Live from the Middle East

[Preechr]

October 30, 2006
]The Dark Ages
Live from the Middle East
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

The most frightening aspect of the present war is how easily our pre-modern enemies from the Middle East have brought a stunned postmodern world back into the Dark Ages.

Students of history are sickened when they read of the long-ago, gruesome practice of beheading. How brutal were those societies that chopped off the heads of Cicero, Sir Thomas More and Marie Antoinette. And how lucky we thought we were to have evolved from such elemental barbarity.

Twenty-four hundred years ago, Socrates was executed for unpopular speech. The 18th-century European Enlightenment gave people freedom to express views formerly censored by clerics and the state. Just imagine what life was like once upon a time when no one could write music, compose fiction or paint without court or church approval?

Over 400 years before the birth of Christ, ancient Greek literary characters, from Lysistrata to Antigone, reflected the struggle for sexual equality. The subsequent notion that women could vote, divorce, dress or marry as they pleased was a millennia-long struggle.

It is almost surreal now to read about the elemental hatred of Jews in the Spanish Inquisition, 19th-century Russian pogroms or the Holocaust. Yet here we are revisiting the old horrors of the savage past.

Beheading? As we saw with Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, our Neanderthal enemies in the Middle East have resurrected that ancient barbarity — and married it with 21st-century technology to beam the resulting gore instantaneously onto our computer screens. Xerxes and Attila, who stuck their victims' heads on poles for public display, would've been thrilled by such a gruesome show.

Who would have thought centuries after the Enlightenment that sophisticated Europeans — in fear of radical Islamists — would be afraid to write a novel, put on an opera, draw a cartoon, film a documentary or have their pope discuss comparative theology?

The astonishing fact is not just that millions of women worldwide in 2006 are still veiled from head-to-toe, trapped in arranged marriages, subject to polygamy, honor killings and forced circumcision, or are without the right to vote or appear alone in public. What is more baffling is that in the West, liberal Europeans are often wary of protecting female citizens from the excesses of Sharia law — sometimes even fearful of asking women to unveil their faces for purposes of simple identification and official conversation.

Who these days is shocked that Israel is hated by Arab nations and threatened with annihilation by radical Iran? Instead, the surprise is that even in places like Paris or Seattle, Jews are singled out and killed for the apparent crime of being Jewish.

Since Sept. 11, the West has fought enemies who are determined to bring back the nightmarish world that we thought was long past. And there are lessons Westerners can learn from radical Islamists' ghastly efforts.

First, the Western liberal tradition is fragile and can still disappear. Just because we have sophisticated cell phones, CAT scanners and jets does not ensure that we are permanently civilized or safe. Technology used by the civilized for positive purposes can easily be manipulated by barbarians for destruction.

Second, the Enlightenment is not always lost on the battlefield. It can be surrendered through either fear or indifference as well. Westerners fearful of terrorist reprisals themselves shut down a production of a Mozart opera in Berlin deemed offensive to Muslims. Few came to the aid of a Salman Rushdie or Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh when their unpopular expression earned death threats from Islamists. Van Gogh, of course, was ultimately killed.

The Goths and Vandals did not sack Rome solely through the power of their hordes; they also relied on the paralysis of Roman elites who no longer knew what it was to be Roman — much less whether it was any better than the alternative.

Third, civilization is forfeited with a whimper, not a bang. Insidiously, we have allowed radical Islamists to redefine the primordial into the not-so-bad. Perhaps women in head-to-toe burkas in Europe prefer them? Maybe that crass German opera was just too over the top after all? Aren't both parties equally to blame in the Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan wars?

To grasp the flavor of our own Civil War, impersonators now don period dress and reconstruct the battles of Shiloh or Gettysburg. But we need not show such historical reenactment of the Dark Ages. You see, they are back with us — live almost daily from the Middle East.

©2006 Tribune Media Services

[Sethomas]

I'd take beheading over torture any day. Funny how that aspect isn't really mentioned, that the American strategy is to beat them at their own game of brutality.

[Preechr]

Well, what about waterboarding?

[mburbank]

I find the basic premiss of the article faulty. It is a common modern fallacy that we (by which we always mean whatever group we personally belong to) gave 'evolved' and 'civilized'.

IF the author were talking about sanitation and modern medicine, I might agree. But he's talking about behavior.

To my mind, there is nothing in the 'Dark Age' lexicon of horrors that keen even begin to compare to the Holocaust, and the dropping on two atmic bombs on populated cities, both of which were events that, at very least in scope, could never have been carried out in the pre-modern world, and certainly match beheadings for callous, casual, normal horror.

I am not here making any sort of case about why either of these things were done. I'm quite certain beheaders think they are doing it for a reason.

I am saying that I see no serious evidence that we have matured away from barbarity as a species. In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it. Like the consumption of meat (something I do almost daily) we no longer need to personally engage in slaughter, it's done for us by proxy. We pat ourselves on the back and claim to be more civilizaed than folks who beat each other to death with sticks and rocks.

[mburbank]

Oh, PS. for the sake of argument.

The Goths and Vandals didn't do a lot of things. They lacked the sophistication to, for instance, crucify hundreds of people every few feet along a really, really, really long road. AND I bet they thought they were highly civilized while they punded the nails in.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I am saying that I see no serious evidence that we have matured away from barbarity as a species. In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it.

Men who engage in beheadings, and then transmit it via the internet all around the world, aren't lacking in the resources to be clean killers. They can buy a camera, you think they can't buy a gun or a crude bomb?

Hezbollah terrorists used high tech British gadgets like night vision goggles during the war with Israel. A comfortable, well-educated radical will soon have access to nuclear weaponry if we sit back and watch.

They don't behead other humans because they don't have our resources. I'm sure they have, at the very least, an old Russian AK-47 laying around. Their barbarism isn't a means, it is an end. Incidentally, what was Mohammed's take on beheading infidels?

Max, I know you don't see any difference between them and us, that has sort of been the debate here, no? Perhaps it stems from a fundamental difference on what the root of terrorism is. I feel it is an extreme interpretation of a particular religious document, one with systemic, pervasive, and problematic roots all throughout the muslim world. This is why I see the difference between us and them, and believe that this is a distinction between liberal society and closed society. There's a whole lotta gray in the middle there, but the black and the white are still quite apparent, IMO.

[mburbank]

Kev; you just argued that the 'dark ages' premiss of the peice is faulty since they used tech to disseminate terror.

I think the argument is self congratulatory and doesn't help anyone come to a better understanding of anything.

"Max, I know you don't see any difference between them and us."
-Kevin the Soul Gazer

I'm always intrigued when you 'know' things about me I don't. At the risk of disagreeing with you about me, I agree there are major differences between 'liberal' and 'closed' societies, if that's what you mean by 'them' and 'us'. I vastly prefer liberal societies, as you well know when you aren't posturing, else why would my main axe to grind be about our society becoming less 'liberal'? I generallly anjoy democracy, think our constitution and bnill of rights are amazing documents, and loathe religous extremism of every stripe. I think making women live in bags is reppelent and cutting off heads is worse. I don't think any of that means that I need to find our own use of weapons of mass destruction, and weapons likes land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorus, all of which were designed to induce terror, is acceptable. I find it upsetting when open, liberal societies that pride themselves on how civilzed they are engage in barbarity, because I want the differences between 'us' and 'them' to be crystal clear.

I also think it's worth concidering the amount of extremely brutal killing our liberal open society has engaged in during the modern era. Jesus, perhaps my favorite political philosipher, once spoke of motes, beams and eyes. I do not think the way to peace lies along the road which is all about good (us) and evil (them).

[Abcdxxxx]

There are loads of Jesus freaks with their what would jesus do schtick, and yet none of them are on a crusade to recreate the period of his reign. There's not a single Christian nation forcing biblical era laws such as stonings.

The article is speaking towards a mentality which goes far beyond beheadings, and it's certainly idealism to roll back the clock irregardless if the dark ages is the most apt period. The progress their fighting isn't democracy, or modern evolution or sophistication - it's about human rights, coerced conversions, mandatory submission to their religious dogma, and pure racism. They haven't dropped their Atomic bomb or succeeded in a Holocaust ... unless you're paying attention to what's happening in Darfur.... but do we really have to wait until they pull off one of the greatest crimes against humanity before we can say "beheadings are barbaric and challenge our civilization" ?

DO you really think people who talk about Islamicists are really saying "Hey man, the holocaust was a-ok, and the Atomic bomb was cool too - after all look at what Muslims are doing in the world."? That's the reverse of your logic, and both are pretty child like.

[mburbank]

"There's not a single Christian nation forcing biblical era laws such as stonings."

And yet, our nation has the death penalty, when many other modern nations don't.

"Hey man, the holocaust was a-ok, and the Atomic bomb was cool too - after all look at what Muslims are doing in the world."?

No, but I think we are talking about a lot of people who would say that Americas use of the atomic bomb on two cities was something we had to do, that we had no choice about, and that it is morally defensible and is in no way at all like what those heathen, uncivilized beheaders do. And who would say the same thing about the many civillians who've died in Iarq (the ones we accidentlly kill, not all the others). It's arguable that we are on the side of the angles when we do things like this, and that either, secularly we are civilzed and they or not' or religously, this is what God wants us to do. I think the article falls in this line of reasoning.

I have no doubt at all that Ilsamofacists or whatever you want to call them share our certainty that when they use brutality it's what has to be done.

I think we are both wrong.

If you (like Kev) think that means that I see no difference whatever between the USA and disparate bands of loathesome militant extremists thats a shame. It's just that in addition to differnces, I also see some (not complete, just some) similarities. And since we believe the other side to be wholly evil (and they may well be) I think any similarities we find should concern us.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kev; you just argued that the 'dark ages' premiss of the peice is faulty since they used tech to disseminate terror.

