglo American world free trade system be enforced against China, Russia, India, South America? If it could, then that would be in effect Anglo American neocolonialsim, wouldnt' it? And how can there be a democracy of the market if other (smaller) nations do not freely agree? Will these smaller nations go to war or will the Anglo American forces? As a practical matter, if the former did so, it would be somewhat like "The Mouse that Roared."
 

"The rest of the utilities could go clean coal, in which we are swimming."

Right now we are "swimming" in coal but it ain't clean. The technology for "clean coal" is decades away and might be a tad too expensive. As to our Backpacker's shale facts, they are shallow. As for natural gas, our Backpacker continues to supply it in unpipelined form.
 

Poor Bart writes:-

"And yes we waged the Persian Gulf War to protect "our" oil from the Middle East. Absent oil, we would not have sent a half million men across the world to save the spit of sand known as Kuwait."

And as Bart has explained above, his oft vaunted military experience consists of some time as a platoon commander in Iraq:-

"After the cessation of the Persian Gulf ground campaign, my unit was assigned to provide security and assistance to a Shia town in southern Iraq. When my platoon provided security for the medics or supply folks delivering aid to the town...However, when the powers that be finished the ceasefire agreement and we told the locals that we would be returning home, the townspeople were terrified. They pled for us not to leave because "Saddam's army will come." I told them that the desert was littered with weapons abandoned by Saddams' Army when we chased them out of the area the month before. They could arm themselves and fight.. The men I spoke with were horrified at the idea of fighting for themselves and again begged us to stay. Needless to say we went home and Saddam filled mass graves across the country with people like the one's I left behind.

I have no doubt that an officer of Bart's high rank would have received intensive briefings about the rationale behind the war, the geopolitical implications, possibly he saw the transcripts of the discussions in the NSC. If so, he would have known that the fate of tiny Kuwait was not what was at issue, but that of Saudi Arabia. He would also have known that that the Shia were about to to be called upon by the USA to rise up and fight - just as he encouraged them to do.

What the US and the rest of the world was worried about was the fate of Saudi Arabia. The occupation of Kuwait had brought the Iraqi army within easy striking distance of the Saudi oil fields. If Saddam had ever been able to add to the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oilfields those of Saudi Arabia, he would have had control of a majority of the then known reserves in the world.

In fact the Saudis had lent Iraq some 26 billion dollars to prosecute its invasion of Iran. The Saudis had backed Iraq as they feared the influence of Shia Iran's Islamic revolution on its own Shia minority (most of the Saudi oil fields are in Eastern Provinces of the Kingdom which are populated by Shias and so close to Iran that even before satellite TV I could watch Iranian TV channels when I was there. Saddam did not want to repay the loans. Soon after his conquest of Kuwait, Saddam began a propaganda campaign against the Saudi régime and this long time apostate actually donned the mantle of Islam, making himself seen at prayer and using the language of the salafist groups that had fought the Russians in Afghanistan and echoing the Iranian case against the Saudi regime and accusing the Saudi royals of being morally unfit to be the guardians of Mecca and Medina (NB an argument which may well have had merit - but not from him).

When a cease fire agreement was negotiated and signed by both sides. At the conference, Iraq
was permmited the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation.

Soon after the cease fire, there were broadcasts from Saudi Arabia on a CIA- run radio station, The Voice of Free Iraq, calling upon the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow Saddam. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Saddam. Both the Shia and the Kurds heard these broadcasts and did in fact rise up just as Bart had also advised them to do.

But shortly thereafter, the very helicopters which Saddam had been allowed to keep were used in operations against the Shia first and the Kurds second. Both rebellions were crushed with extreme brutality (see an earlier post).

One more reason for the people of
Iraq not to trust the word of the USA.
 

There's been something missing from this thread that's been nagging at me, and I didn't realize what it was until Mourad's last comment.

