Kevin Groat

As per title, with the NY bombings - Bin Laden and the Talibans (not a rock group before anyone asks !), the Islam and Muslim and Palestine/Gaza Strip problems, the other ongoing middle east tensions etc. Does anyone know where I could get a brief history (online perhaps) of how it all started and what the main issues are. It's something I've never really paid any attention to trying understand what all the fuss is about - but before eveything goes pear shaped, I'd like try and understand where the anger comes from.

Kevin.

fast bloke

Kevin - any you read now will have a perspective. It won't become history until someone wins. Searh the internet for most of the above keywords. Bin Laden was kicked out of Saudi at the start of Desert Storm. A searh on Arrafat or the Ayatollo should also give some info

stevencotton

Reading the Koran might be a good place to start. I read today that most Islamic people consider it blasphemous to have the Koran in anything other than Arabic, but there you go.

Steve.

Shark

Be careful what your search for - The FBI is watching

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

It's all down to Imperialism and religion at the end of the day

Like all problems - eh fast bloke?

Bet your bottom dollar that much of it can be attributed to the "Western World's" colonialism of the 18th & 19th centuries, along with their policies of support for the "kings" "sheiks" and "shahs" and shoring up their oppressive feudalistic states - which in turn led to fundamentalism and the rebellion against the status quo. Oil, of course, *fueled* the problems once it was discovered in the mid-east. The Turkish Empire didn't help much and the British right royally f'd up over how they dealt with Palestine after WWII.

fast bloke

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Shark:
<B>The FBI is watching [/quote]

That'll be Fast Bloke's Informers?

Shark

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fast bloke:
<B> That'll be Fast Bloke's Informers?[/quote]

Should have seen that one coming

philc

had the same problem trying to find something objective on the 'net, knowing most of the material is Western-slanted (especially if like me u only read English).

There may be some international Arabic papers written in English that could give a different perspective from Western rhetoric.

BarryK

Not sure how historic you want to be, but I just got the Times Atlas of World History for £15 and of the bit I have read so far, there is a double page map and write up of the start and spread of "Islam" in the 600s AD, including the flight of Mohammed and chums from Mecca (his home) to Medina, and his triumphant return 6 years later, the split between Shia and Sunni branches and so forth.

Not too loaded with detail, and I don't know how much more is explained later cos I haven't read it all yet. It is £50 retail, but I got it from a book club at work and the maps/illustrations/text make it very informative and easy to take on board.

Oh, and this is the "New Edition" I think. The scholars involved are not all Western, so there is an objective slant to the texts.

Apparently in the early years there was no inclination, let alone requirement, in the Islamic territories to convert other religious groupings who had a montheistic text based religion (referred to as "people of the book") and during the early Caliphates, Jews, Christians etc were living side by side with the new religion in large numbers.

The Muslim "tide" was turned by the Spanish who booted the Moors off mainland Western Europe and the Byzantines slowed things up, with the Austrians finally turning the Turks back from the gates of Vienna and the Venetians defeating the Turkish navy at Lepanto. In this respect historically "Turks" are synonimous with "Islam" if you could consider it as a single nation state.

However, the losses were considered as nothing compared to the gains, all of Northern Africa, the balkans the entire Middle East and Persia to Sindh in NW India became a border free federation of Caliphates.

So at that time and for approx the last 1000 or so years, as far as "they" were concerned Islam was winning (or had won) and there was no need to go to war, it waould be a matter of time before the infidels managed their own daownfall.

Hence the Ottoman Empire (as it became known to the West) was the " sick man of Europe" because they hadn't kept their fighting skills up to scratch. To some extent peace had reigned and time had stood still since those three turning point events mentioned above, and now it appears, the clock has restarted with the attitudes and mores of the time when it was stopped. (At least "locally" to the Islamic territories).

Now "they" are beginning to think they're not winning as the globalization of Western "culture" and the McDonaldization of the world is encroaching on a thousand year (plus) culture, a lot of people don't like it.

So from the Islamic point of view, the fight is to save their culture, way of life and right to carry on same as before from the break up of the muslim world, which started to be nibbled at in the 19th Century by the Russians, the 20th century by Western powers at the Treaty of Versailles, and most recently by Western countries transplanting thousands of (in many cases militant) alien Jews who have actually occupied a part of "their" territory of Islam.

So far as I can see that's Bin Laden's fight (and I'm sure he is not the only one). As he sees it with the ruling classes of his own native country (and those of the Islamic world who adopt "western" postures) and the "West" itself.