Um...no. You are finding the equivalence between bombs and swords. You are saying one would use the latter due to a lack of access to resources and money. I'm telling you that this is untrue. The brutality of the act isn't a coincidence, it's intentional.

The author's argument isn't that radical muslims really want to ride around on horses again and wield swords. It's a psychological state of mind, and a particular way of life. Beheading with the sword is a symbol of that regressive thought, and to call it regressive and evil (compared to ourselves) is perfectly alright in my book. So self-congratulation to me!


"Max, I know you don't see any difference between them and us."
-Kevin the Soul Gazer

I'm always intrigued when you 'know' things about me I don't.

Excuse me, but weren't you the one who said "In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it"?

Are you not equating us with them? Perhaps I'm wrong and you could clarify things for me.

I think making women live in bags is reppelent and cutting off heads is worse. I don't think any of that means that I need to find our own use of weapons of mass destruction, and weapons likes land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorus, all of which were designed to induce terror, is acceptable. I find it upsetting when open, liberal societies that pride themselves on how civilzed they are engage in barbarity, because I want the differences between 'us' and 'them' to be crystal clear.

It never will be crystal clear. it never has, and it never will. That doesn't mean there isn't a great big gap between what we do and what they do. Again, from the tone of this paragraph, you seem to disagree with that. Perhaps you can clarify.


I also think it's worth concidering the amount of extremely brutal killing our liberal open society has engaged in during the modern era. Jesus, perhaps my favorite political philosipher, once spoke of motes, beams and eyes. I do not think the way to peace lies along the road which is all about good (us) and evil (them).

Ok, let's concider. What relevance does (insert bad thing America did that's like terrorism) have in comparison to beheading journalists, executing those who pray differently, and enslaving women? If what we've done is just as horrible, what steps do we take now? Do we sit in paralysis over what terrible people we are, or do we stop the enemy?

Is there an enemy, Max?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And yet, our nation has the death penalty, when many other modern nations don't.

This is nonsense. Show me a state with the death penalty that quotes the Bible as justification for this practice. The fact that Catholic governors are attacked for their stance on capital punishment throws your argument entirely on its head.


If you (like Kev) think that means that I see no difference whatever between the USA and disparate bands of loathesome militant extremists thats a shame. It's just that in addition to differnces, I also see some (not complete, just some) similarities. And since we believe the other side to be wholly evil (and they may well be) I think any similarities we find should concern us.

Perhaps you could compare them as i asked. Death penalty for murderers=beheading journalists, am I correct?

[mburbank]

"Excuse me, but weren't you the one who said "In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it"?

Are you not equating us with them? Perhaps I'm wrong and you could clarify things for me. "
-Kevin the Definer

I love to clarify.

If you think that any time 'Us' do anything 'them' do, it is an equation, fine. Many of them have hair on their heads, as do we. Obviously I 'see no difference between them'. In the sentence you quote, I not similarities and differences, which you may agree with or not as you like. I say we share barbarity, but use different methodology. You say 'they' choose this. Maybe, to some degree. But then, we often 'choose' to use weapons that kill civillians after the fact, and weapon like Napalm and white phosphorus, whose aim is to be terrifying. I believe, strategically, we like the viceral nature of such weapons. When we employ 'shock and awe'. The brutality of the words isn't coincidental, it's intentional. A simililarity, NOT an equation. They believe God gives them the right to do to anyone not practicing their brand of Islam whatever we choose. We are far more retrospect in wether our rights to engage in pre-emptive war comes from God we are demure, less convinced. Most of our citizens even believe that everyone, everyone on earth has certain inallienable rights, and that has to be a HUGE difference.

If you want to adopt as personal philosiphy "You're with us or against us" you should feel free to do so, but I have more respect for your intelligence. I think when you do that, you don't really believe it, it's just a convenient place to argue from.

Would you... whatever the opposite of equate is? Would you say that there are NO similarities between 'us' and 'them', that our behavior on the global stage is without reproach, unimprovable, as 'good' as they are 'evil'? I doubt it. It would be a far easier place to argue with you from, but it would also be beneath me to pretend I thought that's what you'd said.

" That doesn't mean there isn't a great big gap between what we do and what they do. Again, from the tone of this paragraph, you seem to disagree with that. Perhaps you can clarify. "

I don't think I need to. You infer more than I imply. You quoted two paragraphs from me, one in which I talk about the similarities between us and one in which I talk about the differnces, going so far as to say I loathe some of their... cultural differences. You make the choice to see those two paragraphs as an equation. I doubt any mathematician would do the same.

You say the difference between us has never been crystal clear and never will be. I think if we obeyed our own laws, the differnces between us would be a LOT clearer. I think we have the capacity to make the differnces a LOT clearer. You don't. I think it's something we should strive for with every fiber of our national being. That 'never will be' line sounds to my ear more equivative than anything I've said.

I think I'm quite clear. I think it is your rhetorical habit to take things you disagree with and treat them as muddy and bizare or boil them down to the p;oint of meaninglessness.

"What relevance does (insert bad thing America did that's like terrorism) have in comparison to beheading journalists, executing those who pray differently, and enslaving women?"

Okay, how about for my insert, I choose 'cynically funding the religous/paramilitary groups that believe all those things as a hedge against the soviets and other gulf oil interests?' That seems relevant to me. or 'supporting and arming brutal, repressive military strongmen and regimes." Now, is that as bad as personally sawing someones head off? No. I do not equate those two things. But is one relevant to the other? Do you think there's NO relevance? Is that all the choices to you, total equation or irrelivance?

"Do we sit in paralysis over what terrible people we are, or do we stop the enemy? "
-Kevin the Bush

Do we establish a peaceful, democratic middle east, or cut and run and allow the terrorists to kill us all?

Thank goodness those aren't the choices.

What if I said to you

"Do we abandon every single thing America has ever stood for, or do we achieve peace?"

It's a meaningless question, a rhetorical sham. So was yours. Are we 'stopping the enemy'? That's a desired conclusion, not to be confused with a plan. Do you, like Rick Santorum, think this is "The Lord of the Rings"?

I don't think we are the same. And I do think there is an enemy. But that enemy is hidden amongst lots of people who are not the enemy yet. And more complicated still, the 'enemy' is not a defined group of people you can kill, it's a spectrum of belief, attitude, and emoitional response of at very least a third of the world. I don't believe what we are doing has any chance of 'stopping' them. I do believe we are making more of them. And, while I don't find us equivical, I think demonizing the enemy, while perhaps apt, is useful. I think it is counterproductive. Beliefs like that have a way of spreading. I think it's the poisonous nature of that way of thinking that allows them to kill with such abandon. After all, we're the enemy, we're all evil and an affront to God, so it's okay, it's GOOD to butcher us. I don't want us to be like that. I don't think we need to be, and I don't think we should get any closer to that mindset.

I am arguing for us to be as different from the enemy as we can be. AND I think we can do a better job of 'stopping' the enemy by being MORE different. I think spending a lot of time thinking about how much better, more civilized, more human we are than the enemy and how whatever 'dark side' we go to it will never be as bad as those 'evil doers' only makes us more equivalent. And I want to be less equivalent. I hope I've clarified things.

Now you can say "So your for the terrorists." because quite obviously, I am.

[Abcdxxxx]

We're talking about people who desire to live and conquer as Muhammed did, even going so far as to duplicate his execution of methods.

The American death penalty doesn't have any relevance...and there's nothing going on in any other religions ultra devout communities which compares.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I say we share barbarity, but use different methodology. You say 'they' choose this. Maybe, to some degree. But then, we often 'choose' to use weapons that kill civillians after the fact, and weapon like Napalm and white phosphorus, whose aim is to be terrifying. I believe, strategically, we like the viceral nature of such weapons. When we employ 'shock and awe'. The brutality of the words isn't coincidental, it's intentional. A simililarity, NOT an equation.

Right, they have hair, and eat food and stuff. This is really substantive.

I think there is an obvious distinction between the way liberal democratic societies and repressive, totalitarian ones that we face. If you wish to talk about our similarities that's great, but you do a serious disservice to the discussin I think.

You have said that it is presumptuous to assume that liberal democracy is the best form of government, and that some other people ma yet devise something better (if you think I'm speaking for you again let me know, and I'll go dig the quote up). Maybe you're right, maybe on day we'll achieve this. But today, right now, observe the Westernized, liberal socities, and then observe the muslim world. on average, how is that working out for them? How often do democracies go to war with each other?


I think if we obeyed our own laws, the differnces between us would be a LOT clearer. I think we have the capacity to make the differnces a LOT clearer. You don't. I think it's something we should strive for with every fiber of our national being. That 'never will be' line sounds to my ear more equivative than anything I've said.

And I think it's still amazing that you have so much to say of the supposed ills of your own country, and yet so little of theirs. Perhaps a sense of perspective is too much to ask from you while in your Bush Rage, but it's never the less appropriate.

We have a foundation in secular law that allows us to question whether the actions of our president or our elected oficials stand up to legal boundaries. They, quite frequently, do not.



Okay, how about for my insert, I choose 'cynically funding the religous/paramilitary groups that believe all those things as a hedge against the soviets and other gulf oil interests?' That seems relevant to me. or 'supporting and arming brutal, repressive military strongmen and regimes."

Ok, good. This is going somewhere. So take this into account. Do we thus take no global action against rotten regimes at all, out of the fear of appearing hypcritical? Do we not make up for supporting these groups by drawing a distinction between right and wrong?



Do we establish a peaceful, democratic middle east, or cut and run and allow the terrorists to kill us all?

Thank goodness those aren't the choices.

Really? Well then, in the spirit of offering up ideas, what would you say are the alternatives?


I don't believe what we are doing has any chance of 'stopping' them. I do believe we are making more of them.

