Oprano Adult Industry Forums - View Single Post

Rolo · 01-05-2005

Let me quote myself from another thread 6 months ago:

Quote:

Interesting article about "Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism" from 1998 found at http://www.danielpipes.org/article/954

It also have a Policy Implications part, about what the U.S. government should do (I guess this apply for all western countries)

Quote:

Policy Implications

There is a great battle under way for the soul of the Muslim world. This battle is not between the West and the Muslim world; we in the West are bystanders. It is essentially a battle between Muslims, between the Khomeini and Atatürk dispositions. Which one is likely to prevail? It is strange to observe that the lively, new ideas in Kemalist Turkey are Islamist ones, whereas the lively, new ideas in Islamist Iran are secular ones. This points to the turmoil and the dynamic developments taking place in the Muslim world.

Despite the fact that the West is a bystander, we on the outside must protect our interests. To start, in devising strategy towards Islamism we must very specifically and very repeatedly distinguish between Islam and Islamism. I am talking about developing a policy toward Islamism, not Islam. States do not have policies towards religions, but they do respond to ideologies. The American government and the American people must be clear about this distinction.

This said, the U.S. government should take a number of steps:

* Support states that contain Islamists and encourage them to do so.
* Keeping Islamists out of power is in their interest and in ours.
* Pressure those states that are already Islamist to reduce their aggressiveness toward their own populations and toward the outside world.
* Celebrate and support those brave souls who stand up to the Islamists.
* Label the Islamist groups that engage in terrorism as such.
* Do not work cooperate with Islamists, thereby encouraging them.
* Dialogue with Islamists tends to enhance their stature.
* Be very careful about pushing for elections. The spread of democracy is of course a permanent American aspiration. But it includes much more than ballots. Elections are a capstone to a deep and usually long-term process of change that includes an effective rule of law, minority right, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and much more. To hold premature elections, as happened in Algeria, is in no one's interest. It requires 10, 20, 30 years of evolution before full-fledged democracy can come into existence. In a sense, this process recapitulates what took place in the first democratic country, in England, over centuries.

Because it takes time for full enfranchisement, the U.S. government should encourage democratization, first on the level of civic society, and then, only after that has been established, on the level of political leaders.

I think this raises some good points, especially if we start to accept that there are over 1 billion people on this planet, that have decided to belive in Islam... supporting the democratization of the islamic world will probably mean more security, but it is a long term project... probably the rest of our lifes. And in that time we can expect Islamists to fight back with terror, since this is part of their belief system.

Do we have any other choice, than to democratization the islamic world?

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?s...06&hl=democracy