Hacker News Reader

Comment by w1ntermute | Hacker News Reader

I'm not looking at this from an impartial point of view, I'm looking at this as an American citizen who greatly enjoys the benefits of having been born in a developed nation with global hegemony.

I have no illusions about the various immoral and unethical acts committed by the US government over the last 50-75 (and probably more) years in various 3rd world countries in the name of American interests, nor do I think they are defensible from a moral/ethical perspective. I'm merely stating the simplest and most effective method of ensuring that the US's global hegemony remains as it is now.

View on HN

But failing to undertake a proper root cause analysis is harmful to your stated aims.

You appear to believe that a resurgent radical Islam is primarily due to the rise of wealthy Arab states, and yet these states are aligned to the West, armed by the West, and also suppress the same radical elements you wish to neutralize domestically.

A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites (which have a modern crusades theme to them) are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements of Middle Eastern society.

Western and Middle Eastern political organizations with a religious base, radical pastors and imams, and military contractors seem to be the main beneficiaries in this culture war, and domestic citizens in the Middle East and the West seem to be the main losers.

Civil liberties are eroded domestically, a constant state of fear is generated domestically, and travel options internationally are limited. This applies to both Middle Eastern and Western domestic populations.

The simplest and most effective solution is, you say, to limit immigration and assimilate existing immigrants? Historically maybe it's been the 'simplest' approach, in terms of isolating and subjugating 'foreigners' (apart from slavery), but I wouldn't agree that it's been effective in neutralizing resistance to whatever was the hegemony of the age.

Instead I would look at the success of Western countries in cultivating an apathetic population as the counter-intuitive solution for a continued hegemony. Rising living standards, opportunity, and entertainment as distraction.

Look at how China invests in significant infrastructure in Africa to buy stability and access to natural resources. The idea of foreign aid is certainly not new, and the world is littered with US-funded roads and hospitals, but the ratio of destructive / constructive actions is completely the wrong way around.

Why not wage peace, allocate more of the loot to local populations so they see a significant rise in living standards, and cultivate a widening middle class that has less reasons to be sympathetic to radicals?

That seems to me a far more sophisticated approach to exerting and maintaining influence than the traditional "wage war" approach.

Your position seems to be a result of artful misdirection which paints militant Islam as the cause when in fact it is simply the effect of the militant West. It's the bitterest of ironies that the global Defence industry is in fact one of the greatest enemies of continued goodwill and peace for Western populations.

>A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites (which have a modern crusades theme to them) are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements of Middle Eastern society.

Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West. It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings. It would further investigate the influence of the division of church and state on the moderation of Christian beliefs and (in most countries) lack thereof in the Muslim world.

>Why not wage peace, allocate more of the loot to local populations so they see a significant rise in living standards, and cultivate a widening middle class that has less reasons to be sympathetic to radicals?

9/11 as the showcase of the clash between the West and radical Muslims was planned by a descendant of a rich Saudi family. There were not many poor and underprivileged amongst those plane hijackers.

> Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West.

That's another rule I forgot to mention:

5. Anyone pointing out the clear history of repeated violent actions by X against Y shall be labelled a: Y sympathiser, "blame-the-X" bleeding-heart liberal, anti-X, etc

> It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings.

You seem to hold a Western stereotype of Islam[1]. How can you accept this stereotype and at the same time bristle with indignation when someone points out that the West is a collection of extremely violent superpowers, as shown by the West's history of constant war and invasion?

What metrics do we use to calculate which 'side' is more violent? Number of people killed, and number of countries invaded? On that basis the West is clearly far more violent, isn't it?

> 9/11 as the showcase of the clash between the West and radical Muslims was planned by a descendant of a rich Saudi family. There were not many poor and underprivileged amongst those plane hijackers.

Injustice is oxygen for radicals at every strata of society, so my point is that if you serve your subjugated people more justice and less injustice, you are getting increased stability and security in return. It's a good trade for people like w1ntermute who are satisfied with their global status and not troubled by questions involving morality and ethics.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence#Western_ster...

> Anyone pointing out the clear history of repeated violent actions by X against Y shall be labelled You are constructing a straw man here. YOU specifically stated that "that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites [...] are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements", so you ARE knocking the West for everything that happens. I did specifically not label you as anything of the above.

>What metrics do we use to calculate which 'side' is more violent? Number of people killed, and number of countries invaded? On that basis the West is clearly far more violent, isn't it? I don't think so. How many wars between democratic Western countries vs. between Muslim countries? I do recall Iraqis and Iranians happily gassing each other as late as the 1980s.

>Injustice is oxygen for radicals at every strata of society, so my point is that if you serve your subjugated people more justice and less injustice, you are getting increased stability and security in return. Sure, that's why Western secular countries win this contest hands down. Saudi Arabia is not a US colony, they have a home-grown Muslim theocracy. They are subjugated by their own sheiks and their religion.

The West does deserve blame for destroying traditional societies during the 19th century. BUT, those societies were far from peaceful - and contrary to a lot of Asian states, a big part of Africa and the Muslim world never changed their violent ways post-colonialism. The West deserves blame for nurturing dictators like Hussein and Ghaddafi, but it's the Muslim population that - even in more or less free election - votes Islamic radicals into office.

I for one are getting irritated and tired of proponents of a peaceful Islam blissfully ignorant of the realities of violence in Muslim societies and Muslim migrant culture. I don't get it why it is so hard to take at least some responsibility and try to improve things instead of always blaming the West. This is a loser's attitude.

> Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West. It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings.

Christianity can be an extremely violent religion, as shown by its history, from the Crusades to the Thirty Years war. Not to mention the various non-religious genocides committed for the most part by "good christians". Most religions have enough internal contradiction that widely different interpretations arise. You have a world of difference between Salafists and Sufis, for instance.

Denying that at least a century of Western interference in the Middle East does not play a very significant role in this "culture war" is naive. Not to deny very different cultural standards between the West and the Middle East, but it's certainly not black and white.

> You appear to believe that a resurgent radical Islam is primarily due to the rise of wealthy Arab states, and yet these states are aligned to the West, armed by the West, and also suppress the same radical elements you wish to neutralize domestically.

To add a touch of concreteness, according to "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" by Lawrence Wright (which I cannot recommend enough if you're interested in that bit of modern history), an explicit motivation of Osama bin Laden was the US's continued presence in Saudi Arabia (at the regime's express invitation). The book also contains an account of Hosni Mubarak's rather heavy handed suppression of radicals in Egypt, and how that motivated resistance (although focused on Egypt, they were co-opted by bin Laden).

In relation to recently-enriched Arab states, w1ntermute stated that: "Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West". He appears to think that well-funded Arab states are directly supporting radical Islam - my response was directed at that wrong notion, because as you note those states are actively involved in suppression of radicals.

US backing of oppressive regimes in the region is certainly an injustice that fuels radicalization of citizens in those countries.

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll have a look at it.

You go on and on about Western intervention in the Middle East. My solution would eliminate Western intervention in the Middle East. Once we don't need crude oil, why would we even bother going there? There would be nothing of value. Wouldn't the Arabs be happy with that too?

I would use some more empathy and adopt a bit more diplomatic attitude if I were you. There will be suicide bombers well after Arabs go back to being desert nomads. It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.

> It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.

9/11 was estimated to have required ~$400-500k. And I'd say it'd be quite a bit more expensive to repeat that feat these days.

More than a few people have blown themselves up since 9/11.

Heck, militia groups in the U.S. manage to mount occasional terrorist attacks, and they're generally quite poor. I don't think Timothy McVeigh raised too much funding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com