Ok, good. So America leaves Iraq= less terrorism in the world. America stops confonting regimes that support terrorism=less terrorism i the world. Is that accurate? Are we the only ones mass producing these terrorists, or do they have guilty liberal mass distribution elsewhere?


Beliefs like that have a way of spreading. I think it's the poisonous nature of that way of thinking that allows them to kill with such abandon. After all, we're the enemy, we're all evil and an affront to God, so it's okay, it's GOOD to butcher us. I don't want us to be like that. I don't think we need to be, and I don't think we should get any closer to that mindset.

We're nowhere near it, so don't worry so much.

I am arguing for us to be as different from the enemy as we can be. AND I think we can do a better job of 'stopping' the enemy by being MORE different. I think spending a lot of time thinking about how much better, more civilized, more human we are than the enemy and how whatever 'dark side' we go to it will never be as bad as those 'evil doers' only makes us more equivalent. And I want to be less equivalent. I hope I've clarified things.

Hmm....so if we be less and less like them we will suffer less terrorism, right?

[Ant10708]

but but christians blow up abortion clinics. 9/11 justified.

[mburbank]

"If you wish to talk about our similarities that's great, but you do a serious disservice to the discussin I think."
-Kevin the Contradictory

Oh, boo hoo. You don't think it's great at all, you instead either pretend to think it's equivication, which is a convenient method of false marginilization that does 'serious disservice to the discussion' or you actually think it IS equivication which does serious disservice to your ability to discuss.

"But today, right now, observe the Westernized, liberal socities, and then observe the muslim world. on average, how is that working out for them?"

Today, right now, observe the body count of trying to enlighten them through invasion and occupation. I totally agree that westernized liberal government is better than any form of totalitarianism. I would suggest A.) That does not give us the right to try to force it through violence B.) so far the success of this tactic is debatable at very best and C.) The very idea that this is what we are doing is highly debatable. The administration is antagonistic to the results of several democratically elected regimes and very cozy with several totalitarian regimes. Should we arrive at a coherent, honest foreign policy, I would be more inclined to discuss the merits of using our army to encourage the adoption of our admittedly superior form of government.

"And I think it's still amazing that you have so much to say of the supposed ills of your own country, and yet so little of theirs. Perhaps a sense of perspective is too much to ask from you while in your Bush Rage, but it's never the less appropriate. "
-Kevin, his Keviness

Here we differ. As an American citizen in a democracy with the privilidge of the vote and free speech, I find being focused on holding our country to standards we profess to believe,( such as the rule of law) a perfectly appropriatte focus. I am aware you concider the state of your own country and feel no need to require you to balance your writtings with what you think we are doing wrong. I don't even think it stems from your obvious terror of the massive power liberal blogging boogeymen, which I think you suffer from, but hardly to the point of blindness.

How about this. You write about your concerns, I'll write about mine, and we can be critical about each other. You go on thinking that the reason I write about hat I want to write about instead of what you want to write about is due to Bush rage blindness. I'll assume that you write about what you write about because they are the subjects you find most compelling. You wield your ability to gaze into my soul and I'll continue to asssume that your beliefs are the product of a reasoned, intelligent thought process that I happen to disagree with, and a dash of hippiephobia.

[Abcdxxxx]

...but Burbank, where is your sense of humanity. Hell, where's youre sense of Universalism? If you think behavior in the mid-east (which didn't start with our invasion of Iraq) is a mirror reflection of our own sins, doesn't that still obscure the reality on the ground there? Life in Iran, and Sudan along with many other countries where the US isn't on the ground really isn't all that humane. Nothing going on in the US truly compares beyond some symbolic gesturing attempt to say "we're all bad".

So why don't you care for the people living under Shar'ia laws who are victims themselves? If you don't care about Daniel Pearl because hey, he was American, and the Americans nuked Japan - then fine. Do you see how that does a disservice to human kind though? Because Americans are bad and have killed many Iraqi's you argue that it's suitable for beheadings and stonings to become culturally expainable in the mid-east? I don't think that's what you're intending to say at all...the problem is most of what you're saying sounds like "we're bad, we do bad things, I don't have the right to judge or worry about their badness, we're responsible too". In which case, you're not addressing the problems or issues themselves, you're just assuming guilt, and in this case self guilt is so far off the radar of reality it really doesn't add much to the discussion.

Do you truly in your heart believe that radical Muslims commit crimes solely as a responsive backlash to the policies of foriegn governments like the US?

[mburbank]

Man, you read what you want to see.

It isn't a mirror image. It isn't equation. We aren't the same people. Many of us are better than many of them. Our system of government is better than anything theirs has to offer. The vast majority of their evil doers are more evil in their doings than ours are. Would you and Kev be satisfied if I stopped writting about bad things we do entirely and only wrote about bad stuff they do? Or would you just go on pretending that I don't see any difference between the U.S.of A and Al Quaeda?

But saying we aren't mirrors of each other doesn't mean that things we did and do play into and support things they do. If I beat the crap out of you and left you bleeding on the street, is the important thing that Mike Tyson is worse than me cuase I didn't rape you or bite off your ear?

Beyond that, I don't see what your opening salvo is even about, unless you honestly have no understanding of causality. Just because we didn't have anything to do with why some places are shitty doesn't mean we don't have anything to do with anyplace that's shitty.

I think you're all tied up in knots in an attempt to be sarcastic. You are a lot easier to understand when you're just trying to be understood and not getting all tied up in the funny stuff.

"So why don't you care for the people living under Shar'ia laws who are victims themselves?"

I'm sorry, did I say I didn't care? I guess you don't care about sweat shop labor, since you don't write about it. I demnd you write about all suffering everywhere if you want me to take what you have to say seriously. If you don't cover my concerns, yours aren't valid. See, now, that was sarcastic, and I think also followable.

I'm sorry, did not speciffically writing about how horrible it is to saw Daniel Pearls head off means I don't care. See, now, I thought we were all in agreement on that, I didn't even realize it was subject to debate. If I mislead you into believeing that I think it was okay, I'm sure it has to do with me, and not you pretending I think anything of the sort because that makes me easier to argue with.

If I'm off the mark on what you were doing, why don't you just try saying what you think? I find your implications muddy and convenient. I'll state again, I believe you don't just come out and say what you think because you're afraid it would expose you as a tool.

"Do you see how that does a disservice to human kind though"

No. I don't. Because I didn't do that. I don't think I mentioned Daniel Pearl at all, or said anything complimentary about beheading. In fact I said it was bad. It's okay to think that beheading is bad and nuking people is also bad. Is your argument that nuking people is nice? Is tat what your implying? We both know it isn't, so stop playing sophist games. Your entire style of argument is what's wrong american discourse right now. Suppose I define your argument as "They are evil over there, so we can do anything we want to anybody pretty much anyhwere, anytime and it's not just okay, it's great." Well, I think anyone can see your argument is pretty stupid, plus it shows you are a very bad person and you want America to rule the world. It's an easy, stupid, childish way to argue, and since you're obviously reasonably intelligent, it's pretty cynical as well.

""we're bad, we do bad things, I don't have the right to judge or worry about their badness, we're responsible too"

think that's exactly what the parable of the mote and the beam and the eye means. Jesus was saying everybody does bad things so nobody should judge. (Sarcasm).

I'll try to be clearer. The evil that other countries do does not absolve us of the right and responsability to question our actions and our leaders. As a country we tend to believe it does, or perhaps that we are incapable of evil, or that our evils are so paltry in comparison to others that we'd better sepnd all our time tending to theirs and none tending to ours. In fact, it's been vogue for several years now to suggest that evenmentioning the fact the we do and have done bad things is the same as siding with terrorists. In no way does any of that say in any way that it was okay to cut off Daniel Pearls head, or institute Sharia, or any of your other nonsense. You wish it did, because then it would be the stupid concern you want it to be. You take it that way not because I say anything of the kind, but becuase it makes you more comfortable, superior and dismissive.

Oh, by the way, that guy that got caught circumcising his daughter in the USA? I thought that was very wrong, I'm glad he got caught, and I think he should go to jail. I know I didn't write about it, and you've got me afraid you'll think I was in favor of it. PLUS, lest I forget, I think female circumcision is truly nasty, and while I think it would be illegitimate to invade a country to get people to stop doing it, I want to forcefully state that DOES NOT MEAN I AM PRO FEMALE CIRCUMCISION or that the SECRET BOMBING OF CAMBODI JUSTIFIES FEMALE CIRCUMCISION. It's an abomination, and while I do not think we should overthrow any regimes to make it stop, I think it's horrible. See how I did that? I used sarcasm in the way I delivered that message even though the message itself is valid.

"Do you truly in your heart believe that radical Muslims commit crimes solely as a responsive backlash to the policies of foriegn governments like the US?"

Of course I don't! Have you stopped beating your wife? It's really easy to know I don't believe that. All you have to do is read and you'll see I never said anything of the kind. 'Soley' is your word choice, not mine.

Do you truly believe in your heart that nothing we have ever done has impacted in any way whatsoever to the rise of Radical Muslim power?

I bet you don't. Know how I know that. 'Cause you never said it! See how easy this is?

[Abcdxxxx]

It isn't a mirror image. It isn't equation. We aren't the same people. Many of us are better than many of them. Our system of government is better than anything theirs has to offer. The vast majority of their evil doers are more evil in their doings than ours are.

Then please explain why it's even relevant to talk about Hiroshima? Why is it that when someone wants to talk about the bad things (in simple terms) that other people do, your response is always to talk about the bad things we do. As if we're not aware, or all the things you admit above in your quote don't apply? We're pretty aware of our nations own dirty laundry, and if we're not, you make about a half dozen posts reminding us. I'm afraid it doesn't really resolve the issue of Islamic world insanity. Your criticisms of the US do not address this particular topic in full, as it goes far beyond our own nations acitivity. Really! The article you're responding to addresses issues and concerns which have absolutely nothing to do with the United States. Care to tie the Theo Van Gogh incident into US policy, Mr. Chomsky?

