The West and Political Islam

[Major.Stupidity]

Here's an article in The Financial Times discussing the West's unease towards Political Islam, and its embrace of despots in an effort to negate Islamist movements from seizing power. Clearly the West should engage moderate groups within the Islamist milieu. What are you opinions?

[Scar Face]

Here's an article in The Financial Times discussing the West's unease towards Political Islam, and its embrace of despots in an effort to negate Islamist movements from seizing power. Clearly the West should engage moderate groups within the Islamist milieu. What are you opinions?

Why should "The West" have to engage with any kind of group? Why are we subjecting ourselves to a people and culture where we actually have to work, negotiate, and censor just to live in a harmonious existence? Who's moral principles honestly outlie that all men must live with all men? Not mine, so why try? Why does the West even bother? If theres too many bad weeds in the group, get rid of the group, save yourselves some ****ing issues. Were a bunch of cry baby pussies though, too worried about being mean than being effective.

[Major.Stupidity]

Why should "The West" have to engage with any kind of group? Why are we subjecting ourselves to a people and culture where we actually have to work, negotiate, and censor just to live in a harmonious existence? Who's moral principles honestly outlie that all men must live with all men? Not mine, so why try? Why does the West even bother? If theres too many bad weeds in the group, get rid of the group, save yourselves some ****ing issues. Were a bunch of cry baby pussies though, too worried about being mean than being effective.

Because clearly the "Islamic World" and Political Islam are homogeneous in nature. Moreover, you leave out the legacy of Western support of corrupt, tyrannical regimes in the Middle East.

[motiv-8]

For one, little dialogue can be accomplished until we, as Americans, reach a level of understanding that Political Islam does not automatically indicate "medievalism" or the chopping off of hands and stoning of women. Islamism can and in some cases does indicate a platform of complete economic reform, with new rules for banking, investment, social welfare, and trade. Turning down opportunities for these systems to express themselves, especially democratically, in favor of so-called "secular" or otherwise despotic rulers who care little for their subjects (who in turn are embittered by their lack of a stake in the system), is profoundly stupid in hindsight. More understandably, the decisions as made at the time boil down to "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".. Perhaps more forethought should have been regarded when determining such a policy, especially in terms of how general populations would react. Radicalism has been the result of disenfranchisement and disillusionment with extant systems.

So why should the West care? Because it became obvious in 2001 -- no, even earlier -- that such disillusionment by the people of these various despotic regimes can lead to such radicalism, and that the radicalism can easily be turned against the West, seen as keepers of the oppressive system.