humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <3%eDj.10612$%15.7308@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
newsgroups@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net says...
> "Gordon Sollars" wrote in message
>
> > Some good things seem to be happening, but
> > the idea that "we" have had anything to do with Muslims rejecting
> > fundamentalism at the polls is absurd.
>
> I don't understand how you can conclude that our military campaign is not
> responsible for radical Islam's popularity downfall. The evidence appears
> overwhelming to me.

I am sorry that I do not have time to respond to your lengthy post in
kind. The short form is that you argue that our military campaign has
weakened "al Qaeda in Iraq" as well as other elements of the al Qaeda
franchise. But I don't disagree with that. Perhaps this weakening has
made al Qaeda less attractive to Muslim fundamentalists. Your argument
essentially (I am sorry, but I read quickly, and so may have it wrong)
is that our military forced them to take actions that were so desperate
that they lost support. I think that they would have lost support
anyway at *much* less cost, if we had stayed out of Iraq, but I will
grant for the sake of the argument that, whatever the cost, al Qaeda has
become less attractive. (In any event, it is only fair if we cost al
Qaeda in Iraq some support, since it was our presence in Iraq that
provided their initial strength.)

But "Muslim fundamentalism" is not the same as the al Qaeda franchise -
even when you add in the Taliban. Muslim fundamentalism is a socio-
cultural phenomena that transcends particular insurgent groups. If the
average Muslim voter is rejecting Muslim fundamentalism, my theory is
that it is because he does not want to be ruled by a Muslim
fundamentalist. I think it is absurd to think that he comes to this
conclusion because of what the U.S. military has done to al Qaeda. The
way the Taliban ruled Afghanistan would be far more relevant to him.

--
Gordon