But saying we aren't mirrors of each other doesn't mean that things we did and do play into and support things they do. If I beat the crap out of you and left you bleeding on the street, is the important thing that Mike Tyson is worse than me cuase I didn't rape you or bite off your ear?

The cause and effect argument doesn't address the issues when you're talking about the Atomic Bomb, or using Mike Tyson analogies. The Islamicist situation is 300 years in the making and it's muddy enough that taking some obtuse, sanitized approach isn't going to help us. Don't you think it's ridiculous that we can't discuss cliterectomies in Somalia without downplaying the religious element, or naming the religious parties in question...or that every topic has to come back to the bloated self obssessed Americans who think everything they do and say spins the world ? Even in the case of Darfur, finally being addressed on a large scale, nobody has the balls to admit this is yet another issue of Islamic supremacy in a genocidal context. I'm being very clear here. There are Islamic guerillas picking swords over guns and that speaks towards a certain insanity they possess...and it's not one which the United States or any of our policies ever created. In other words, our insanity?.....It's another topic altogether and where the two cross is not the root source to the problem or where the solution lies. What this and many articles is suggesting is that the first step towards a solution is having honest discourse to recognize what is in fact happening today. Can you do that?


Just because we didn't have anything to do with why some places are shitty doesn't mean we don't have anything to do with anyplace that's shitty.

They have no problems making places shitty on their own. Short of enforcing Shari'a laws and mass converting to Islam, there is nothing American's can do right. In their bizarro world, killing millions of Iraqis is about on par with producing hot pink boots and tempting them to sin when we distribute Whitney Houston cd's. Remember, your values and value of human life do not define theirs. That means you could list every bad thing our government is up to right now, figure out a way to magically erase it, and it still will not be enough. It's also why there isn't a country on our planet where these particular Muslims are content - not Switzerland, not their own, not a single one.


Your entire style of argument is what's wrong american discourse right now. Suppose I define your argument as "They are evil over there, so we can do anything we want to anybody pretty much anyhwere, anytime and it's not just okay, it's great." Well, I think anyone can see your argument is pretty stupid, plus it shows you are a very bad person and you want America to rule the world. It's an easy, stupid, childish way to argue, and since you're obviously reasonably intelligent, it's pretty cynical as well.


I'm sorry, but I believe our values are a little more grounded in humanity then there's, and that it's our duty as compassionate people to interject. I also believe that any true Muslim who follows the sane parts of the Koran and loves their own people would side with this argument rather then take a defensive approach where they feel their own beliefs are being attacked. There are plenty of opportunities for us Americans to evaluate ourselves, and how we conduct our politics, but that is neither here nor there. I don't believe anything we have done is responsible for a six year old being stoned to death in 2006, but even if I could wrap my head around your logic it would only fuel my passion to put an end to it.


In fact, it's been vogue for several years now to suggest that evenmentioning the fact the we do and have done bad things is the same as siding with terrorists.

Actually no. What's happening is people are condemning inhumane behavior, and people like yourself have decided they need to form a rebutal or at the very least create a response towards the accusations. Why? So of course the topic turns to wether you're defending the terrorists or what your point is. Really, I don't think your intention is to defend anyone - you just have an agenda, and you enjoy being a contrarian. Unfortunately, you shift the topic away from something others like myself consider as very important. As I've said, you can change the terms of the conversation, but the original problem still remains. In other words, if we want to talk about mid-east insanity, and you want to talk about American insanity - they're both valid topics, but they're not one in the same. We might both think the other is being superior, and dissmissive, but what is the topic here? Does it make you so uncomfortable that you need to change it to one which you can defend? So what's the flip....bringing Shari'a laws to the workplace in the US? Allowing women to appear in Burkas on their DMV license ? I don't believe you're saying we've created a monster that needs to be appeased before it eats us all...but what exactly are you saying? I'm afraid you're the one who needs to be clear here, because you're the one claiming your opinions are being missrepresented time and time again. Maybe it makes you feel better to purposely missrepresent mine in defense, but it doesn't clarify your point - especially when you've argued that moral equivalency is a-ok.

Do you truly believe in your heart that nothing we have ever done has impacted in any way whatsoever to the rise of Radical Muslim power?

Sure in the big scheme of things, our interaction as both allies, and enemy have played a role. Now do you want to talk about how an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization, or what?

[Big Papa Goat]

I just like how the article implies something about the problem with radical Islamists is that they are stuck in some kind of brutal pre-modern past. Almost as if the author thinks that to be 'modern' is to not be brutal or barborous. Almost as if the author thinks that brutality disappears with the progress of history.

And those primative bastards that killed Marie-Antoinette, aren't we lucky we're nothing like them anymore. Aren't we lucky to have evolved from that 'elemental barbarity'. I guess it really is a bit ironic that the Enlightened Europeans would be afriad in fear of radical Islamists, in spite of the sophistication their modern history has brought them. I mean, just look at how sophisticated modern Europe's history has been, since they evolved from those brutal elemental barbarians that chopped off Marie-Antoinette's head.

[mburbank]

"Then please explain why it's even relevant to talk about Hiroshima?"
-Alphabits

Forgive me if I pull a you here. If you cannot any relevance that we, the people waging a war based on the moral authority of getting rid of WMD that didn't exist, are the same people who have killed more civillians with WMD than anyone on earth, then I can't help you see it. There is a spetrum in play here. You choose to see it as bipolar, either it's direct equation, or it's irrelevant. I obviously disagree and think there's a lot of ground in between those two polls.

"Why is it that when someone wants to talk about the bad things (in simple terms) that other people do, your response is always to talk about the bad things we do."

Perspective. I think the White Hat, Lord of the Rings, Football team, We're #1 belief sytem we fight with is actively detrimental to our success, as it was for the British Empire. I answered. Here's my question. Why is it you think an awareness of the bad things we've done is utterly irrelevant to the discussion? I think our arrogance has a lot to do with how issolated we are becoming, how far we have moved from the rest of the world since the days of near unanimous support we had in the immediatte aftermath of 9/11. I think the deterioration of support will have a serious impact on the future. I think a little less hubris, a little less pride, and a lot less bi-polar "Yer with us or agin' us" might actually makes us better terror warriors.

"We're pretty aware of our nations own dirty laundry, and if we're not, you make about a half dozen posts reminding us."
-Alphashoulderchip

I don't think we are. I think for the most part we believe our dirty laundry smells like roses, or that the fact that they never do their laundry means the fact we only do ours once a month is irrelevant. And lots of otherwise lovely people who might help us are getting tired of us trying to force our laundry tips on the rest of the world from atop our on piles of unwashed clothes. I think if we did our laundry better, we'd have more laundry authority. And when I make any posts, you and whine and holler as if I were oout there killing soldiers, proving my point.

"Your criticisms of the US do not address this particular topic in full, as it goes far beyond our own nations acitivity"
-AlphaZed and nothing in between

Oh dear, I am sorry. I wish I could adress every aspect of the WOT the way you do. I don't claim to be adressing it in full. I am adressing a speciffic aspect of it which is of key concern to me. I am motivated by a love of country to protest strongly when I believe it gives in to it's worst instincts in manners which I believe contribute to it's danger. If I ever said anywhere that if we were perfect we wouldn't have any problems, I'm sorry. You go dig up where I said that as opposed to where you had a spax attackk because I dared suggest we might have something to do with the problem or didn't write about only the things you think are important.

Oh, and as far as Chomsky goes, I find his writting to dense to follow a great deal of the time, so I don't rad him much. We can't all have your towering intellect.

"The Islamicist situation is 300 years in the making and it's muddy enough that taking some obtuse, sanitized approach isn't going to help us. "

Again, bi-polar. For you there are only obtuse sanitzed appproaches and what we have, (I assume, feel free to correct me) ie. forcible regime change. Cut and run or stay the course. I hope their is a richer picture here, because the one we have isn't working out very well. What obtuse, sanitized approachg are you referring to? Because I wasn't aware I'd posed one. Of course, I haven't read your five point plan for winning the war on terror either.

"Don't you think it's ridiculous that we can't discuss cliterectomies in Somalia without downplaying the religious element, or naming the religious parties in question...or that every topic has to come back to the bloated self obssessed Americans who think everything they do and say spins the world ?"
-Alphabatradation

I would think it was absurd if I felt that way. I don't. Their is a strong religous component to cliterectomy, and a strong cultural one, and I think they are both invalid and horrible and if that seems chauvanistic, I suppose it may be. I don't think it comes back to any of the things you mentioned. When we invade a country because we think it's the best, only way to erradicate cliterectomy and then lots of people die, get back to me about what role, at that point, I may think American arrognce is playing. There are all sorts of topics to discuss in which American arrogance plays little or no role. I don't think the WOT is one of them. I DO NOT THINK IT IS THE SOLE CAUSE OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM. I put that in caps, so maybe you'll see it. I reject your argument that the only way I could prove tht is to only write the same posts you do. But you're already doing that, so I don't see the point.

"Even in the case of Darfur, finally being addressed on a large scale, nobody has the balls to admit this is yet another issue of Islamic supremacy in a genocidal context."

I agree. As I've said before, though I am very leery of armed intervention, if there is any place on earth right now we ought to be doing it, it's Darfur. I think it is very unfortunate that the world community including the USA has let it get to such a chaotic point that boots on the ground has less chance of changing things than it did. Unfortunately, even if America had the will for such an intervention (and I'd wager we don't) our army and our credability are currently at low points. I think Khartoum crossed several lines in the sand that Iraq never even came remotely close to crossing. To me it isn't 'another issue of Islamic supremacy' it's THE issue. I think getting killed in the midst of 300 year old inter arab islamic conflict in Iraq is a farcical distraction which actively works against any leadership we might show in actually standing up to Islamic Supremacy.

