Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Skewballzz

Dune is becoming a reality

Recommended Posts

I've been reading the Dune novels over and over since I was 12, and something came to me yesterday while reading about the Saudi hostage crisis.

For those of you who have read Dune, translate it into the modern world theater.

***I AM NOT CONDONING TERRORIST ACTIONS, SO PLEASE DONT FLAME ME FOR SOMETHING I DO NOT AGREE WITH***

Think of the characters, their actions, and what came about from it.

Stop the empire by taking away the thing they need the most...spice, or in real world terms....OIL.

"Where religion and politics go hand in hand, the wirlwind follows"... sound like an organization you know? People who die for a cause are one thing, but people who die for their god is another.

Who is Muad D'ib?

A man who is in control of an entire underground society, and their agenda.

Who wins.....

The religious "freedom fighters" from the desert....

Scary, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have been Frank Huberts original intentions, and based off of hundreds of things probobly.

I havn't read the books, but from what I hear they represent quite a few things in modern society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The books always had a strong social commentary element, even if they were not quite outright allegorical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hm... interesting. So you say that terrorist gona win this war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorists can't really lose - Al Qeida (Spelling?) may be eliminated - or what ever other organisation takes its place - but there will always be someone, somewhere doing things that label them as 'terrorists'.

The world is full of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

As Tex quite rightly said Frank Herbert's Dune is an Alegory for any scarce material situation. It is a description of power relationships in play. At the time he wrote it it was somewhat precient in a none dynamic system.

However one needs to note some differences:

In Dune only Arakis supplies spice which gives them a monopoly on which the Fremen base there 'holy war'. The sitation described was a static supply market of a scarce resource in a near monopoly.

Here in reality Oil is not a resource bound to a single nation or even OPEC. In fact Arab based OPEC's power has been steadily declining.

The supply of the scarce resource market is dynamic and open.

Russia already matches the chief producer Saudi Arabia.

The UK and Europe could supply their needs from the North Sea for about 30 years if need be.

The US has reserves in Alaska.

Canada as well has largely untaped reserves.

Central America has not been fully explored.

South America has massive reserves offshore.

Central Afica is largely unexplored and untaped except for Nigeria.

Dito South East Asia and the Area around India.

And then there is the rest of the Caucuses my bet for the next area of world Oil Conflict. The Great Game is alive and well and being played out around the caspian sea.

All this though pales to insignificance when one considers the vast wealth of untapped non poluting wind power available.

It may well be that Europe will leave an increasingly backward US economy to buy all the Oil it can choke on unless the US realises Fossil fuels are the way of the past. biggrin_o.gif

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Where religion and politics go hand in hand, the wirlwind follows"... sound like an organization you know? People who die for a cause are one thing, but people who die for their god is another.

Yes - the US. Bush and his cronies think this is a religious war, and think they are the 'good' side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hm... interesting. So you say that terrorist gona win this war?

To be honest, I do.

I always try to keep my views in the middle, neither left nor right. I view terrorists as people who in their mind, are defending their nation and religion. Their society is much more unforgiving, and when you have an unforgiving society, people from there tend to be more rough.

We (the US) have been sticking our nose around in the middle east (for god knows what reason, thats another topic) and people are pissed off there. What would you do if you saw soldiers from another country walking down your street with guns and telling you your moral standards are not right by theirs. I would sure as hell not stand for it.

***I am not a terrorist, so dont call me one crazy_o.gif ***

I may not condone their actions, but if I was in their shoes, the black flag policy would go up, untill my country was left alone.

When you corner a dog in a corner, he will defend himself the best he can, but eventually he will get way to pissed off and come attack you where you are.

LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE.

They would have no problem with us if we had left them alone, but we didnt. A hornet nest has just been pissed on. They're pissed, and I'm sure more sad, brutal things are yet to come.

Can't we all just get along?rock.gif??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hm... interesting. So you say that terrorist gona win this war?

To be honest, I do.

I always try to keep my views in the middle, neither left nor right.  I view terrorists as people who in their mind, are defending their nation and religion.  Their society is much more unforgiving, and when you have an unforgiving society, people from there tend to be more rough.

