Moderate and Fundamental Islam........

I'm interested in the clash between these two. I wonder if the actual clash of civilizations in the Middle East is within Islam itself.

Certainly Western intervention -militarily anyway- is harsh and definitely unwelcome, however our occupational tendencies may just exacerbate a problem that already strongly exists. (not really "may," it does exacerbate it)

So what course of action do we in the Western world take? How do progressives go about working this out? Obviously, this is an academic exercise until we get a president and congress willing to set a different course in Central Asia and the Middle East than we ever have, but I am interested in all of your thoughts and opinions.

Last summer, I interviewed Will Pitt and happened to listen to the tape again not that long ago. He mentioned that one of his friends said that the best thing the U.S. could do would be to take 10 Iranian students - who love U.S. and Westernized culture- and send them around the Middle East to promote the U.S. Moreover, we cultivate these elements in Iran and encourage them on a path to democracy. Remember that before our CIA aided coup which overthrew elected Iranian leader, Mohammed Mossedegh in the '50's and installed American backed Dictator Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Iran was headed towards becoming a Democracy. Now, instead of utilizing that history and the student movement to alleviate fundamentalism, we have a President (if you can call him that) who includes this country into a fictitious "axis of evil" and seeks to include them in a bid to modernize and reform Islam by military force. Definitely the wrong move at a wrong epoch in history. So as opposed to this what are our alternatives?

How do we cultivate and go about all of this mess?

Like I said. Let's hear some thoughts. Ideas and debate are most essential and important for people like us. Blast away.

Growing up in a muslim household I was raised by an dextremely conservative muslim father. Also, having live in egypt for 3 years I thinkI have a pretty good idea of why they hate america so much. Its pretty simple actually. America whether we want to believe it or not is responsible for much of the disarray in the middle-east...even pre-9/11. America is responsible for the corruption in the Egyptian government. As long as Hossni Mubarak and the like continue to bow to the every whim of the American Govt. they will be allowed to stay in power. They citizens of egypt are aware of that fact and so I would imagine are the citizens of most other "Islamic" nations.

A perfect example of the corruption in the Eggyptian regime:

When Hossni Mubarak's son bought a Butter company in egyptossni Mubarak stopped all sale of other companys butter until all of his sons rancid butter was sold.

How can you expect the innocent people of those countries to believe a word our govt. says when they think were responsible?

statement

You should balance out your Chomsky/Zinn/America's the first to blame type readings with the history of what others have done wrong, like the French, like the soviets in that region particularly.

America is responsible for the corruption in the Egyptian government.

The Egyptians are responsible for the corruption in their gov't.

The point is that Mubarak would not be in power if it were not for American support, therefore in the eyes of Egyptians it appears that America is responsible for the government that they have.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/120103.html

We Need to Get The Queen Bees
'When America and Europe are divided, when Japan is hesitant,' Lee cautions, 'the extremists are emboldened'
By Fareed Zakaria

Richard Nixon once remarked that had Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew lived in a different country in a different time, he would have achieved the status of a major historical figure—a Churchill, Disraeli or Gladstone. Lee recently turned 80, having for 45 years carefully observed international trends and maneuvered to keep his city-state secure and prosperous. While in Singapore last week, I asked him what he made of the European-American divide so evident in London. "The Europeans underestimate the problem of Al Qaeda-style terrorism," he said. "They think that the United States is exaggerating the threat. They compare it to their own many experiences with terror—the IRA, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof, ETA. But they are wrong."

He went on: "Al Qaeda-style terrorism is new and unique because it is global. An event in Morocco can excite the passions of extremist groups in Indonesia. There is a shared fanatical zealousness among these different extremists around the world. Many Europeans think they can finesse the problem, that if they don't upset Muslim countries and treat Muslims well, the terrorists won't target them. But look at Southeast Asia. Muslims have prospered here. But still, Muslim terrorism and militancy have infected them." Lee pointed out that Singapore and Thailand have both been targeted in recent years, though neither has mistreated its Muslim populations.

"The Americans, however, make the mistake of seeking largely a military solution. You must use force. But force will only deal with the tip of the problem. In killing the terrorists, you will only kill the worker bees. The queen bees are the preachers, who teach a deviant form of Islam in schools and Islamic centers, who capture and twist the minds of the young." Lee pointed to the trial of Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, one of the plotters of the Bali bombing, sentenced to death by an Indonesian court. On hearing the sentence he said, "I'll be happy to die a martyr. After me there will be a million Amrozis." .........