"It's another topic altogether and where the two cross is not the root source to the problem or where the solution lies."
Alphaallknowing.

I'm glad you know where the solution lies. You should really try to get in touch with the government and let them know. I agree, it is almost certainly not the root source of the problem. What do you think the root source of the problem is, and what do you think we can do about it? Because I think it's a contributting source that we can totally do something about, and I think our continuing arrogance and the public face we put forth every day that our dirty laundry is white, white, white and everybody needs to do what we say so they can be as angelically clean as us is actively lessening our chances of success.

"What this and many articles is suggesting is that the first step towards a solution is having honest discourse to recognize what is in fact happening today. Can you do that? "

I could, but since you have predifined 'honest discourse' to exclude anything you disagree with and have already come to an ironclad vsion of 'what is in fact happening today' I doubt it will happen. The very terms you've chosen imply that whoever you're talking to doesn't know what 'is in fact happening today' and that they won't until they agree with you. I think that pretty much precludes honest discourse. Oh, also? I think it's arrogant.

Tell you what, instead of playing round and round here, why don't you start a thread solely about how you think we should deal with the dangers posed by Islamic extremism. Maybe, if you allow for the idea that you are laying out your opinions, as opposed to 'what is in fact happening today', some honest discourse might take place.

I found your next paraghraph impenatrable. Since you can see the degree to which I've replied to everything else, you'll have to take my word that I couldn't parse what you were getting at until:

"Sure in the big scheme of things, our interaction as both allies, and enemy have played a role. Now do you want to talk about how an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization, or what?"
-Alphaboy

Absolutely. Start a thread on it, and I'll see you there. I'll do my very best to stay on topic. This thread spun off an article Preech posted, and I think everything I had to say was justifiabley related to the conversation that followed. I encourage you to start a thread speciffically and soleley devoted to 'an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization'.

[Abcdxxxx]

This thread spun off an article Preech posted, and I think everything I had to say was justifiabley related to the conversation that followed. I encourage you to start a thread speciffically and soleley devoted to 'an influential group of Muslims want to bring down Western Civilization'.

It doesn't seem like you followed the point of that article if you think we need a new thread. See, this is just one of many op-eds trying to spell it out for people like yourself who can't seem to grasp (or refuse to acknowledge) what's even going on in the bigger picture. You prefer to believe the United States is more of a threat and danger. I can't reprogram you. I can't force you to grasp why this topic reaches beyond the United States policy past and present or why your reflexive mindset actually panders to the whole America as Florence Nightengale running the world idea that you despise.

Anyway, if your response is any indication, articles like these will just fall on deaf ears. If you'd like to have an honest discussion about the root cause of everything mentioned in this article, along with the political, cultural and ideological causes, then I think you personally would have to remove the United States from the equation temporarily. There's no tow the line here, Max. This article calls on you to give a basic response and just call a spade a spade.... and don't cheapen it by trying to bring the topic back around to Bush and bad America.

[mburbank]

"See, this is just one of many op-eds trying to spell it out for people like yourself who can't seem to grasp (or refuse to acknowledge) what's even going on in the bigger picture."
-Alphabestboy

How could I have ever doubted for an instant that you were interested in honest discourse? The desire shines through in every word.

"I can't reprogram you. I can't force you to grasp why this topic reaches beyond the United States policy past and present "
-Alphabully

Don't you wish you could, though? Because honest discourse begins with reprogramming and ends with forcing.

Who are you going to have discourse, honest or otherwise with? I made a reasonable suggestion that you start a thread that you could define as being focused on a single, self selected topic, and instead you insist this thread, which you did not start is already about your single self selected topic. You're an e-solopsist.

"If you'd like to have an honest discussion about the root cause of everything mentioned in this article, along with the political, cultural and ideological causes, then I think you personally would have to remove the United States from the equation temporarily. There's no tow the line here, Max. This article calls on you to give a basic response and just call a spade a spade.... and don't cheapen it by trying to bring the topic back around to Bush and bad America."
-Alphasnob

By 'just call a spade a spade' you mean agree with you, which is A.) not much bassis for discussion and B.) I don't. But since you seem unable to do it, I'll do it for you. Or I will, if you tell me what 'everything mentioned in this article' is, since you've already told me I had to remove the United States from the equation. You need to help me with tat part, but I'll go wherever you want me to go on it. See you there.

[Abcdxxxx]

instead you insist this thread, which you did not start is already about your single self selected topic.

My "self selected topic"? No, I read the essay. Did you?

You haven't provided a rebutal to prove this article is really about Iraq and US policy which is where you keep trying to take this conversation.... so I'm suggesting you stay within the scope of the editorial above if you'd like to discuss it. That way we don't have to go in circles in every thread - and while we're at it, we really don't need one more.

I can't recall ever starting one of these mid-east conversations, and I'm not here to give lectures. I'm not asking for a safe zone thread where you play by my rules....are you that idiotic to think you're disagreeing? We'd have to be having the same fucking conversation before we could conclude that we disagree. You readily admit you agree on most every point which is relevant, so don't cop out and claim this is about your differing opinion, this is about you trying to have a different conversation! It's hard to have any relative discussion with you when each posts of yours reflexively points towards others instead of addressing the issues being raised raised and it appears you're attempting to avoid any critical discussion of Islam. Now THAT - that is the biggest issue. If someone goes off about the beheading trend, and you're embracing the tiny bit of murky ethical grey area left all because you hate the idea of an us vs. them scenario - then you're missing the boat.

[mburbank]

"No, I read the essay. Did you? "
-Alphaboy

Uh-huh. I reacted to it differently than you did. I know that's almost beyond comrpehension. That's why I made you a thread where I promise to abide by your rules. I just can't see doing that here, because this conversation was already in full swing when you showed up.

"so I'm suggesting you stay within the scope of the editorial above if you'd like to discuss it."
-Alphababy

Suggest away. It's a free country. I suggest you go to the thread I set up for you and I promise I'll take your suggestions there. I think you are being very rude in this thread, with your 'suggestions'. In this thread, I will adress the issues I see raised by the editorial, and not the ones you insist are the only ones in it. There were people already talking here. Don't be such a bully.

"and while we're at it, we really don't need one more. "
-Alphabachoo.

I agree. I think we only need one, with special rules, beause it seems to upset you when you can't isnist on the shape of the cpversation. I have already agree to let you be sole arbitor in the thread I set up. I don't see myself letting you do that anywhere else.

"I'm not here to give lectures."
-Alphaboffthedeepend

You know when I said you can't do comedy? I was wrong.

"I'm not asking for a safe zone thread where you play by my rules....are you that idiotic to think you're disagreeing?"
-alphabasolopsist

Funnier, even. You don't have to play by my rules, you just have to say that if you think your disagreeing with me you're an idiot! You don't have to play by my rules! Just admit that when you say you are disagrfeeing with me you aren't!

"You readily admit you agree on most every point which is relevant,"
Alphabanuts

And I don't need you to play by my rules, you just have to let me decide what's relevant and you can't have any say about that at all! YOU JUST HAVE TO LET ME DEFFINE THE TERMS!!

"this is about you trying to have a different conversation!"
Alphabingbong.

I was having a conversation when you showed up, Rudey McRude Rude. You showed up insisting the conversation wasn't about what it has to be about. Forgive e for thinking you need a thread where you make the rules. Are you uncomfortbale with the idea of my hewing to your deffinitions?

"it appears you're attempting to avoid any critical discussion of Islam."
-Aphabahooboy
Do you want me to go retitle your thread "A critical discussion of Islam in which nothing is brought up Abcdxx doesn't agree bears on the issue?" You seem to need this, and I'll do it, but I won't do it in a thread that already had a perfectly good discussion going.

[Chojin]

I thought this thread was gonna say "IT'S SATURDAY NIIIIIGHT!"

[mburbank]

Okay, Alphabits. You don't even have to start with a statement of your own. Take any article from any pundit or authority of politician or whatever, cut and paste it in the Abcdxxx, and briefly state what you think of it. It can even be one sentence 'I endorse this message'. In the spirit of honest discourse, I will attempt to respond to it in only in ways you deem relevant. If you like we can even take the article this thread started with.

Here's why I'm adamant it should be it's own thread. As you yourself admitted, you don't start many of your own. You like to come in to a conversation that's already going and declare that this or that part of it is irrellevant, and then complain that I or someone else already in the conversation is unreasonable because they refuse to discuss anything relevant, and that they are obviously crazy or lying to not recognize that what tey were talking about with someone else has nothing to do with the topic. You're like the boozy uncle at the Thanksgiving table louldy interupting and harranguing friends and family and acting as if you'd started the conversation in the first place.

[Abcdxxxx]

I've done some soul searching, and Burbank was right....

I'd take beheading over torture any day. Funny how that aspect isn't really mentioned, that the American strategy is to beat them at their own game of brutality.

I'd take water boarding over spending the last seven months on my life dying a slow death in the hospital, poisoned from cyanide laced scraps off a suicide bomb.

There. Now we can get this stellar conversation back on track!

[derrida]

You have no gag reflex?

[Sethomas]

My point was a precursor to Burbank's. Being barbaric doesn't equate to being of low technology. Barbaric, in common usage (it originally meant "foreigner", especially referring to Persians because their language sounded like "bar bar bar bar" to the Athenians) means that one resorts to unsavory methods to achieve some end, with abject disregard for established ethical standards.