We (the US) have been sticking our nose around in the middle east (for god knows what reason, thats another topic) and people are pissed off there.  What would you do if you saw soldiers from another country walking down your street with guns and telling you your moral standards are not right by theirs.  I would sure as hell not stand for it.  

***I am not a terrorist, so dont call me one  crazy_o.gif ***

I may not condone their actions, but if I was in their shoes, the black flag policy would go up, untill my country was left alone.  

When you corner a dog in a corner, he will defend himself the best he can, but eventually he will get way to pissed off and come attack you where you are.

LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE.

They would have no problem with us if we had left them alone, but we didnt.  A hornet nest has just been pissed on.  They're pissed, and I'm sure more sad, brutal things are yet to come.

Can't we all just get along?rock.gif??

Well the need for oile, the US economy(firms), Interests, and reputation is the main factors for US involvment.(lost of exampels)

You can never win the war against terrorist cause there will always come new ones, But Al Quaida(spelling) can be destroyed as an organisation mayby not all the individuals but in large terms. But then There will come a new one whit, I am sure. And it is rediculas to think that terrorist can win a war(nobody ever won a war whit a car bomb) most wars are won by conventional forces using conventional warfare and at the moment I think the US is the best, so don't worrie Al Quaida whont be comming marching down your home street ever I am pritty sure, but they will however try to terrorise you the best they can.

And to your last question big NO unfortunetly we cant and we never will, every single person just gotta make the best of it.

Why: we are all different, some of us are sick mentaly, we can't understand each other, we don't understand each other, we can't axcept each other this is very hard lined up but its true.

STGN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i mean by war is probably different than most people think. I think of this war as the new face of war. As people in history have shown, most of the biggest armies are overthrown by the fact that their leaders cannot fathom the new aspects of war.

The days of tanks are over. Uniforms will be gone. All war will be is men with guns, acting like normal civilians. At times they will come out, do their quick job and go back to life. As with a new kind of war, a new way of thinking about it must come.

As I read peoples views on this subject, I notice that they are in a high-tech idea of WWII combat. That is what in essance modern war is. Special Forces may play a bigger role than before, but not to the degree that army may need. A new kinda of warfare is emerging, where all soldiers must be of an unconventional type.

Times change and people must recognize that training soldiers to fight unconventionaly will only help a little.

From the huge masses of the roman army being overtaken by a much more unconventional force, to single breach loading musket skirmish lines being over taken by semi-auto repeaters, to the horse drawn "trench warfare" armies being overrun with blitzkrieg tactics, TIMES CHANGE. Whatever the "BIG" army of the world will have, there will always be a way to defeat it.

People must come to the realization that war is no longer the "T80 rolling down Times Square" scenario. Your neighbor may be your friend during the day, to turn around and take potshots at your house at night hoping to hit someone.

Amies will be no more. It is the age of armed citizens fighting for beliefs, not government interests.

****A little side note******

Yes, give me tons of examples of armies that still fight conventionaly, and how they MAY invade or attack or whatever... These fights will not determine the future of the world.

All it took to beat the medival knights was a crossbow. Armies still had knights, but their time was over. Of course kinghts were extremely more powerfull in comparison to a lone, plain clothed footsoldier. Yet, with a small change in tactics, the age of the knight was over. From there the age of projectile weapons came about. Inventions spurred this, but it is an example of how a change of anything can make the most powerfull weapon unusuable.

Imagine if someone could harness the power of the EMP???

Goodbye technology....hello AK-47, my new best friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the original topic of this post.  Actually, the book "Dune" is just the very beginning of the entire saga of Dune novels which were never completed.

For me, the most stunningly relevant of the Dune series to today's world was the book, "Heretics of Dune" along with the last book "Chapter House Dune".    It is Heretics of Dune that inspired me to not only join the military but also to later become a cultural anthropologist specializing in Middle Eastern cultures.  

In Heretics of Dune, Herbert goes into an amazing analysis of the way religious forces can be manipulated to guide mankind or to be used for political purposes.   He also described in incredible detail the military mind and the way in which military forces are used in combination with religious and political forces.   In essence he nails what many modern political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, and cultural anthropologists have totally missed.  In all my years of studying the social sciences I have never read any decent academic articles about the complex interaction of economic, political, religious, and military factors guiding nations, aside perhaps from a few highly abstract articles using really lofty and complex models and theory that was poorly grounded in any empirical data.   Heretics of Dune however explains these things using very clear examples in the form of a fictional story of a situation resembling our world today in many chilling ways.  