There's been discussion of how people in Muslim countries view the US, but the US, and especially its foreign policy, do not reflect (and arguably only rarely ever have reflected) the consensus will of the people of the USA. Increasingly, in recent time, foreign policy has been subordinated to the domestic re-election agenda of the administration in power. That significantly distorts any relationship between the desires of the people and the foreign policy decisions.

Do we have any assurances that the foreign policies of the various Muslim nations vis a vis the USA reflect the consensus will of their people?
 

C2H50H asked:-

"Do we have any assurances that the foreign policies of the various Muslim nations vis a vis the USA reflect the consensus will of their people?"

I suggest the answer to that question is, "of course not".

Even in what one might term the "mature democracies", the preoccupations of the vast majority of the populace concern
domestic policy and governments and leaders are rarely selected for their foreign policy or lack of one.

A few countries require a referendum before a treaty may be signed. The Swiss Confederation is one such. Ireland is another.

Then look at the difficulties which such referenda have caused in the context of the EU.

The USA requires only the approval of the Senate rather than a referendum for treaties to be ratified, yet there are many treaties which are never ratified or which languish in the Senate for years - see Bradley, Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution, 48 Harv. Int'l L.J. 307 (2007).

So, even in a representative democracy, one cannot be too sure that the conduct of foreign relations is in accordance with the popular will which is just as well for the UK - since otherwise Lend-Lease might not have been possible and Herr Hitler's projected tour of London might have taken place after all. We at least finished making the payments in 2006.

Then think about how many states with a majority Muslim population qualify as "mature democracies".
Most are run by elites in a more or less benevolent fashion. That is not to say that the people do not have opinions or that leaders are not bound by opinion to some extent.
 

Yes children, "our oil."


No, asshole, it's their oil. And they are under no obligation to sell it to us.
 

The difference between right-wingnuts, here ably represented by our friend Bart, and mainstream moderates (branded as "leftists" by the former) is found in the way higher principles such as democracy and universal moral rules (for example those cited by Mourad from the Bible) are treated.

Wingnuts use high principles like peacock feathers or lipstick. If they see an opportunity for preening they'll reach for the make-up.

Moderates, as a rule, take principles more seriously and are thus subject to accusations from the right of "treason" or "hating America" for the grave transgression of self-critique.

So it's no coincidence that feebleness of mind--the inability to seriously consider one's own shortcomings--is so consistently associated with militarism, aggression and authoritarianism.

Special thanks to Ike
 

I'm reading a draft paper that addresses an aspect of U.S. "Economic Warfare" just prior to and during WW II focusing upon coca leaves and the need for their medicinal uses in the allied cause, challenging Germany's pharma standing at the time, particularly in South America; it also addresses Japan in a similar vein with Asian tropical islands as a source for coca leaves. (In addition to medicinal use for our war effort there was the matter of Coca-Cola.) The thread here has struck oil as a form of "Economic Warfare" in today's global warming climate justifying war. Can someone suggest a serious body of work on "Economic Warfare"?
 

Mourad:

Actually, the Kurd and Shia uprisings had been percolating for years and were spearheaded by existing Kurd and Shia political parties supported by the Kurd Peshmerga and deserting Shia from the regular Army.

The United States openly encouraged this rebellion, it wasn't some semi covert CIA op as you imply. President Bush called for rebellion on February 14 and Iraqi emigres were on the radio soon afterward.

The United States does bear a heavy responsibility for encouraging an uprising but declining to commit our troops to finish off Saddam while we had him on the ropes. We made up for that shortcoming by liberating Iraq in 2003.

BTW, given that I have had to repeatedly correct your slanderous and non-slanderous misstatements about Iraq and the United States, your catty shots at my military service seem even more self serving than usual.
 

Bart:

If you do not want people to take shots at your military service, don't toss it out - and puff it up - as a proxy for being an authority on matters military/political/and everything else.

You might note that Mourad (and Shag) present evidence for their claims. You can disagree with that evidence or the sources. But you simply cite yourself, for the most part, or the most patently biased sources.

