I think your last post has quite a few good insights, T-Dave.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
This isn't WW3.

Survival of the Western World? Phoo-ey.

No one ever looks at history in the broad context except historians.

Islamic fundamentalism was at its peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It has been ebbing away ever since.

19 fuckwits killing 3000 people won't change that.

Muslims are generally introspective. They are concerned with Muslim issues. A clash of civilisations with the West is overstated, IMHO. Its also fueled by Western paranoia over 9-11. Objectively speaking, that paranoia is about 20 years late. It should have been about when Nasser was talking about a pan-Arabic state.


All the statements in this quote I don't agree with. Violent radical Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise, and all reports I've seen indicate a growing tide of eager new terrorist recruits. I don't see terrorism subsiding.

I'd be more inclined to believe Islamic radical fundamentalism was on the wane (inclined by such hopeful things as the new generation in Iran's discontent for Islamic fundamentalism, and push for democracy), if not for the radical fundamentalism that threatens to overthrow governments in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even the recently liberated Kuwait.
And the fact that vast percentages of Muslims worldwide openly endorse this terrorism. As I've already quoted repeatedly from an article in the Washington Post, that 30% to 50% of populations throughou the Muslim world that began boycotting U.S. products and businesses, even against the pleas of their own leaders. And many attempts since.
And comments I've seen in many interviews over the last two years with young Muslims, such as two female college students who expressed they want to go to the West Bank and join their brother Palestinians as suicide bombers in Israel.
And as I said earlier, in the "Young, Muslim, and American" story on 60 Minutes, where a Muslim American girl said, "If I were to suicide an American military base, I would go to heaven".

To say nothing of the terror cels arrested over the last two years in the U.S. and Europe, and the increasingly grandiose displays of terrorism from 1993 forward, leading up to 9-11-2001. And fortunately, many Islamic terror-cels arrested since 9-11, before they could complete their mission.

While I don't see a unified pan-Arab state, I do see an effort across the Muslim world to tear down any pro-western governments.
And I wouldn't be surprised any day to hear news that the governments of Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia have been violently overthrown.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


I read an interesting article from a Lebanese Christian academic this morning in yesterday's International Herald Tribune (the international edition of the NY Times). He says he can't blame Westerners for thinking that all Muslims are a pack fo raving zealots, after watching Lebanese TV. It broadcasts a debate between an Islamist, a "moderate Muslim" and some virulent anti-Muslim Western guy I'd never heard of. Apparently the Westerner was quick on his feet, and led these guys in circles. But the biggest disappointment was the Muslims. Both admitted that it would be right to kill a British peacekeeper in Afghanistan for being an infidel occupier.


The writer was extremely disappointed to see a so-called moderate Muslim say this. He said he had studied the Koran, as a Christian, and dealt with Lebanese Muslims every day. All of them were moderate, peaceful people who wanted to get on with their lives and did not ever adocate violence.
That's what I consistently see. That so often, man-or-woman-on-the-street Muslims, or "moderate" Muslims, so often voice belief in the same violent ideology as the radicalists.

Whether the man on the street Muslim would do the violence him/her-self, I find it bone-chilling that he/she approves of it. And I think it's with a twisted sense of "fairness" that the media tends to portray Muslims as less favorable on average to violence than they truly are.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

One thing he did say, which brings me to my point, is that all of these people were on TV because they are extreme in their views. Polarised views make good TV. I have read before that Indian Muslims are very upset about being portrayed as terrorists, because all they see on Western TV is this wrong stereotype.

All this blather here about "Liberal media" and "Conservative media" has made me realise that we, Muslims, Jews, whoever, watch what we want to watch on Tv, and believe what we wish to believe, because no matter what point of view we take, there will be something in the media - some opinion, some view point, some fact - which will back us up.

The media is in effect polarising society/societies. This is no great insight - I saw a story on CNN about this a year or so ago - Jews and Muslims in the US, living blocks apart from each other, each tuned into their respective channels of preference, each getting different versions of events.

This board, and this thread, is a perfect example of the results of such polarisation. Everyone believes what they wish, and there will be some sort of editorial or sound-bite to back them up.
My doctor --a Muslim from India-- has expressed similar frustration over the sweeping perception of Muslims. But Muslims I've met from Iran and the Palestinian territories have frankly scared the crap out of me --well before 9-11-- with what they beleive.

I agree completely that the news media, on any given political issue, tends to square off two polarized extreme positions, for the sheer sensationalism of making the fireworks fly between them.
Whether out of liberal bias, or simply a bias toward sensationalism, I agree that the news media likes portraying extreme polarization, which further polarizes large populations who watch this kind of coverage.

But in formation of my own views, as I've said, I started out believing that 9-11 was perpetrated by just a few extremists. And as time went on, that portrayal in the news ceased to ring true for me, as I've seen that many Muslims worldwide endorse terror on the U.S. and other Western countries.

Regarding coverage of Bush, I agree that it definitely goes to two extremes. That I have to go to conservative publications to read anything favorable about Bush speaks for itself. And much of my harsher rhetoric here stems from the frustration that I have to go away from mainstream sources to see any coverage that is favorable to Bush. I don't look at FOX News as an objective source, but neither are ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. I try to de-code between the extremes exactly what the truth is.

And again, I've defended Bush here, because I think he's taken an unfair beating, and that the conservative Republican side has been under-represented.

I didn't vote for him, but feel the relentless Bush-bashing hasn't made a case for his guilt of anything.

While he's our President, and until someone comes up with a smoking gun, I support him. But I hope to see him replaced in 2004, with a Democrat who has a strong national defense position. If Dean or Gephardt is the candidate, I might have to vote for Bush.