It's quite clear to me that Frank Herbert had very broad knowledge in many fields but especially striking was his knowledge of Judaism, Catholicism, and of Islam.  

For example, the "Muad D'ib" of Dune is taken from the Islamic term "Mah'di".    

Imam Mah'di is the person who is supposed to fullfill Islamic prophecy of unifying Muslims all over the world. (The Islamic "Uma").

In Dune, the Maud'dib led the Fremen who were the tribes of the desert of Dune with very Arabic sounding names and customs.

However the Maud'dib himself is the product of a dedicated effort to fullfill Fremen prophecy by the Bene Gesserit...a society of women who's "Missionaria Protectiva" is to protect mankind from itself and to lead mankind by manipulating religious forces for their own goals.  What they end up doing however is unleashing something totally unexpected culminating in the birth of the Tyrant king which brings them into virtual slavery for 10,000 yrs in what the Tyrant King calls "The Golden Path" of mankind.  

How does all that apply today?

Today in Iraq, Al-Sadr calls his militia the "Mahdi Army", which means that he considers himself, quite arrogantly, to be the "Mahdi".  

However on a broader scale, throughout the Islamic world, there are many who are beginning to wonder if perhaps Osama Bin Laden is the Mah'di.   He is, in effect, unifying many different extremist Shi'ite and Sunni Islamic groups in their hatred of the United States and Israel.  Furthermore, his Al-Qaeda movement is gaining in popularity with moderate Muslims around the world as they hunger for a Mahdi to unite them before the coming of the Day of Judgement.

More importantly however the story tells of how the Maud'dib unites the Fremen against the horrifically corrupt and sadistic House Harkonnen regime which could represent any number of oppressive forces in the Middle East.   The most relevant would be perhaps House Saud of Saudi Arabia with American playing the part of Emperor Shaddam (the name is ironicly similar to Saddam).

He does this because he is the product of a Bene Gesserit mother and part of a purposeful effort to fullfill and control prophecy.  

It is relevent today because the United States or an organization with Middle East cultural, political, economic, and theological expertise has the power to do exactly this... to identify a likely candidate as Imam Mahdi or perhaps even groom and train an individual for the fullfillment of this role.  

But aside from the concept of the Mahdi, such an organization could also use modern marketing psychological methods to effect the attitudes and perceptions of militant Muslims in ways to subvert their hostility towards the West, away from the West in many different ways that could be experimented with.  

To me this is the ONLY solution.  Islam can not be destroyed without horrific genocide and the murder of millions upon millions of people.  

However Islam can be shaped into something akin to what it was during the Ottoman empire in which in many ways it was highly compatible with the West but on their own terms with emphasis on more Sufi based Islamic ideologies.  It was the Sufis that for a long period of time were missionaries of sorts for Islamic empires.  Even today, you can see the Sufi influence in the media such as in the Portuguese (translated to Spanish) telenovela "El-Clon" which has been wildy popular in Latin America (with a the series being shown again right now in many of the major Latin American TV networks).

Someone like the late Middle Eastern scholar Edward Said, would call such programs as blatant "Orientialism" or romanticizing of the Middle East and its cultures, but I have found most Middle Easterners are only all too ready to promote this romantic view of their cultures.   These ideas and views can be promoted as an alternative to the savage and brutal interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths by *some* Wahabi, Salefi, and some Shi'ite scholars who believe in extremely conservative, hate-filled, and sometimes racist interpretations of the Qu'ran.  

In order for this to happen however, the US military would have to undergo a MASSIVE transformation in how it fights this war on terror.  Military leaders at all levels must be heavily trained in Islamic ideologies (by good Islamic scholars) and in the cultures of the Middle East as well as in the political and economic situations of the countries in which they may operate in or be deployed to within the forceable future.  

