martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/11/84)
Despite David's statement, calling for the annihilation of certain states is not equivalent to Hitlerism and is not necessarily wrong. Calling for the annihilation of Nazi Germany during the 30's was perfectly reasonable and hardly could be termed Hitlerism. Annihilating a state is not equivalent to murdering the people who reside in that state, unless someone is claiming that the allies killed all the residents of Nazi Germany. During the 19th century, a large part of the Muslim world was occupied and colonized by Europe. For the non-Muslims who lived in these nations, this conquest was one of the most progressive events of the last 500 years. If any net-reader thinks being a dhimmi was fun, I suggest reading a little publication of the Government of Pakistan called Dhimma. I would rather have been a black under jim-crow. The European colonial rulers tended to forbid the worst types of mistreatment of non-Muslims. Not surprisingly the Muslims chafed at their subjugation and at the rising status of those who were formerly asfal assafalin (the lowest of the low). In response two very different ideologies developed (at least in the Arab nations) Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism. Arab nationalists have tended to slaughter people not considered Arab e.g. Jews, Berbers, Kurds, Turks, Persians and many others. The Islamic fundamentalist tend to degrade and humiliate dhimmis under their rule. Those peoples who don't qualify as dhimmis like Baha'is or Ahmadis just get slaughtered. Majorities don't have the right to slaughter or to oppress minorities. Since Arab nationalist and Islamic fundamentalist majorities commit exactly these crimes, they should not rule. Then the only possibility is a return to colonialism. I have no great love for Westerners but they did a much better job of ruling North Africa than the locals. Western intellectuals showed no moral fibre whatsoever when the howling savages of Qum foamed about the "crimes" the USA committed against the Muslim peoples as if the shiites have not done much worse. Richard Falk's analysis was particularly mindless. I saw no outcry at the destruction of Hamah by the Syrian government. The intellectuals claim we cannot judge these nations by first world standards of right and wrong. But most of my family until 1950 were cave-dwellers living in Southern Libya and we would not act like the Syrians or Iranians. Right and wrong has no relationship to the level of technical development.
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/13/84)
[*************=8>:) (snort)]
Mr. Martillo,
I have not had occasion to respond to any of your postings
before, but I am a pretty faithful reader of them. I would credit
your messages (and the responses to them) for making net.religion.-
jewish interesting reading even to non-Jews such as myself.
I must disagree with your call for the annihilition of the
Arab states, for two reasons.
First, I'm afraid it's simply unrealistic. WHO is to
annihilate these states? If by "Westerners" you mean Western
Europe and the U.S., don't you think the Eastern bloc nations
(the Soviets) might get a teeny bit upset about the West colonizing
North Africa? Not that I respect their opinions much, but I do
respect their military might. Soviets aside, I would still question
whether such colonization would be feasible. The French tried very
hard to hang on to Algeria for many years, with no success. The
U.S. experience in Vietnam also suggests to me that such an
attempt at colonization would be unsuccessful. The days of
European colonialism are gone, not for moral reasons, but for
practical ones. Any government's rule requires at least tacit
acceptance of their suzerainty by the subject population. I
wouldn't say (as some do) that people always get the government
they deserve, but they DO always get a government they can
tolerate, by definition. I think the history of the world since
WW II shows clearly that European colonialism can no longer
command the minimal cooperation from the colonials which is
essential to maintain power.
On to my other objection. You claim that your hatred is
of the Islamic governments, and not the people. If so, how does
it follow that "the only possibility is a return to [Western]
colonialism"? By claiming this, are you not therefore claiming,
not only that the present Islamic rulers are unfit, but also
that the Muslim peoples are incapable of self-rule, period? I
share your intense distaste for some of the governments you
criticize, but I am not so contemptuous of the people they rule
that I conclude they are unable to do better. You compare
your call for the annihilation of these Islamic states with a
call to annihilate Nazi Germany in the 30's but, by your logic,
we should not only have destroyed the Nazi regime, but also
should have taken over the rulership of Germany. We did not do
this; the Russians, however, did. Do you think that East Germany
is a good model of what to do with countries whose governments
we dislike? Or do you argue that the Germans, Naziism
notwithstanding, are more 'civilized' than the Arabs?
Truly, it seems that this is exactly what you are saying.
And this is where I cannot agree with you. It is comforting to
believe that atrocities and horrors are committed only by others,
by peoples less civilized than ourselves. Unfortunately, the
capacity to be 'good little Nazis' is there in all of us, as
Stanley Milgram demonstrated some years back. Indeed, belief in
the moral superiority of one's own group is precisely the sort
of philosophy that leads to fanatical excess and genocide.
As Walt Kelly observed (in "Pogo"), "We have met the enemy,
and he is us."
[The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.]
Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barrytac@teldata.UUCP (05/15/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
Mr. Martillo finally stopped to make several good points about the muslim
states and their governments. My objection was to the word "annihilation".
My webster's says that it is to destroy completely. My Connotation is more
along the lines of slaughter...perhaps through more common usage today. I
would favor the word "disband" for the distruction of a government and creation
of a new one.
The fundamental question still remains, whether we know or have the right to
say we know the best form of government for someone else. Remember how we
think of the Russians whenever they take that stand? (e.g. Poland, Afganistan,
etc.) Those people will wind up with the government that they deserve--that
is an old political/historical axiom. When they want to work for a better
form it will come. Until then anything we build for them will crumble soon
from lack of up keep.
I want the freedom to make the decisions for myself, and am willing to allow
that to others as well.
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.