If someone is going to commit an execution, which is wrong in the Middle East and is wrong in Texas, the relative use of a needle versus a sword is a moot point. They're both symbolic. Elaborate rituals of injecting three different serums into the body to accomplish what a bullet would do more efficiently and quickly is just a way we can pat ourselves on the back for how sterile and clean we are. Using a sword is the same thing. "If it was good enough to kill a member of Mohammed's family, it's good enough to kill modern infidel." Calling one way of life (err, death) "barbaric" because it's different is illogical and essentially just plays on natural xenophobia. Sure, there's the psychological aspect, but many states impose the ritual of having the condemned spend his last day in a special cell with a window facing the death chamber. "Cruel and unusual" knows no better psychological method.

So, it's all about hypocrisy. More to the point, though, is the hypocrisy incurred by calling dozens of innocent deaths "barbaric" because blades are used, versus killing potentially hundreds of thousands of innocents with bullets and such, is asinine. It's essentially on par with calling them smelly for the whole left-hand thing. You can spew out as much rhetoric you want about breaking eggs to make an omellete (which you're stuffing down someone's throat at gunpoint), but when the Geneva Convention is called "quaint" and torture is approved, you lose any credibility you might have had.

So, this article makes no point besides how prevalent hypocrisy remains.

[Abcdxxxx]

Great point...if we lived in such a vacuum that we could take this essay on such a literal level, without playing dumb or whitewashing the scenario.

So you can argue there's no progressive modern manner to execute someone because the act itself is unethical and speaks towards a dark ages mentality....but that's your argument, and it's yet another swirve on the topic. All the author is trying to to is pick on the most blatant example and hope that it will open your eyes. Swap out beheadings for say, honor killings or some other act without an American equal,which you can't twist. I mean, come one on now, do you truly believe this article is merely about beheadings? Can you honestly say that anyone calling the extremists in question "barbaric" must me xenophobic?

[kahljorn]

beheadings seem like they would be relatively painless.

[mburbank]

Alphaboy, why don't you go to the lovely, clean thread I made for you and say what you think this articl IS about instead of just telling peopke in an ongoing thread about how they are wrong about what it's talking about? Or is that too hard?

[Sethomas]

Well, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, it's kind of hard to take the whole thing seriously in any light when it calls people Neanderthals.

[Ant10708]

beheadings seem like they would be relatively painless. Not using a dull blade

[Abcdxxxx]

It's perfectly reasonable and honest, to call the Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi crowd barabarians, along with other pejorative terms meant describe their backwards psychopathic mentality. There is a refusal to define this movement, assign blame for their collective actions, or even acknowledge their goals.

[Sethomas]

Well, you're an asshole as well, but I've yet to use a sub-human pejorative like "neanderthal" on you.

[Preechr]

I think I'm gonna go with Jewbacca on this one. Barbarians, animals, Neanderthals, Space Monkeys... I don't care what you call them, I believe very much in what humanity IS, and they ain't it, if I may be so bold and ignorant to flatly assert something so arrogant. Being human is more than walking upright and having thumbs. I can attempt to understand the twisted logic that wound up with terrorists choosing the life they have, but I don't have to agree with it and I certainly don't HAVE to catagorize it as human.

People might ask who am I to say so, but I'd answer who are we if we fail to make these distinctions?

[mburbank]

I don't know where I'd say they fall on the human/not human argument. I think they are probably all too human.

I also think, historically speaking, groups of people deciding other groups of people are less than human has never turned out very well. Case in point, the beheaders think we are infidels, which makes us less than human and suceptable to beheading.

So Alphaboy, what did you think the article that started all this off topic nonsense was about? I'm just asking. SAY! I bet you could use the thread I made for you to talk about it! Or if that's simply too emasculating for you, fine, go ahead, do it here. But try not to reference eveything else in this thread, because I want to be able to adress your argument on your terms once I know what it is.

[Preechr]

I don't know where I'd say they fall on the human/not human argument. I think they are probably all too human.

See, this is why I love arguing with you, Max. You are so bitter and hateful, it's cute. Normally, thinking such bad thoughts all the time makes people into monsters, but you have a way of wearing extreme cynicism like a teddy bear suit. What makes it even better is that I KNOW you mean it!

I also think, historically speaking, groups of people deciding other groups of people are less than human has never turned out very well. Case in point, the beheaders think we are infidels, which makes us less than human and suceptable to beheading.

But then, you also have a bad habit of avoiding the moral argument. This is a dangerous place for you to be, and I like you so much I'm gonna tell you why: On one hand, your viewpoint is passing negative moral judgement on EVERYBODY... you can call it realism or whatever you want, but what you are doing is most definitely and unavoidably judgement. We all SUCK, just some more than others, so the best thing to do is baby-proof the world so nobody gets hurt.

The problem is that when you choose to equivicate some random, destructive morality with any other morality... like you just did when you said that beheading for them is the same as how or why we fight them... you include your own moral code with the whole illogical mess. You negate your own viewpoint. Nobody's gonna respect your moral viewpoint when you say that all moral viewpoints, even your own, are meaningless. That's not even a real statement!

[mburbank]

Au contraire! I think having a constant awareness of the depths of human depravity is the best recipe for avoiding it. I think humility makes for wiser council than arrogance. Of course, there might be something in between. I just haven't seen it on anything resembling a national scale. Any national scale.

As I've said before, I think the US of A is, in the main, morally superior to the vast majority of the Arab world. It's an opinion and until someone comes up with a morality scale that works as well as the priodic table for predicting results, it's just an opinion, but there it is. Moral viewpoints aren't meaningless. They are just very sticky, easily abused and should not be confused with unified field theory.

My argument is: When historically, the morally superior party charges against the morally inferior (relatively speaking) Yelling "WE BE TEAM SUPERMAN, YOU ALL BE ORCS, OGRES and GOBALINS!" the results are frequently catastrophic and almost always coupled with corruption, brutality, eventually blowback and always the entrenchment of the belief that while all animals are equal, the side I'm on has halos and your side is naked and covere in pig crap.

Might there perhaps be another way to proceeed, one that acknowledges that evil is perpetrated by humans who no matter how evil still have inallianable rights, That we have been known to make mistakes about who's evil and who just happens to not like us as much as we do, that we should watch for evil in our own ranks even as we fight it in others and that generally speaking a Rah rah we are the champions style foreign policy makes enemies as rapidly as it defeats them. I won't say it never works. It worked well in WWII, but I think that had an enormous amount to do with how rapidly we dropped the Rah rah once the fight was over, somthing nobody did at te end of WWI .

[Abcdxxxx]

Precchr's right.... and when someone attempts to say "oh you're an asshole, and we invented nukes, why should I judge an oprressive moolah?" they are in fact judging all of humanity by default. We're not all on the same level. There is right, and there is wrong, and I'd hope you're not so morally bankrupt that you can't pull of a little rational thinking.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. The movement in question needs to be defined, AND regarded as less then acceptable for our standard of evolution EVEN IF we live in a shitty world full of shitty people. That's just how rotten they are. What would it take for you to be able to acknowledge this without shame? How many lives? What methods of oppression would cross the line for you? Seriously, what would it take for you to say "okay, these people are not functioning up to the standards of the modern world, and our standards ain't that high to begin with".

[mburbank]

"As I've said before, I think the US of A is, in the main, morally superior to the vast majority of the Arab world."
-Me, being reasonable and clarifying

"We're not all on the same level. There is right, and there is wrong, and I'd hope you're not so morally bankrupt that you can't pull of a little rational thinking. "
-Alphaboy, continuing to muddy the waters by being so morally bankrupt he continues to argue against a fake me that's easy to argue with, instead of a real me, that isn't.

"I'm not going to keep repeating myself."
-Alphaboy

Is this a new policy? When will it go into effect. I'm assuming right after the paragraph preceeding it.

"The movement in question needs to be defined, "
-Alphaboy
PLEASE do. That would allow me to reagrd them as

"less then acceptable for our standard of evolution EVEN IF we live in a shitty world full of shitty people."

You also need to define 'acceptable'. What does them being 'unacceptable' to us empower us to do, since while admittedly shitty they are more so. Might it be possible to address their inacceptability in such a way that they become more acceptable instead of less aceeptable? Becuase so far, our approach seems to be making more people more inaceptable. I'm pefectly willing to say they are unacceptable, but I'd like to be really clear on who they are and how many acceptable people we are willing to convert into more unacceptable people in our quest to make all people acceptable to us. I just don't think we should let how marvellously acceptable we are to go to our head in the process.

"What would it take for you to be able to acknowledge this without shame"
-Alphbestboy

You can call it shame if you like. I prefer to call it humility. Humility is an admirable characteristic, and it makes people ever so much more acceptable. Sadly, I have acknowledged your point over and over and over, (let me do it again. 'They' to use your broad brush, are morally inferior to 'Us'. 'They' do things that are even more barbaric than the things we do, and given the chance, they would probably be even more barbaric on a larger scale. Good Lord! I said all that and I'm not feeling even a smidge of shame! How about that?) but I fear you won't be satisfied as by 'acknowlodging' you mostly want me to parrot your position identically and cease ever mentioning any relationship (or even existance) of our actions.

What would it take for you to admit that our ever so slightly superior mentality may have in some small way contributed to the dire straights we find ourselves in, and that being aware of it and behaving somewhat differently as far as foreign policy goes might help us find our way to better straights? Do you think you could do that without feeling you've utterly capitualted to terrorism? Or are you so didactic, so utterly sure of the degree of our cutural moral superiority that you can't?

"Seriously, what would it take for you to say "okay, these people are not functioning up to the standards of the modern world, and our standards ain't that high to begin with"."
-Alphabajudge

okay, these people are not functioning up to the standards of the modern world, and our standards ain't that high to begin with. I'm saying it again, so that you'll be able to hue to your new policy of not repeating yourself. I even cut n' pasted you, so there could be no chance of my deviating from your opinion.