Whether the people he claims to represent want what he espouses in their name, I don't know. I know for a fact many muslims who, to a greater or lesser degree embrace the need to deal with the West, abhor the methods he wants to use. I also see evidence that he has others in his corner who say he is right to do what he does, whatever it takes.

Oooh, got a bit carried away there, but at least I gave myself a better perspective by raking it all up.

This is meant to be an even handed account, but obviously I have a Western European view, so don't be hyper critical about my description, thanks.

All corrections or superior knowledge (as if ) gratefully received.



[This message has been edited by BarryK (edited 28 September 2001).]

IWatkins

Well done Barry. I had been thinking about how to answer this question this morning. Middle East/Far East studies was my thing a few years ago. Don't think I could have done any better myself, and not is as few words.

Maybe you might like to try and explain this to the newspapers who love to try and over complicate things by a long way.

OK, yes, it is a complicated subject, but you don't need to confuse members of the public anymore than they already are

Cheers

Ian

BarryK

FB ssshhh, its Top Secret.

Yeah I enlightened myslef too. It's realy obvious when you see a map and the history.

I toyed with the acronym FBI, but I thought better of it!!

CAn I come off the list now?

philc

Barryk, enjoyed the summary.

There was a piece on BBC World (ex Panorama?), which pointed the finger more recently to the Americans continued presence in Saudi Arabia (the most holy of Islamic states), ten years after the Kuwaiti / Iraqi war as being bin Laden's reason for action;
which tends to fit in with your summary of western hegemony encroaching on the Muslim world

fast bloke

Barry You posted that entire reply without the words bog trotting paddy appearing anywhere - have you been to diplomacy lessons?

Bas

Hi guys

Thought you might want some input from a Muslim (although I wouldn't really call myself practicing)

Let me start by saying that what happened in NY was absolutely sickening and even now I can't believe that it actually happened.

I've got no time at all for Bin Laden or any of the other fundamentalists who call themselves Muslims...there's no way you can use religion to justify their actions. This I believe is also the opinion of the vast majority of Muslims around the world.

However as you say Kevin we have to try to understand where the anger comes from.

I can't argue with anything BarryK says above but there's a lot of more recent history which we need to take into consideration.

As far as a lot of Muslim states are concerned, American foreign policy seems to be aimed at destroying Islam and it's culture.

For example, the US stance in the Isreali/Palestine conflict, the 10 year bombardment of Iraq, the desecration of holy sites in Saudi Arabia and on a slightly different note the 'laissez faire' attitude to the Muslims being killed in Bosnia.

All of this has created a huge amount of hostility against the USA which I believe has contributed to the recent events.

Whilst I like most Muslims agree that the perpetrators must be brought to account, going into Afghanistan with all guns blazing is not the answer.

This will only go to increase the hostility and create thousands of more 'Bin Ladens' intent on venting their anger on America.

Hope this has given you a slightly different view

Bas

Kevin Groat

Thanks Guys, hats off to Barry for his time putting together his reply - might invest in the book he suggests - meanwhile I'll continue the unbiased history lessons on CNN and Sky !! .

Regards

Kevin.

mook

Bas &gt; good points mentioned there. As usual it tends to be the 'few' that give the 'majority' a reputation, if you know what I mean.

I think Blair has probably been reasonably active in talking the US out of rushing in, which is just as well. The US aren't used to domestic terrorism and could easily have gone overboard. As it stands, they may still do so but things seem a little more measured now, which is more reasuring. As has been mentioned before, the last thing anyone wants is to cause more greif in an already sensitive part of the world.

I find the history of such things puts so much more light on situations than current events ever can. People are always quick to judge without knowing the where's and whyfor's of events. If it was me, and someone else was sponsoring my neighbours to 'force' their ideals on me, I wouldn't be best pleased either, but it's a shame that 'fanatics' do come along because I'm sure most of the population of the world would be more than happy to live and let live, and live as friends.

jbryant

No giggling, but if you're after a bit of an easy to read guide then you can do a lot worse than checking the Newsround site (kiddie news on BBC - remember John Craven!). Good for kids and those of us with small brains

Also good summaries on Kosovo, NATO, etc.

Bas

mook

I agree with you about Blair and the other countries calming Bush down a bit. If it was down to the Americans Afghanistan would have been destroyed by now.

Saying that though, it's difficult for us to imagine what it must be like for the American people at the moment. As you say, they're not used to terrorism in their own country and the first reaction of most of them would be of revenge.

But like I said earlier there has to be a better way of solving this problem than simply going to war.

Also if as Bush says this is a war on terrorism then once he has got these guys he has to go for other terrorists such as the IRA and ETA.

Bas