Inept efforts to smear others by claiming they have said things they have not said - and repeating those smears - does not make you more believable.
 

" ... your catty shots at my military service seem even more self serving than usual."

What could be more self serving than our Backpacker's claims to military expertise as they might apply to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc? Might we next expect the Backpacker's "National Security Strategy" comparable to George W. Bush's of September/October 2002? Might it include "Preemptive Counterinsurgency" or his version of Gen. McChrystal's ball?

By the Bybee (am I torturing with my BTBs?), still no response on swimming in clean coal or is this a promotion for Lava Soap?
 

is this a promotion for Lava Soap?

Shag, you make my day. :-)
 

I was a bit puzzled by the reference to Lava Soap® until I googled and realised that it is a trade product rather like our Swarfega®.

But in terms of product placement perhaps dear Bart was primarily plugging 'oil shale' as to which I suggest reading Energy Bulletin - The Illusive Bonanza: Oil Shale in Colorado which sets out some of the arguments against.

Given the environmental concerns, I wouldn't bet the farm on Shell getting this one off the ground into industrial production just yet.
 

shag:

I did a bit of poking about and discovered this bibliography on Oil and War: http://www.endgame.org/oilwars-biblio.htm.

There are also a number of pieces on economics and civil wars (ours and others').

Then there is this piece on the U.S. and the Phillipines: Liberal, Imperial, and Economic Motivation of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Philippines 1898-1946 Strategic Insights, Volume VIII, Issue 1 (January 2009).

And this on economic motivations for conflict, in general: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:JlvqoVZEw_8J:www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF203.pdf+war,+economics&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 

If one looks at the most recent Pew Center report Confidence in Obama Lifts U.S. Image Around the World while the Headline "US Favorability Rating" figures have moved more in Europe than in the Middle East, if one goes down the report to the table of responses to Q21A, one sees some remarkable figures.

The question was: "Will President Obama do the right thing in world affairs? and for comparison there are posted the 2008 responses relating to Bush.
The difference between the percentages are Canada +60, UK +70, France +78, Indonesia +48, Turkey +31, Egypt +31, Jordan +24, Palestine +15, Israel -1.

This suggests that the historically low ratings under President Bush were more anti-Administration, than anti-American, and that, even in the Arab part of the Muslim world, the perception is that Obama will bring positive change for the better.

Yes, the figures for the Arab world are not as good as for Europe, but the increases are nevertheless significant. The people of the Muslim world are expecting things to improve.

Naturally they are cautious. Who would not be after all that has happened to them in the last 60 years? One can only pray that the expectations are fulfilled.

And the fact that dear Bart has on other threads been so dismissive of the President, gives me some confidence that the expectations may be at least partially fulfilled.
 

CTS:

Thanks for the links on "Economic Warfare." I don't know if that is the correct phrase. I'll know better this week at a presentation of the draft paper I referenced. There are strategic metals and other materials that a modern nation state needs for its economy and security. In the inner bowels of the U.S. government surely serious consideration is given by means of strategic planning to make sure that such can be acquired or to develop Plans B just in case difficulties arise. I recall Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow with the Nazi quest for diamonds. Much earlier there were the quests for spices via the Silk Roads and then use of the seas. Oil is associated with the expansion of the U.S. Navy (including the coaling station at Gitmo). Until the recent financial crises, there was the theme of globalization that to a certain extent may now be on hold. National Interests are at issue. Look at what China is doing in all parts of the world contracting for long range energy planning. And Obama (as have predecessors) has stressed the need to find energy sources that may free us from reliance upon the Greater Middle East and other foreign oil.

I have been thinking about what the results might be upon globalization if the U.S. were successful on such new energy sources: What would happen to the economies of nations that have oil and gas (and other strategic materials) in abundance and the impact if such nations became failed states? Is globalization neo-colonialism?

I'm rambling because I'm not quite sure I'm on the right track. Perhaps economists address this type of strategic planning. The U.S. National Security Strategy touches on the subject but much of it must be top secret. (Am I being paranoid perhaps about VP Cheney's energy summit early in HIS administration?)
 