But...  so far I have seen noone bring this idea up in Washington DC or in the Pentagon.  Politicians and the military are largely confused and at a loss of how to deal with these "terrorist" movements and are still stuck in their old Cold War mentality.  

I also have not received much interest in my ideas from the US government or military sadly.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miles Teg, I applaud you. I have never seen a more in depth anylisis. You hit my words to the tee. It's also nice to know someone else whos read the Dune series. Such a shame Frank Herbert died before he could finish the saga.

What are your views on God Emperor of Dune? That one is by far my favorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud Miles Teg as well, as his name implies, he's quite knowledgeable about the Dune series.

His studies of cultural antropology also help in providing such a detailed analasys.

What I personally find strange however, is the fact how I view the forces in the books and in real life very differently.

Paul Atreides : a prophet, a great leader

The Fremen : admirable people fighting for a good cause

Osama Bin Laden : a man whohas not been heard of for a while, and not exactly admirable

Al Qaeda : fighting for a cause which is just in their eyes, but using the wrong means

(Though the use of atomics by the Fremen could also be debated as right or wrong)

In the light of this I'll be sure to reread everything again, especially since now I'll understand much more.

Reading it when I was 14 was educational, but when you can't understand everything it misses the point a bit. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I applaud Miles Teg as well, as his name implies, he's quite knowledgeable about the Dune series.

His studies of cultural antropology also help in providing such a detailed analasys.

What I personally find strange however, is the fact how I view the forces in the books and in real life very differently.

Paul Atreides : a prophet, a great leader

The Fremen : admirable people fighting for a good cause

Osama Bin Laden : a man whohas not been heard of for a while, and not exactly admirable

Al Qaeda : fighting for a cause which is just in their eyes, but using the wrong means

(Though the use of atomics by the Fremen could also be debated as right or wrong)

In the light of this I'll be sure to reread everything again, especially since now I'll understand much more.

Reading it when I was 14 was educational, but when you can't understand everything it misses the point a bit.  smile_o.gif

I used to think that about Al-Qaeda untill i compared it to the books. They are written from the Fremen perspective. If they were written from the harkonnen perspective im sure we'd hate the fremen as much as al qaeda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I acknowledge that, as much as you try to see it from anothers perspective it is really really hard.

However, I do not blindly label them terrorists, their goals aren't that hard to understand and (sort of) respect a bit.

(I feel like I'm walking in a minefield while typing this tounge_o.gif )

Still, the Fremen attacked the imperial Sardaukar directly, they did not (my memory on the book is very faint after the years, you can just say I'm wrong, no need for extensive quotations) attack imperial or Harkonnen citizens.

The whole analogy sticks pretty good though. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, if they're on your side they're patriots and if they're not they're terrorists. Or something else bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, if they're on your side they're patriots and if they're not they're terrorists.  Or something else bad.

George Orwells 1984, page 30:

"Officially, the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, if they're on your side they're patriots and if they're not they're terrorists.  Or something else bad.

smile_o.gif I wrote an essay once about how the OPFOR/BLUFOR system in America's Army is actually a subtle commentary on the relativism inherent in so many of today's world events, with an addendum concerning the detachment from the overarching issues that those at the sharp end feel- why the hell are we trying to take this bridge anyway?

I should probably look around for it and do some revising, maybe try and get it published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. God Emperor of Dune... it's been a looooong time since I read that one. If I remember correctly that was one of his most complex books as far as philosophical discussion goes...but its been many years since I read that one so I can't really comment too much on it. I really should read that one again as I remember it having important topics in there.

As for Al-Qaeda... from watching interviews with people who knew Bin Laden very well, I am convinced that there are aspects about him that make him VERY charasmatic to many Muslims. In many ways he's a very ordinary man and even does many good deeds with his money at least for Muslims in the areas he operates in (and in the communities who support him). He also has almost Sufi qualities about him as he believes in "getting back to nature" and not relying so much on Western technology and luxuries that he believes is making Muslims soft. This is similar to the Fremen way of life where the harsh living conditions of the desert have forged them into very strong people with an equally harsh and savage tribal system that insures that only the strongest survive and lead them.

It is also undeniable that Muslims are being oppressed by secular governments supported by the United States and other Western governments all over the Middle East. In fact the majority of governments in the Middle East are secular and have long histories of suppressing radical Islamic political movements.

