War In Iran

[matt b]

If you can say "muslims are not...", can't I say "muslims are..."? How can we talk at all if we cannot make generalisations?

i didn't say "all muslims are not". making idiotic and blatently wrong generalisations about a whole religion in order to justify your own viewpoint is silly.

many of the young muslims round here (particularly the males) are obsessed by US hip-hop culture. they fucking love it. if you want, come and visit and you can make your foolish statements to their faces.


as for "ruling dissensian hegemony", well, jesus

 

[vimothy]

i didn't say "all muslims are not". making idiotic and blatently wrong generalisations about a whole religion in order to justify your own viewpoint is silly.

No, it was a rhetorical question, it was meant to allude to statements like "all muslims are not imperialist, west-hating jihadis and to suggest otherwise is racist", or something like that. Of course making idiotic and blatantly wrong generalisations is a bad, but they're not idiotic or wrong, unfortunately.

many of the young muslims round here (particularly the males) are obsessed by US hip-hop culture. they fucking love it. if you want, come and visit and you can make your foolish statements to their faces.

What, that they are violent and unable to take criticism? What do you expect would happen, matt b? And where is here, exactly?

as for "ruling dissensian hegemony", well, jesus

Yes, that's kind of my point.

 

[matt b]

but they're not idiotic or wrong, unfortunately..

well, i know plenty of muslims who'd disagree with you.

What, that they are violent and unable to take criticism? What do you expect would happen, matt b? And where is here, exactly?.

no generally they're ok- some talk in idiotic american slang and love 'fiddy' 'cause he's from the street, y'get'me? i just think as soon as you saw them you'd realise that they're not anti-american and they'd laugh at you for saying so.

why do you think they might be violent?

here= look at my profile

 

[vimothy]

i didn't say "all muslims are not". making idiotic and blatently wrong generalisations about a whole religion in order to justify your own viewpoint is silly.

Incidentally, I am not talking about Islam the religion, but about the Muslim world as a social and political entity.

 

[old goriot]

Incidentally, I am not talking about Islam the religion, but about the Muslim world as a social and political entity.

which is a non-entity, a strawman

how are saudi arabia and iran in any way part of a single socio-political entity?

 

[vimothy]

well, i know plenty of muslims who'd disagree with you.

Doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, does it?

no generally they're ok- some talk in idiotic american slang and love 'fiddy' 'cause he's from the street, y'get'me? i just think as soon as you saw them you'd realise that they're not anti-american and they'd laugh at you for saying so.

Er, I live in the same country matt, actually not too far down the road.

why do you think they might be violent?

The muslim world is violent for a lot of reason, obv. One of those reasons is the spread of virulent salafist ideology, which replaced "arab-marxism" (or whatever) as the radical movement of the Muslim world. Another reason is the lack of political representation; economic problems; widespread cronyism; the corrupting influence of oil; the relative success of the West (contrasted with Islam's until recently fairly continuous history of conquest), and so on.

 

[vimothy]

which is a non-entity, a strawman

If we can talk about the West then we can surely talk about the East.

how are saudi arabia and iran in any way part of a single socio-political entity?

A single entity can contain massive amounts of difference within itself, can it not? Hence: Islam is not a monolithic thing, as such, it is riddled with fissure and breaks and lines (and all of that D&Gon crap). Regardless, we can still say "Islam".

Saudi Arabia and Iran are related inasmuch as and where ever they share histories, cultures, religions, politics, ethnic groupings, languages and so on.

 

[vimothy]

I'm saying that this is how it is being portrayed by those in the islamic world who wish to take advantage of these things for their own propaganda, and that the US continues to do exactly what their caricature of them would be expected to do (which kinda doesn't make it a caricature I don't think it's the "islam vs. the west" angle is entirely true, or at all the whole story (it's about power, mostly), but I also do think there is an element of it that is true.