The Institute of World Politics offers a course titled "Economic Statecraft and Conflict" described at:

http://www.iwp.edu/programs/courseID.23/course_detail.asp

that may be the right track. Maybe I can find out the course materials.
 

Author Tom Clancy's series of novels featuring a fictional ex CIA operative as President Jack Ryan has one, The Bear and The Dragon, where China invades Russia to grab massive oil and gas deposits recently discovered in Siberia - the former being a vital commodity of which China stands in urgent need. Jack Ryan states that a war of aggression is a form of theft only committed by nation states rather than individuals.

I understand that Clancy is generally regarded as a political conservative who has donated quite an amount of money to the Republican Party, but I seem to recollect that during former President GW Bush's 1st term campaign, there was a joke going around that he had tried to read the Ryan novels, but had given them up as too difficult.

Certainly in relation to the <"Enterprise of Iraq"> Clancy was no fan of Donald Rumsfeld, in contrast to General Zinni as this 4 June 2004 MSNBC Interview - Zinni - Clancy makes clear - and, by the way, subsequent events
have validated much of what Gen Zinni said.

But the Clancy aphorism about wars of aggression being nearly always a form of theft seems to me to be correct. With the exception of wars of secession (eg the Algerians seeking to rid themselves of their French overloads) which are more properly "insurgencies against an existing government", for centuries no government has started a war of aggression otherwise than in the expectation of ultimate economic gain.

Indeed, the Clancy scenario in The Bear and The Dragon bears some resemblance to Japanese expansionism in and post WW1 and WW2 as it developed great power ambitions - in particular the WW2 decision to counter the US oil embargo by striking southwards towards the Dutch East Indies. Both Imperial and Soviet Russia had a long-term ambition to go south to obtain access to a warm water port, not because they enjoyed sea bathing, but for economic reasons.

What about the US wars against Native American tribes. Were they not undertaken for long term economic gain? They were certainly not undertaken for the welfare of the indigenous population.
 

Mourad:

"What about the US wars against Native American tribes. Were they not undertaken for long term economic gain? They were certainly not undertaken for the welfare of the indigenous population."

Inherited common law concepts (in a sense economics) from across the pond paved the way of Manifest Destiny. The Founders knew they couldn't enslave the Native American tribes in the same manner as the Africans because of their skills in knowledge of the land that they could escape to and survive in. Not a proud moment in U.S. history. (See Howard Zinn for more on America's "original sin" inherited from across the pond.)
 

Shag:

You wrote: " Am I being paranoid perhaps about VP Cheney's energy summit early in HIS administration?"

You have never struck me as being the kind of person likely to succumb to paranoia. But you may recall the Neocon front organisation, The Project for the New American Century, which published a kind of manifesto Rebuilding America's Defences powerfully criticised by William Rivers in this article The Project for the New American Century as to which see also this article by Professor Michael T. Klare in The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration’s Motives.

I think the Bush Administration's Middle East policy could be summarised thus: (a) Israel is the US's only ally in the Middle East - support for it must be unquestioned; (b) Israel to expand into the Palestinian territories and annex the West Bank thus stage by stage substantially realising the Zionist dream of "Eretz Israel"; (c) permit the Israelis to expel both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs into Jordan (or anywhere else) so as to secure the long-term ethnic identity of Israel; (d) overthrow the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria and install a pro-US client government in Iraq which would permit the USA long-term basing rights for troops in the region and ensure security of oil supply; (e) weaken and, in due course, take down the Iranian government.

There was, of course the Bush claim that he had received a personal revelation from the Almighty.

""God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Bush to Mahmood Abbas, quoted in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz

I am reminded of Lord Melbourne's response to a question from Queen Victoria about voices from God, "Well, Ma'am, if your Majesty were to hear such voices, your Masjesty would do well to be sure from precisely which quarter they come!"