So there is alot of anger towards the West in underdeveloped areas. However there is also alot of Pro-Western support in more developed areas of the Middle East as well who have benefited from trade with the West and various multinational business enterprises. Many have also been educated in the West and are much more accepting of the benefits of Western culture. However some also become more unaccepting because they were never able to fully adapt to the Western cultures in which they studied so they stayed within their own tightly knit Islamic groups. I see this with the Wahabi and Salefi communities here where I live. People fear them (and they fear Americans) because nobody knows who they are and Americans are suspicious of them. Many Wahabis and Salefis are conservative and fundamentalists, but not violent. It's kinda like saying that all Southern Baptists support White Supremist ideologies.

Nevertheless, most terrorists do hold highly conservative/fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.

At any rate terrorists do see themselves as the good guys because they do the same thing we do to Arabs...they see Westerners as barbarians and rationalize killing Westerners because they see Western culture as the biggest threat to establishing a perfect Islamic world. Many of them, even moderates, hold a belief that it is possible to have a Utopia at least within some Islamic countries where everything will be based on some kind of pure vision of Islam and Islamic Law.

But it never has happened and never could happen because of basic human nature...which is that power corrupts and politics draws to it corrupt people...combine religion and politics and more often then not, you get corrupt theocracies. They have idealic romanticized notions of past Islamic empires because back then not very many people were writing highly critical historical accounts of those empires accept for a few of the nations they conquered....and those alternative histories are generally surpressed in the Middle East by either governments or by the more powerful groups of Islamic scholars.

In addition, creating an empire is not very feasible in this era of global communications and global market integration. At best they may be able to experiment with different forms of Islamic based governments. But so far there are NO true Islamic governments and Muslims can't even agree upon what is a "TRUE" Islamic government.

Another HUGE reason for hatred towards the US in particular is of coarse our military support of the Israelies. Some see fighting the United States as a legitimate form of Jihad as we are indirectly supporting the oppression of Muslims (and for Arabs, their Arab brothers and sisters) in the Palistinian territories. Of coarse there is a lot of hypocracy in this belief as Arab governments and groups have always happily killed and oppressed each other when it suited them.

Also...nothing in the Qu'ran justifies killing innocent women and children as far as I have found. I'm not sure about Hadiths, but there's over 40,000 Hadiths so you can probably find just about damn near anything you want in those.

So to understand terrorists you really have to understand their interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths. But to combat terrorism you need to understand how to counter these interpretations because for many of these Islamic militant groups, they have never been exposed to any different teachings other then extreme fundamentalist teachings.

This mixed in with economic development programs, and the very careful usage of military power and covert operations can I think defeat terrorism. But right the terrorists are winning the war as far as winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. America is seen as the greatest hypocrit around the world.

This is why major changes need to be made in the US military when it comes to fighting terrorism and in the training that US soldiers recieve.

For those extreme hardcore Islamic militant groups with which dialog and psych ops fails to produce results, Special Operations and the CIA paramilitary teams could be used to carry out extremely subtle assassinations created to cause the illusion that one faction assassinated another faction.

This however would require an increase in the ability of the CIA to train and recruit Muslims who truly believe in the cause of fighting Islamic fundamentalists. As far as I know, there is no concerted effort to identify areas of the Middle East where such groups and individuals can be found.

However with all that said, the most important thing that must be central to such a doctrine of religious subversion is that the central religion of Islam must NOT be attacked and undermined as much as many Christians in the US would like to do so. This is a big problem. Many Christians in the US government may look at developing such programs to not simply subvert militant Muslims but to cause and create chaos all over the Islamic world. That is why any such program must have extremely strict safeguards to prevent abuses and the subversion and perversion of the new terrorist fighting doctrine itself.

Many forget that the Middle East is not the only hotbed of religious fundamentalists.

That is why I do not see this war on terror as a "Good guy vs. Bad guy" war. That is the biggest mistake of so many US politicians and Military leaders.

This war needs to be looked at through the eyes of our enemies in order to understand its root causes and how to decrease tensions and stabilize relations with the Islamic world into an atmosphere of economic cooperation and friendship, rather then trying to turn the war on terror into some kind of apocolypic war of good vs evil.