But is this actually true? Are the reasons that the US is unpopular on Dissensus really the reasons why it is also unpopular in the "Islamic world"? What is the baseline most common caricature of the US in the Middle East?

Oh i just get tired of the strong picking on the weak, that's all. Bleeding hearted bastard that I am.

And look, I don't want ANY country to get nukes, and I am by no means defending the Iranian gov't as a great bunch of guys. But jesus, I don't think a single thing the US is doing right now is making the situation anything but worse.

What do you think the best course of action would be, if you were advising a receptive, liberal, bleeding-heart type president?

 

[crackerjack]

What do you think the best course of action would be, if you were advising a receptive, liberal, bleeding-heart type president?

All hail Josiah Bartlett!

 

[craner]

I'll add a link to this blog because 1. it's really good and 2. I get the impression some people don't realise what a ridiculous propagandist Sy Hersh has become.

 

[vimothy]

I'll add a link to this blog because 1. it's really good and 2. I get the impression some people don't realise what a ridiculous propagandist Sy Hersh has become.

You should really learn to think for yourself Oliver, and stop geting all your info from Daily Mail inspired pro-death screeds like this one.

Sorry, now I am being a cunt: great blog, bookmarked. Thanks for the tip!

 

[Mr. Tea]

how are saudi arabia and iran in any way part of a single socio-political entity?

You could say the same about Alabama and Manhattan, could you not? Or Kensington and Bradford? Yet it'd be ridiculous to say "you can't talk about the US or* UK as a single entity", for many purposes at least.


*n.b.: 'or', not 'and'!

 

[old goriot]

If we can talk about the West then we can surely talk about the East.

I disagree. Just because "the west" is a cohesive cultural concept, and the word "east" is literally the opposite of "west", it doesn't necessarily make east a cohesive concept. I'm sure you're aware of Said, so I won't bother getting into the exotic "other" and all that. But seriously, it's ridiculous to view the world in polar terms of east and west. The west is judeo-christian. The east contains Islam, Taoism, Hinduism and basically every other religious tradition. The only way to use the term "east" is through absurd reductionism. This has been shown time and time again.

A single entity can contain massive amounts of difference within itself, can it not? Hence: Islam is not a monolithic thing, as such, it is riddled with fissure and breaks and lines (and all of that D&Gon crap). Regardless, we can still say "Islam".

Yeah, when referring to a religion, one that is closer than any other religion in the world to the western judeo-christian tradition.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are related inasmuch as and where ever they share histories, cultures, religions, politics, ethnic groupings, languages and so on.

They share very little in any of those categories. Persians are not Arabs. That was my point.

 

[Mr. Tea]

"The West is Judeao-Christian". Well, where does that put a Baptist from Montana, a secular Brooklyn Jew, a Boston Anglican, an atheistic Londoner, a Polish Catholic and a Scottish Presbyterian? The cultural differencese between a largely very Christian America and an increasingly post-Christian/secular Europe are surely comparable to or greater than the differences between Sunni Saudi and Shi'ite Iran?

Of course "the East" is a lazy term, as taken literally it encompasses India, China and so on, but for the sake of this discussion it should be taken as read that we're talking about the Islamic East (which extends as far West as Boznia-Herzogovina, of course). Naturally 'the Islamic world' is a far preferable usage, but we can't say that either, it seems...

 

[old goriot]

You could say the same about Alabama and Manhattan, could you not? Or Kensington and Bradford? Yet it'd be ridiculous to say "you can't talk about the US or UK as a single entity", for many purposes at least.

Alabama and Manhattan DO have very little in common, as cities/states go. Thats why they are different. They have different laws and different culture, and many in Alabama would rather not be a part of the States. Thats what it means when they fly the confederate flag FYI (history 101, the only reason they are in the same country as Manhattan is because they lost a war to stay out of it, and were forced to join). In Alabama you get beaten to death if you are gay. Understand?

You can't talk about the UK and the US as a single entity because they aren't. Who does? The term anglo-american exists to denote the similarities when necessary, but there are fewer and fewer by the year. How many hispanics do you have over in England?