In Bush's case we can now see the outcome of his "voice" and the words of the Evangelist fit quite well: Matthew 7:15-20:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
 

"'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.'

Bush to Mahmood Abbas, quoted in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz"

Two strikes delivered to Bush by God. And then a called third strike - by American voters - and the not-so-mighty Bush struck out. Was the God of Abraham playing favorites?

BTB*, heeding Matthew's words might have saved us all from this post-Genesis fall.

BTB*II, Michael Klare was not, I assume, included in Cheney's energy summit during HIS administration. I wonder, just for the Halliburton of it, why not?

*By the Bybee
 

Mourad:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

It is getting tiring acting as your personal fact checker. This alleged Bush quote is a fabrication of the PA leader Mahmood Abbas to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Bush has never spoken his way to anyone, least of all this Palestinian leader who opposed the liberation of his brothers in Iraq.
 

Bart De Palma writes:-

"This alleged Bush quote is a fabrication of the PA leader Mahmood Abbas to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Bush has never spoken his way to anyone, least of all this Palestinian leader who opposed the liberation of his brothers in Iraq."

Since I was not present at the meeting between Bush and Abbas, I evidently cannot say of my own knowledge whether Mr Abbas's account of the conversation was truthful or not.

Bush, of course, is a "dry drunk", a former alcoholic who has stopped drinking but remains an obsessive. Such persons not infrequently go from one extreme to the other, in Bush's case by becoming a born-again Christian.

It is worth noting that there are numerous other accounts in similar vein. Among them: Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, says in his book: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president." Time magazine reported, "Privately, Bush talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

In more general terms: Florida State University religion professor Leo Sandon wrote in The Tallahassee Democrat: "There is a holy-war motif on the part of both the United States and Iraq. Our president believes that Saddam is evil and that the United States `has been chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model in the world of justice.' and conservative historian Richard Brookhiser, wrote a piece for Atlantic Monthly in which he asserts: "Bush's faith means that he does not tolerate, or even recognize, ambiguity: There is an all-knowing God who decrees certain behaviours, and leaders must obey...The President is limited by strictly defined mental horizons.''

Unless Bart was present at the meeting between Abbas and Bush in some capacity which I doubt, he is not in a position to make the grave assertion that Mr Abbas's account was untruthful. But even if he were present, I personally would prefer the testimony of Mr Abbas to that of Mr De Palma.
 

"It is getting tiring acting as your personal fact checker."

I'm curious, is DUI in Colorado getting competition from FCUI*?

*FACT CHECKING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
 

Bush has never spoken his way to anyone, least of all this Palestinian leader who opposed the liberation of his brothers in Iraq.

And your claim is based on what, Bart?

Again, note that Mourad cites something. In this case, he cites a newspaper quoting one of the parties to the conversation in question.

You only consult yourself and then spit out your own views as the Truth. Or, have you been talking to God, too?
 

And your claim is based on what, Bart?

TH Huxley's advice to,

Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.

would have branded him a member of the "Dem press" in Bart's words. No one but a "leftist partisan" would dare commit an act of actual journalism.
 

Shag:

I recall Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow with the Nazi quest for diamonds.

All I can remmember is wondering if (a) he would finally get hit and (b) how many of those horrific candies he would eat. :-)
 

ICC Mortgage And financial Services,Is a sincere and certified private Loan company approved by the Government,we give out international and local loans to all countries in the world,Amount given out $2,500 to $100,000,000 Dollars, Euro and Pounds.We offer loans with a dependable guarantee to all of our clients. Our loan interest rates are very low and affordable with a negotiable duration.
Available now
MORTGAGE, PERSONAL, TRAVEL, STUDENT, EXPANSION OF BUSINESS AND NEW UNSECURED, SECURE, CONSOLIDATE
AND MORE
Available now..
Apply for a loan today with your loan amount and duration, Its Easy and fast to get. 4% interest rates and monthly
installment payments.
{nicholasbrush.icc@gmail.com}

Regards,
Nicholas Brush