Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by nirakar, Aug 13, 2010.
but if inclusive of it, i'd like to hear a critique cos it sounded ok to me
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I strongly disagree with the person who wrote this, it's really fucking stupid and I also don't agree with this argument at all. I will answer the rest later piece by piece.
that would be the goatman and yes, his stupidity knows no bounds
Regarding the article, by laying out the mechanism of Muslim extremism and violence, while denying or avoiding mention of the fomentation and exploitation of the Sunni/Shiite schism by Western powers, past and present, (colonialism/neo- colonialism) in pursuance of agendas via divide and conquer, is IMO either dishonest or naive. In Mr Hitchins case, I don`t think he is naive. :m:
I saw Hitchens on Charlie Rose today. He said that he thought Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if the Soviet Union had not fallen and was there to keep Saddam in line. He went on to say that the same was true for Serbia and the Soviet's other client states getting out of control without the Soviets around to restrain them.
I was thinking what the hell is Hitchens talking about. Did he forget that Iraq stopped being allied with the Soviets after the 1970s and was allied with the USA during the Iran, Iraq war? Is it possible that one of the keys to Hitchens's success is that he does a good job at acting like he is more knowledgeable than he really is?
I never noticed Hitchens until the Iraq war when he suddenly started popping up all over the place and getting attention. I occasionally read "the Nation" in the 1990 but don't remember Hitchens or anybody else from that magazine. So I missed his whole leftist phase.
I subscribed to the Atlantc Monthly in the 1990s but he was not there yet.
perhaps hitchens does not find this western interference particularly relevant to an article titled "The War Within Islam"? there are other factors that could possibly be more pertinent to the sunni/shia schism?
Yes, of course there are other factors, and he covers some of these in the article. I am in agreement with much of the historicity.
What I am pointing out, are his omissions, and IMO they speak volumes. :m:
"The War Within Islam" was a quick read. Nothing much to think about there.
This quote "On American campuses, Muslim student groups now shun one another on a confessional basis." came from "The War Within Islam" is the most interesting sentence in the article. I had doubts about the sentences truthfulness. After checking the sentence would have been accurate if Hitches had wrote "On a few American campuses, Muslim student groups now shun one another on a confessional basis." The sentence as written was closer to being inaccurate than it was to being accurate.
Is embellishing acceptable behavior? I would cut Hitchens more slack if he was not being a critic of a group that it was fashionable to criticize. I would cut Hitchens more slack if he did not present himself as if he were a scholar. He never says he is a scholar and it's not his fault if people associate his style with scholarship. My complaint against Hitchens fits well with my complains of anti Islamic bias at Sciforums. Hitchens is like the more polished version of the "reasonable" people here at Sciforums who can't see there own anti-Islamic bias for what it is, ignorant bias.
Islamic extremists epitomize everything atheists like Hitchens hate about religion. In Islam Hitchens finally found a religion he can bash without getting kicked out of big time media and having to go back to work at the Nation,
I give Hitchens credit for being an out of the closet public atheist but despite Hitchens's marvelous academic affect, Hitchens has yet to show me I that he is a real scholar or real intellectual.
You mean there is no basis for objecting to religious irrationality? No basis for calling out sectarian religious reasons for many brutal conflicts around the world? No reason to point out the hypocrisy of endorsing religion as a good thing while at the same time it is causing people to kill, torture, and oppress one another?
I guess nirakir will say that it depends on who's killing more people.
you require the article to broader in scope. however what if the editor had a restriction on the word count? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
not just "other" but "more pertinent"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
my interest is piqued tho
what would be the state of the ME sans western interference?
for instance... a period of relative amity....
At least one scholar sees the period from collapse of the Ottoman Empire through the decline of Arab nationalism as time of relative unity and harmony between traditionalist Sunni and Shī‘ī Muslims - unity brought on by a feeling of being under siege from a common threat, secularism, first of the European colonial variety and then Arab nationalist.
A remarkable example of Sunni-Shī‘ī cooperation was the Khilafat Movement which swept South Asia following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the seat of the Caliphate, in World War I. Shia ulama (scholars) "came to the caliphate's defence" attended the 1931 Caliphate Conference in Jerusalem. This was despite the fact they were theologically opposed to the idea that non-Imams could be Caliphs or successors to Muhammad, and that the Caliphate was "the flagship institution" of Sunni, not Shī‘ī, authority. This has been described as unity of traditionalists in the face of the twin threats of "secularism and colonialism."
Another example of unity was a fatwa issued by Al-Azhar's rector, Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut, recognizing Shia Islamic law as the fifth school of Islamic law. In 1959, al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most influential center of Sunni learning, "authorized the teaching of courses of Shia jurisprudence as part of its curriculum. (wiki)
can we play "what if" to any degree of accuracy? note trends and extrapolate to logical conclusions?
What if the West had not interfered against Mossadegh and Abd al-Karim Qasim?
Lose two sentences here, insert two sentences there. No excuses for denying or omitting substantially relevant issues.
No doubt Mr Hitchins wrote about what was more pertinent in his opinion. :m:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
thanks for the sanctimonious lecture
i shall now withdraw with my tail tucked between my legs and a bad taste in my mouth
No, I am enjoying the discourse. Absolutely no sanctimony intended, and apologies if so perceived. I am trying to ZIP file a response to Post #133. :m:
yes. conventional wisdom hold those two's overthrow as pivotal points in history of the two countries
so now to what if......
what if britain agreed to a 50/50 oil revenue sharing scheme to iran? this would have never happened..........
Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.
The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provide that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation…
It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention… (Mosaddegh 21 June 1951 )...?
was the 50/50 oil deal even on the table?
that particular perception is an side effect from an excessive use of italics
If the Western Powers & Russia had not taken advantage of "l'homme malade"?
Simplistically. The intrusion of Western Powers and secularist culture into the ME at the collapse of the Ottoman Empire took advantage of a fracture existent in Arab nationalism to gain control of the ME. The fracture - those who favoured Arab unity, and those who favoured independence and protection under Western (British) protection. This schism is at the root of the Gulf war (Iraq/Kuwait) that in essence led to the conflict in the ME today. The occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the destabilization of Pakistan and Iran.
Hypothetically, remove the intrusion of the Western powers at that junction, and we can be relatively certain of:
1) A united Arab world that would have deterred military adventures in the ME.
2) Most likely, a weaker Israel.
3) A very different global economic situation, with a more equitable division of wealth.
Separate names with a comma.