I'll leave the questions of how you sort the 'them' from the 'not them' or how you keep the currently 'not them' from becoming 'them' when you collatterally kill lots of their 'not them' friends and relatives while attempting to bring 'them' up to the standards of the modern world for a different thread. Why? Because I, Max Burbank, agree that okay, these people are not functioning up to the standards of the modern world, and our standards ain't that high to begin with.

Say, I know the perfect thread for you to go sort out who you think exactly 'these people' are and how we should modernize them effectively. It's got your very own name on it! AND you could do it without repeating yourself!

[Abcdxxxx]

Burbank, you're a child. Your attempt at word play is silly and contrarian. I'd suggest you read your own last post, and then reread the article that started this post, and see if you can't figure out on your own what a turnip you sound like.

In the meantime, I'll indulge your schizoprenia long enough to say, It's not our job to sort out the "thems" from the "not thems". That's for Muslims and Arabs to decide, as a matter of their own self interest. I'd like to assume the majority view themselves in the not them category, but they're reluctant to make that distinction too. The largest Muslim organizations in the world have alligned themselves in the "them" category. That puts them in much greater danger for collateral killing. By the way, where are Muslims being collaterally killed by Americans because they're Muslim? Now back up a second. Do you know what else puts Muslims in collateral danger of being killed? The game of pretending there isn't one single islamic movement which has culminated in the climate outlined in the article we're supposedly discussing. By whitewashing the situation or attempting to turn the guilt back towards the United States you are in effect responsible for the continued abuse of innocent Muslims by Muslims themselves. Collateral killing? Try Darfur. Try any of the incidents being reported daily involving Islamic violence....

...and if you don't disagree, there's no reason to respond , Burbank.

[Preechr]

Au contraire! I think having a constant awareness of the depths of human depravity is the best recipe for avoiding it. I think humility makes for wiser council than arrogance. Of course, there might be something in between. I just haven't seen it on anything resembling a national scale. Any national scale.

I'm gonna respond just to that first part. You may never have personally SEEN it, but it did exist once. It was called the United States of America, and it existed for a little while right after the Republic was founded. It was a product of human thought, and so not perfect in form, but it did exist.

A few real guys got together in the spirit of humility, armed with all the latest Liberal ideas, and hammered out a plan for a nation that was tempered by the understanding that even any one of them would surely go nuts with all the power available to an absolute, unchecked ruler. This was the first time any nation was founded on these kind of ideas. This was the first Liberal national experiment.

Benjamin Franklin once said the Continental Congress gave us "a Republican, if they can keep it." Something like that... We had it for a little less time than the time it took us to figure out how to take advantage of it for personal gain.

Max, it's easy to SAY there's something you want to see ogevrnemtn be like in one way, but it's a Hell of a lot harder to think it all the way through and dream up how it might actually work. You just cannot have a socialist government based in the idea that we all get what we want whether or not we have earned it and also, at the same time, have a goevrnment wherein we aren't subject to the whim of those that want from us what we don't think it's fair to give.

America used to be the country where we actually based our culture on the concept that humans are fundamentally crappy people if you don't obstruct that option. Is it still? Why or why not?

[mburbank]

Alphaboy, you're a wiener. Your attempt at debate is silly and contrarian. I'd suggest you read your own last post, and then reread the article that started this post, and the following posts, and see if you can't figure out on your own what a turnip you sound like. Because lord knows I can't tell you. It's too hard. I'd have to think. So why don't you just go back and see how you are totally wrong and I am totally right, and then come back here and admit it, otherwise I'll call you names and accuse you of being morally bankrupt, which is easier.

Or here's an idea. Try being a little bit less of a douchebag and I'll adress your concerns with less 'word play'.

"It's not our job to sort out the "thems" from the "not thems"."
-Alphacleanser

I'll accept that as an argument. So, if the 'Thems' are unnaceptable, what is it our job to do? What does not accepting them mean? Can you plot if for me somewhere between not inviting them to parties and the complete eradication of all their bloodlines? It might give me some idea of where your moral bank account stands. I mean, I hate to imply that you're on the 'contrarian' side, but apart from the unloading of bile and demands that people accept your general worldview as physical law, I haven't seen much in the way of what you think should be done or what we might do differently than we are doing.

"By the way, where are Muslims being collaterally killed by Americans because they're Muslim?"
-Alphabobtuse

Well, I certainly don't think it's a matter of policy. I think collateral death loads have a lot more to do with immediate geographical location when things blow up or bullets are flying. I also think this collateral death adds to the overal number of those in the 'them' column more quickly than it subtracts. I hope I answered that question without being in some way offensive or blind. Feel free to disagree, but try to be nice.

"By whitewashing the situation or attempting to turn the guilt back towards the United States you are in effect responsible for the continued abuse of innocent Muslims by Muslims themselves."
-Alphabwithmeoragainstme

Ouch. So as opposed to having an opinion based on my personal moral convictions and beliefs about what the United States ought to be, I'm actually an accomplice to murder. Where as you, who are (I assume) an actual suporter of the actual use of actual bombs which we know for a fact sometimes kill actual innocent people, have clean hands. And here I'd been assuming that you and I were exchanging ideas on a message board. Plus, I'd been feeling more connected by my tax dollars and my citizenship with abuses we commit on Muslims than I was with Muslim on Mulsim violence I'm resposible for via attitude and typing. I will have to reevaluate.

"...and if you don't disagree, there's no reason to respond , Burbank."
Alphabahanh?

That's true if you see this discussion as having the following dimensions.
A.) Alphaboy is absolutely right about everything he says.
OR
B.) Alphaboy is absolutely wrong about everything he says.

I would suggest that anyone who sees only these two possabilities should never, ever call anyone else a child.

C.) Alphaboy, while quite correct in many of his observations, is often very wrong in the conclusions he draws, and often insists that his correct observations are the only relevant information as opposed to a product of tunel vision. Which is not to say that the limmited scope of this vision is not valid.


And Preech; I'm utterly exhausted now. I shall have to return to your perfectly reasonable opposition to my statements after some thought, and perhaps a nap.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well you responded...so I guess that would mean you disagree with me?!! Seemed more like you're preoccupied with disliking me. They're not one in the same.

If people were tarring and feathering minorities down South, would you evoke 60 years of world events involving their homeland? Or does your psuedo-liberalism even extend past self hate?

[mburbank]

That has only the teeniest bit to do with anything I just wrote, and you wouldn't have even needed to read it to make a response. Why would I answer your question when you totaly ignored all the questions I just asked you? If you want to talk to yourself, you don't need to type.

[kahljorn]

I like this thread :O

"I can attempt to understand the twisted logic that wound up with terrorists choosing the life they have, but I don't have to agree with it and I certainly don't HAVE to catagorize it as human. "

You know I really don't know why people think humans are anything more than animals. OH WE HAVE FREEWILL WE CAN CHOOSE THINGS IT'S BEYOND OUR BIOLOGY GOD GAVE US MAGIC POWERS WE HAVE A MORAL COMPASS. Nature-nurture is too stupid. ANIMALS DONT HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE: I have two objections. First off, if you set two plates of food in front of an animal they're going to "Choose", of course this might not be "Morally motivated" but whatever. Secondly, the thing that makes humans "Better" than animals is our big brains, our big brains make us seem like we have more choices because we have a higher capacity for observation and memorization. It doesn't have anything to do with being morally superior, because the morals we are presented with are still largely decided by the culture we are born into. Morals are really non-existant.
In fact if you look at what "Morals" have done for our society since we've begun you'll see they've basically done jack and shit for us, presenting more problems than anything. For example, morals go against the natural way. It's natural for animals to kill animals for their own personal well-being: in human society our protection of life has allowed us to flourish absolutely, however now we are presented with problems like overpopulation because there's too many of us-- and really what is the point of there being so damn many of us, half of us are worthless retards who are just around to barely sustain society. This could probably be called Cultural lag. Morals don't really lead us down the path of "Right", it's just right according to our own selfish desires.
If you want to start talking about what it's necessary to become "Human" and shed our animal nature that could be fun, but for the most part it's always going to have to do with the shedding of government, the shedding of morality and the shedding of most other things. Really, you can't have mass "Humanity" instantaneously, and if you did the world would cease functioning as it is.

" You just cannot have a socialist government based in the idea that we all get what we want whether or not we have earned it and also, at the same time, have a goevrnment wherein we aren't subject to the whim of those that want from us what we don't think it's fair to give. "
Government doesn't really work anyway. We pretend like we have a meritous, fair society but actually those who are in power are usually the least meritous. It's alot easier to sell a house than build a house, for a small example. Or maybe it's alot easier to declare war as president than it actually is to fight in a war and get shot at. I mean really, whether or not you have a socialist Government doesn't really change that basic underlying nature, and for the most part it can't really be avoided. In fact I thought socialism was, eventualy, supposed to address this nature?
I mean, part ( a very large part ) of the reason President Bush is a president is because of the family he was born into. How fucking hard is that? Did he fight his way into that womb? Sperm battles aside, he has done very little to "Earn" his position, and yet he takes plenty away that many people don't feel is fair to give.

[Preechr]

You are a very weird guy, kahljorn.

I totally respect your ability to use logic and form opinions, yet I generally have no respect for your opinions once stated. Please don't take that as an insult. Your ability to be so right and so wrong at the same time amazes me. The world inside your head is brightly lit and everything seems well-connected, it's just that what's in there generally has no relation whatsoever to reality.

I keep wanting to sit down and take apart posts of yours such as this one, but then I remember the times I've tried that before. It makes me dizzy. It just does no good. We could discuss stuff for days at a time, and nothing would come of it. You are either one click on the dial away from being Geggy (whom I don't consider stupid, just confused) or a troll that does a great job of keeping threads going.