To create a world war of religions would be the most horrific form of self-fufilling prophecy.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is also undeniable that Muslims are being oppressed by secular governments supported by the United States and other Western governments all over the Middle East.

Damn those secular governments, stopping their holy way of persecuting and oppressing others (especially their own women.) Forcing people to accept others basic human rights is hardly oppressing them. If governments 'oppress' muslims, it's not due to their being secular.

Quote[/b] ]

In fact the majority of governments in the Middle East are secular and have long histories of suppressing radical Islamic political movements.

Really? List these secular governments.
Quote[/b] ]

combine religion and politics and more often then not, you get corrupt theocracies.

ALWAYS.

Quote[/b] ]

But so far there are NO true Islamic governments and Muslims can't even agree upon what is a "TRUE" Islamic government.

Rubbish. There are islamic governments, but others disagree with their interpretation of the Quran. Fact of religion; no two people have the same interpretation of the books (since they are so vague and wooly.)

Quote[/b] ]

Also...nothing in the Qu'ran justifies killing innocent women and children as far as I have found.

Have you even opened the book?

*EDIT* - I GOT THE PASSAGE NUMBERS WRONG -

2: the cow:

002:024. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones

002:099. Only evil people are disbelievers

002:178 Believers must retaliate (kill in retribution). Those who transgress will have a painful doom.

002:191 Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

4: the women

004:089 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

004:091 If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant

These are interpretations of what the passage say. I invite you to use the links provided to see for yourself what the various interpretations say.

*end edit*

The entire book is filled with this type of crap. Do you just look at the pretty pictures? How can you make such a ridiculous statement?

Quote[/b] ]

So to understand terrorists you really have to understand their interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths. But to combat terrorism you need to understand how to counter these interpretations because for many of these Islamic militant groups, they have never been exposed to any different teachings other then extreme fundamentalist teachings.

Wrong. Any teaching of the abrahamic religions incorporates hundreds of passages teaching hate, violence and intolerance. There is little difference between the extremist teachings and the 'moderate' teachings; the moderates just have enough human decency to ignore the crap in the books.

Quote[/b] ]

This is why major changes need to be made in the US military when it comes to fighting terrorism and in the training that US soldiers recieve.

This is right though.
Quote[/b] ]

However with all that said, the most important thing that must be central to such a doctrine of religious subversion is that the central religion of Islam must NOT be attacked and undermined as much as many Christians in the US would like to do so.

Or indeed not having fundamentalist christians like bush and his cronies dictating policies.
Quote[/b] ]

Many forget that the Middle East is not the only hotbed of religious fundamentalists.

That is why I do not see this war on terror as a "Good guy vs. Bad guy" war. That is the biggest mistake of so many US politicians and Military leaders.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However with all that said, the most important thing that must be central to such a doctrine of religious subversion is that the central religion of Islam must NOT be attacked and undermined as much as many Christians in the US would like to do so.  This is a big problem.  Many Christians in the US government may look at developing such programs to not simply subvert militant Muslims but to cause and create chaos all over the Islamic world.   That is why any such program must have extremely strict safeguards to prevent abuses and the subversion and perversion of the new terrorist fighting doctrine itself.  

Many forget that the Middle East is not the only hotbed of religious fundamentalists.  

That is why I do not see this war on terror as a "Good guy vs. Bad guy" war.   That is the biggest mistake of so many US politicians and Military leaders.  

This war needs to be looked at through the eyes of our enemies in order to understand its root causes and how to decrease tensions and stabilize relations with the Islamic world into an atmosphere of economic cooperation and friendship, rather then trying to turn the war on terror into some kind of apocolypic war of good vs evil.

To create a world war of religions would be the most horrific form of self-fufilling prophecy.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

WORD! blues.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

Damn those secular governments, stopping their holy way of persecuting and oppressing others (especially their own women.) Forcing people to accept others basic human rights is hardly oppressing them. If governments 'oppress' muslims, it's not due to their being secular.

