Happy New Year Everyone!

Once again Thank You so much for answering my questions
and giving me such detailed explanations.
For me this is a difficult issue - as Examinator
pointed out - and one I'm
trying to make sense out of - because I feel that it's
an issue that isn't about to go away.

I can't help but suspect that Islamic fundamentalism
has surged as a result of Western interference.

These societies previously remained fairly
static for generations - in some cases, for
centuries. Then, in less than the space of
a single life span, (as for example - in
Iran), they were thrust into a
world of airports and highways, schools and
television, factories and power plants, as a
result of their new oil wealth.

As part of this process, the Islamic
societies were flooded with foreign
advisers, officials, entrepreneurs.
If you're a fundamentalist, wouldn't you
be concerned that these "Westerners" will
impinge on your traditions?

What King Hazza recommends makes sense.
Perhaps, Muslim societies should be left alone -
to resolve themselves and
Western powers should withdraw from these
countries and stop interfering in their affairs.
The West should have learned something from
the 1979 Iranian revolution, where the shah,
a deeply unpopular ruler was deposed through a
movement led by Shiite Muslim clergy, because he
was perceived to be an American puppet.

Despite the antipathy to
the West the fundamentalists are concerned with
conditions in their own countries. Most Muslims
are desperately poor, for their nations' oil
wealth has often been unequally shared, creating
an elite whose extravagant lifestyle arouses deep
resentment in the local population.

The aim therefore - of the
fundamentalists from what I've
read - is seen to be as nothing less than
the replacement of their rulers by totally
Islamic governments, in which the distinction
between the religious and the secular would
disappear.

Staying out of their affairs - would seem to be
a wise move.

I think that's pretty much all it boils down to Foxy- sadly I'd have to answer your question and say NO, Western governments haven't figured this out yet- or at least, merely use moralistic interference as a cover to keep the oil flow;
But sadly I don't think that's all it is- as there seem to be a LOT of people that sincerely believe we SHOULD be 'helping' these countries adopt our way of life, with no possible personal material gain for themselves to make by advocating it...

I daresay, the world will be a much calmer place when people around the world begin to rethink how they interact with other countries (especially in regards to policies they disagree with).
In other words, to tolerate what they do domestically- even if it means stoning criminals and jailing adulterers, and demand similar respect to our own customs from them- or else it becomes a constant struggle (no matter how ineffectual it actually is) between the two worlds to interfere with each others' own laws.

I believe it's only fair to take as much as we give mutually to another country- and as I'm not remotely interested in accomodating Shariah principles into my own country- nor even Shariah-advocating TV programs, we should be noble enough not to demand the same from them towards us either- or else it would just be the seemingly powerful west throwing its weight around to undermine things that they feel are important- which is likely exactly how it's being received by the Islamic world.

Everyone seems very selective when speaking of interfering or not interfering with other countries business. It seems that many who hold the line that we should not are screaming at China for handing out the death penalty for the convicted drug smuggler. It also seems strange that those believe in no interference constantly want Israel banned from defending themselves against terrorist.

Foxy;
Thinking a bit more about it all I suspect that the problem exists
because moslems always over react to every little offence.
If a woman shows a bit of leg or hair, give her a thrashing with canes.
Commit adultary and they chop of the woman's head and give the man
a lecture.
This what the Saudis do and it is them that fund Al Quida.

You can probably remember numerous other over reactions.

Something annoys them so they retaliate but they over do it.
This over reaction causes a response somewhat stronger than otherwise
would occur.

Then again they over react and so ratchet up the tension.
It does not require much of this and you are using suicide bombers.
Next step blow up a couple of US embassies.
Next step hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings.

If they keep this up nuclear weapons are next on the list.

runner,
What would we do without your monochromatic perspective?

NB There is a bloody big difference between complaining about an execution and installing/supporting, with arms and other nefarious activities, a brutal regime against the will of the people. Take your pick of (when) which middle eastern regime referred to.

A bit like your breed of christians deciding to combine parts of two Aussie states as a brutal theocracy with US military support
Ask yourself
a. Would the rest of Australia be happy
b. would they want to be friends with the US
c Would there be rebels/ freedom fighters/ terrorists in your view?

Absolutely.

My question is how many of us truly think America and its partners, us too, are trying to teach Muslims to live like us.
Come it would take generations, and most likely fail.
I do think western country's are trying to make us mix via migration in the hope both sides will learn to live together, at least in our country's.
But I am quite sure education, both lack of the right type, and wrong education is driving Muslim extremists.
Remember, yes I have already said it, our freedoms and standards are not theirs.
Women surely, are often treated like cattle, who has an answer for that?
Who can pretend it does not matter, then if that s the case we should retreat from all human rights issues, if women in Islamic country's is not our business nothing is.