 

[Mr. Tea]

You can't talk about the UK and the US as a single entity because they aren't. Who does? The term anglo-american exists to denote the similarities when necessary, but there are fewer and fewer by the year. How many hispanics do you have over in England?

Whoah, that's not what I meant - I meant "you can still talk about the US as a single entity, or the UK as a single entity". Sorry, I worded that badly.

Also I'm well aware of the facts of America's north-south divide, and the antipathy a lot of people in the former Conferderate states bear for 'northerners'.

 

[adruu]

I think all well meaning liberals should get behind regime change in Saudi Arabia. turn mecca and medina into a vatican type state for muslims. get rid of the house of saud. vegas in dubai and all of that...redistribute all of the gold mercedez and let all those poor california blonde prostitutes go home.

 

[vimothy]

I disagree. Just because "the west" is a cohesive cultural concept, and the word "east" is literally the opposite of "west", it doesn't necessarily make east a cohesive concept. I'm sure you're aware of Said, so I won't bother getting into the exotic "other" and all that. But seriously, it's ridiculous to view the world in polar terms of east and west. The west is judeo-christian. The east contains Islam, Taoism, Hinduism and basically every other religious tradition. The only way to use the term "east" is through absurd reductionism. This has been shown time and time again.

I think that you could give me a bit more credit here, old goriot. I meant the Middle East, obviously - the "Islamic world". (Is it ok if I put it in quotes)? Said is interesting because he did believe that there was a line of demarcation, that the Middle East was an exotic other, so exotic in fact that western academics were unable to study it without falling into the trap of (basically racist) "orientalism". He attacked those responsible, he named and he shamed, he talked a lot of shit about the field of Middle Eastern studies. However, Said was an English Professor at Princeton, not a historian by any means, not only an arab and certainly distant and unknowable figure. Make of him (and his supposed radicalism) what you will.

Yeah, when referring to a religion, one that is closer than any other religion in the world to the western judeo-christian tradition.

Not sure what to make of this, though it did remind me of the saying "al-islām din wa daulah" (Islam is a religion and a state).

They share very little in any of those categories. Persians are not Arabs. That was my point.

You're missing the lines of relation: why are there anti-Israeli protests in Tehran, for example? Why does the Iranian government give money to groups in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq?

Arabs are not Persians, nope, but they do share histories, cultures, religions, politics, ethnic groupings (by which I mean minorities), languages ...

 

[old goriot]

"The West is Judeao-Christian". Well, where does that put a Baptist from Montana, a secular Brooklyn Jew, a Boston Anglican, an atheistic Londoner, a Polish Catholic and a Scottish Presbyterian? The cultural differencese between a largely very Christian America and an increasingly post-Christian/secular Europe are surely comparable to or greater than the differences between Sunni Saudi and Shi'ite Iran?

Of course "the East" is a lazy term, as taken literally it encompasses India, China and so on, but for the sake of this discussion it should be taken as read that we're talking about the Islamic East (which extends as far West as Boznia-Herzogovina, of course). Naturally 'the Islamic world' is a far preferable usage, but we can't say that either, it seems...

Look, I'm not the language police. You can say whatever you want, but in what way does using this sloppy category help anything? If you know what you are talking about then why not say Sunni when you mean Sunni or Shia when you mean Shia. Or Iranian Shia when that is who you're talking about etc. etc.

 

[old goriot]

Whoah, that's not what I meant - I meant "you can still talk about the US as a single entity, or the UK as a single entity". Sorry, I worded that badly.

Also I'm well aware of the facts of America's north-south divide, and the antipathy a lot of people in the former Conferderate states bear for 'northerners'.

haha, sorry, you didn't word it that badly, I just misread it. My apologies I really misconstrued your arguments above.

But my basic point remains, if we bother to differentiate all these groups in europe and america as politically significant, then why not do the same for other areas.