I use the word "secular" loosely. Most of the Middle East governments do call their poltiical parties "Islamic" something or other. But for the most part, most of their governments do not base their laws upon Shariat law or if they do its based upon bits and pieces of it. Saddam Hussein and Syria's Baath Party is an example. The majority of these countries are simple dictatorships. Examples include Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, UAE, Yemen, ect... ect...

Only a few countries in the Middle East are considered Isalmic theocracies such as Iran. The House of Saud consideres their government an Islamic government as well and their laws are heavily based upon hardline interpretations of Islamic law.

Quote[/b] ]

Rubbish. There are islamic governments, but others disagree with their interpretation of the Quran. Fact of religion; no two people have the same interpretation of the books (since they are so vague and wooly.)

If you read carefully what I said, I ended it with, "...Muslims can't even agree upon what is a "TRUE" Islamic government."

You are just repeating what I said.

Quote[/b] ]

Also...nothing in the Qu'ran justifies killing innocent women and children as far as I have found.

Have you even opened the book?

2: the cow:

4. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones

12. Only evil people are disbelievers

24. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom

25. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

4: the women

73. Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

74.If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant

The entire book is filled with this type of crap. Do you just look at the pretty pictures? How can you make such a ridiculous statement?

It is statements like yours that precisely fuel hatred towards the West in the Islamic world. They are disrespectful and fail to analyze the many ways in which these passages are interpreted nor do you bother to look at the historical context. Of coarse many Muslims are guilty of not knowing the history and context of the Qu'ran as well. I am not defending every aspect of the Qu'ran, but if you give exact quotes from where you got those interpretations above, I can go into a much deeper discussion about each of those subject matters.

Sadly you seem so bent on trying to convince people that their religion is crap and useless, that you fail to accept the fundamental nature of religion and what it means to people.

I am not here to preach. What you totally fail to grasp is that it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to understand their religion through the eyes of many different types of Muslims and in the context of their cultures in order to even begin to figure out how to solve this war on terror in a peaceful manner.

So please don't turn this into a pissing match. This thread at any rate is about how the current situation resembles the Dune series of novels by Frank Herbert and for me at least, how many of the lessons from his novels can be applied in today's current situation.

Quote[/b] ]

So to understand terrorists you really have to understand their interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths. But to combat terrorism you need to understand how to counter these interpretations because for many of these Islamic militant groups, they have never been exposed to any different teachings other then extreme fundamentalist teachings.

Wrong. Any teaching of the abrahamic religions incorporates hundreds of passages teaching hate, violence and intolerance. There is little difference between the extremist teachings and the 'moderate' teachings; the moderates just have enough human decency to ignore the crap in the books.

I'm sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree on that as I've spent a lot of time around many different types of Muslims from many different cultures. You can not lump them all together. You are implying that they are evil backwards people who are not decent humans. It is talk like that which inspires hatred and violence on both sides. Would you prefer to kill them all? Because you can not force people to become atheists any more then you can force an atheist to accept religion.

If we refuse to even try and understand them then we must commit genocide. Do you see some other solution to this excalating war on terror?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree on that as I've spent a lot of time around many different types of Muslims from many different cultures.  You can not lump them all together.  You are implying that they are evil backwards people who are not decent humans.  It is talk like that which inspires hatred and violence on both sides.   Would you prefer to kill them all?  Because you can not force people to become atheists any more then you can force an atheist to accept religion.  

If we refuse to even try and understand them then we must commit genocide.   Do you see some other solution to this excalating war on terror?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

It are people like the ones u described that events such as this are caused. I just wish that people could stand in the middle, instead of taking sides. That only leads to closemindedness for most people.

People tend to be stubborn, and will fight for their side even if they dont agree with it.

I used to be a big republican, untill I began to question everything. Thoughts and ideas seem to take new shape when viewing them from a third point of view. All I ask is that people look at everyday events like a child would - not knowing anything about it or having preconcieved notions about it.

Long live the fightes sof Paul Muad'Dib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I use the word "secular" loosely.

And wrongly
Quote[/b] ]

Most of the Middle East governments do call their poltiical parties "Islamic" something or other. But for the most part, most of their governments do not base their laws upon Shariat law or if they do its based upon bits and pieces of it.

...which is then NOT secular.
Quote[/b] ]

Saddam Hussein and Syria's Baath Party is an example. The majority of these countries are simple dictatorships. Examples include Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, UAE, Yemen, ect... ect...

What has their being dictatorships to do with their being allegedly 'secular'? Are you claiming that secular governments are dictatorships? That no dictatorship could not be secular?
Quote[/b] ]

If you read carefully what I said, I ended it with, "...Muslims can't even agree upon what is a "TRUE" Islamic government."

You are just repeating what I said.

No, you said that they aren't Islamic governments because some people disagree with their interpretation of 'Islamic', which is total nonsense. They are Islamic governments if they are based on someone's interpretation of Islam. Which is not what you said.
Quote[/b] ]

It is statements like yours that precisely fuel hatred towards the West in the Islamic world. They are disrespectful and fail to analyze the many ways in which these passages are interpreted nor do you bother to look at the historical context.

The historical context of slaughtering innocent 'infidels'? WHAT PART OF THAT DESERVES RESPECT? It's well-meaning but idiotic people who think people's beliefs deserve respects 'because they are beliefs' - no matter the evil and hatred that comes from them - that cause the problems.

Hypocrite. "nothing in the Qu'ran justifies killing innocent women and children as far as I have found." Liar. The book condones and justifies killing innocent women and children. There is no historical context that will change that fact. Get used to it.

Quote[/b] ]Of coarse many Muslims are guilty of not knowing the history and context of the Qu'ran as well. I am not defending every aspect of the Qu'ran, but if you give exact quotes from where you got those interpretations above, I can go into a much deeper discussion about each of those subject matters.

Read it yourself. Every couple of passages has references to Allah's displeasure towards unbelievers, and many have directions as to what believers should do to unbelievers. Read the bloody thing before claiming nonsense.

Quote[/b] ]

Sadly you seem so bent on trying to convince people that their religion is crap and useless, that you fail to accept the fundamental nature of religion and what it means to people.

Sadly you seem so bent on defending religion that you cannot see the huge problems it creates. You think that beliefs automatically deserve respect. They don't. You think that thousand year old lies are somehow better than 5 minute old lies. They aren't.
Quote[/b] ]

I am not here to preach. What you totally fail to grasp is that it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to understand their religion through the eyes of many different types of Muslims and in the context of their cultures in order to even begin to figure out how to solve this war on terror in a peaceful manner.

It is necessary to understand why people believe such utter nonsense, yes. It is not necessary to give it any credence whatsoever in the process.
Quote[/b] ]

Wrong. Any teaching of the abrahamic religions incorporates hundreds of passages teaching hate, violence and intolerance. There is little difference between the extremist teachings and the 'moderate' teachings; the moderates just have enough human decency to ignore the crap in the books.

I'm sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree on that as I've spent a lot of time around many different types of Muslims from many different cultures. You can not lump them all together. You are implying that they are evil backwards people who are not decent humans.

Do some homework, genius. Abrahamic religions = religions of the children of Abraham = Christianity, Judaism and Islam = those religions incorporating the Old Testament (in various incarnations.)

The religions themselves; the books themselves, are full of hatred, examples of violence condoned and done 'in the name of god,' intolerance and cruelty. That most people who claim to follow these religions are actually nice people is because they don't listen to these parts, they listen to their own empathy for others instead of their book's hate. I certainly was not saying all persons of X religion are evil, backwards people- only the ones who really listen to what the book says, not ignoring the bad parts. I have several Muslim friends. Although, of course, they are not hardcore muslims, because if they followed the direction of the Quran they would not make friends with unbelievers.

Quote[/b] ]

It is talk like that which inspires hatred and violence on both sides. Would you prefer to kill them all? Because you can not force people to become atheists any more then you can force an atheist to accept religion.

No. I'd prefer to let them make up their own minds, instead of listening to bullshit others have indoctrinated them with. Deal with them as we do with brainwashed cultists; it's not their fault, but they are misled.

Quote[/b] ]

If we refuse to even try and understand them then we must commit genocide. Do you see some other solution to this excalating war on terror?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Did I say we shouldn't understand them? I did agree with some of your post, or were you too busy frantically trying to weasel out of your erroneous statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×