The answers you invent to problems you've invented show how intelligent you are. The problem is, you haven't ever bothered to accumulate any actual WISDOM. If a discussion comes up about a book or a person, you are Johnny on the spot with all the knowledge you've accumulated from a cursory glance at Wikipedia or a quick skim of a linked article, but you won't actually go out and get a freakin BOOK on a topic that interests you and READ IT, preferring instead to ask someone to nutshell whatever it is for you.

That's a tremendous waste, in my opinion, of the above average brain in your head. Quit being so intellectually lazy. Stop making up excuses for how you behave. There's no nobility to it at all, no matter how easily you can convince yourself there is. Again, this is not an insult. If I felt you had no chance of progressing past the level you've chosen, I'd just ignore you and move on. You can question my right to say this or the accuracy of my assessment of you, but I'd ask you to first question what it is you are defending and why.

If you respected the power of objective reasoning at all, you wouldn't be caught saying things like, "You know I really don't know why people think humans are anything more than animals." I once made you an offer that I'd mail you brand-spanking-new copies of several books I'd love to see you read. That offer is still open. PM me an address, and you will have them in a week.

You will re-join reality one day, but doing so is a life-long process. You will thoroughly enjoy it, and it will totally be worth the trouble, and I hope you will do it sooner rather than after you go completely nuts. The world needs people like you to consider themselves more than just animals. What makes you human is that you can THINK. You can REASON. You have options other than instinct and self-gratification. You have no limits other than those you place on yourself. I promise you that I'm not the only person in the world that's noticed the chains that bind you.

[Grislygus]

I once made you an offer that I'd mail you brand-spanking-new copies of several books I'd love to see you read. That offer is still open. PM me an address, and you will have them in a week.

I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I'd like to butt in and ask what those books were.

[Preechr]

I'm gonna start him on Fountainhead, then Atlas Shrugged, just to get him going. Very easy reads, and very instructional. Then, The Lexus and the Olive Tree for some economic reality, followed by The Pentagon's New Map to build on that and bring him into the post-9/11 world. Nothing particularly right-wing, left-wing or controversial, just realistic, objective and practical.

Depending on how he progresses, I might add to that list. If he quits on the first few pages, he'll at least have the books for the day he chooses to pick them back up. He has displayed a wide range in tastes, but no taste for industrious study. Who knows where a little reading might take him?

If he shows an interest in science, I'd try some Hawking or maybe Blink if he hasn't already read that far. Anthro- or Sociology: Guns, Germs and Steel is a long one but doable and fun. For religion, I like The Life of Pi even though it's fiction and not very deep. (I'm not a very religious person anymore...) If he decides he likes politics, he'd need a firm grounding in stuff like Bastiat's The Law and some gritty History that, were I to list it, I'd surely be accused of trying to brain-wash the guy... so I won't.

Really though, I figure once he gets half way through Fountainhead, he won't let me buy him anything anymore.

[Grislygus]

Oh, I was hoping you had some historical reccomendations. I just finished Founding Brothers, so I don't have anything to read at the moment.

[kahljorn]

Ayn Rand's a cool author but I don't have any of her books just exerpts so you should have my address in your inbox in a second. i don't remember you making that offer, though, I just remember you bringing up Atlas Shrugged because Iwastalking about selfishness or something. I thought fountainhead was also fiction?

"You know I really don't know why people think humans are anything more than animals."

that was a rhetorical statement by the way Ido know why I just think it's retarded. Usually when I say "I don't know why" it means that I think somebody's making a bad decision.

"it's just that what's in there generally has no relation whatsoever to reality. "

Thisstrikes me as really odd because the only thing I care about is reality (not even just humanreality just reality). When I talk about humans being animals that's reality, when i say it's our big brain giving us the capacity to be smart it's reality. I mean, we've had so many discussions about this and even what I think is necessary for our Governments and education process if we want to raise "Humans" and not animals.
I think most people live in an illusory world where they ignore the cold hard facts in exchange for happy, self-indentifying facts that make them feel better about living.

How is what I say "Unrealistic"? I state problems, the nature of the problem, and rarily state an unrealistic solution. I try to state reality :(

ps actually i rarily read wikipedia and never read linked articles unless I'm interested or something. Usually all of my "Johnny on the spot" with knowledge comes from looking at a word and estimating it's meaning then just ranting.

[Preechr]

Oh, I was hoping you had some historical reccomendations. I just finished Founding Brothers, so I don't have anything to read at the moment.

Ooh! Ooh!

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060093625/sr=8-10/qid=1163632334/ref=sr_1_10/102-2052129-7450565?ie=UTF8&s=books

!!!!!!

Excellent History/Economics book.

[kahljorn]

ps i am intellectually lazy kind of. it's mostly because it's more fun and more satisfying to figure things out on my own than it is to read the same thing in ten different books. you know that rush you get when you're "estimating" and guessing and inventing. I like drugs.

[Preechr]

haha

[kahljorn]

two books on globalization huh :O
what do you think of peter singers One World: the ethics of globalization?

Also what did you think of the parts in the communist manifesto in which it claims that deprivitization will occur as a result of Globalization? I felt the parts of the communist manifesto I read were less about a system of government that will save us from our wicked ways but more about how through Globalization deprivitization will occur as a result of "inner-national" friction and conflict. basically that globalization would make us less likely to take shit from others. As if it spells out a natural process of progression that will occur because of globalization regardless of what happens, rather than wanting a change in government. Kind of like a prediction almost.

[Preechr]

Well, Communism was pretty much totally against Capitalism, so the Manifesto isn't what you'd call an objective resource. It's also a bit dated... A lot has happened since 1848, y'know.

I've never read Peter Singer... There's a lot of mythology surrounding Capitalism and prodution ethos, and a lot of people holding signs at protests they know nothing about. I'm not prejudging anybody. I just recommended a book that covers the bases pretty well in my opinion. You will judge it for yourself, I'm sure.

The Pentagon's New Map isn't as much about Globalization as it is about an objective, forward-thinking world based in Globalization. It's where we are, in fact, and there's a pretty cool place to be in fornt of us if we choose to go there.

[kahljorn]

"Well, Communism was pretty much totally against Capitalism, so the Manifesto isn't what you'd call an objective resource. It's also a bit dated... A lot has happened since 1848, y'know. "

Well marxist conflict theory is still alive and well today :O I just thought it was interesting that he thought globalization would cause his type of government because people would start to stand up for themselves as society progresses, also through all the global pressure placed on businesses/governments to comply to moral/ethical standards. Sounds like something you'd go for.

[Sethomas]

I've never read Ayn Rand, but judging by the Objectivist Club at my old school I'd have to say that I never have any plans to do so. I mean, if I wanted people to think I'm any more of a dick, I'd just start out by ceasing to use my turn signals as religiously as I do and work up to smoking indoors in places that prohibit it.

[kahljorn]

lol everyone I know who reads ayn rand is a stupid prick too, and they were stupid pricks before they read it. i think her work attracts stupid pricks

the only thing I read that I thoroughly enjoyed was the ethics of selfishnesswhich was basically a critique on altruistic morality. Ithink her biggest example/claim is using the old IF A MAN WAS DROWNING IN A RIVER WOULD YOU JUMP INTO TO SAVE HIM. Altruists would say yes! But ayn rand takes it a step further and says, WAIT WHAT IF YOU CANT SWIM THEN YOUD DIE. Genius.

i dont know about objectivism but it doesn't seem so bad

[Preechr]

I've never read Ayn Rand, but judging by the Objectivist Club at my old school I'd have to say that I never have any plans to do so. I mean, if I wanted people to think I'm any more of a dick, I'd just start out by ceasing to use my turn signals as religiously as I do and work up to smoking indoors in places that prohibit it.

That's the big warning label that should go on her books. She basically paints a picture of a world full of idealized, iconic producers and dangerous, looting leeches that aren't even really alive. A young person reading that sort of stuff will generally decide she's, of course, one of the good guys. Unfortunately, young people will also tend to forget her philosophy is packaged in a romantic novel, not a non-fiction tome. She is portraying a world that doesn't really exist, not one that can or will be, in order to highlight the ethical and moral problems that plague the actual world.

I've read some very good critiques of her work by some that have actually read her work at an early age, and they complained that after having mistaken her fictional world for our real one, they did indeed become assholes for many years. Well, the critics didn't actually accept the mistake they made, instead they chose to blame her for lying to them about the nature of the world.

She doesn't advocate that moral people should attack or even notice "looters." She highlights the ultimate ends of two moral paths through life: the moral path that worships life as a man, and the immoral path that claims death is man's highest ideal. It's a very black and white world, and some of her younger readers have a hard time understanding gray. Since gray is what most of what the real world is, there's no way she could cover all that in any number of books... so, she mostly avoids it when portraying the godlike producers, with a couple notable exceptions. That's left for the reader to fill in.

Each looter character is a portrayal of one moral flaw writ large. Sane real people aren't like that.

[mburbank]

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks architects are macho, orgasms are empirical and doesn't know how to spell 'Anne'.

And watchout! Alphaboy will soon swoop in and tell your conversation has gone into forbidden areas, and I for one agree. I can only hope this irrelevance storm will drive him to the thread I created for him where I agreed to abide by any rule or deffinition he chose to make. THERE we could have growthful discussion. Not here, that's for damn sure.

[sspadowsky]

OAO is back. I can't believe he hasn't infected this thread yet.

[Preechr]

WELL YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL HIS ATTENTION TO IT!!!

[sspadowsky]

Pffft. Like anyone needs to.

[derrida]

Well, Communism was pretty much totally against Capitalism, so the Manifesto isn't what you'd call an objective resource. It's also a bit dated... A lot has happened since 1848, y'know.

You're right on the first point. Das Kapital, which lacks the creepy input of Engels, is a more academic tome, and addresses the same issue.

Globalization does bring the possibility of international unions, which I could see as potentially destabilizing some private institutions. As for the increase in inter-national friction as a cause of change (as may be represented by the WOT), it first must mutate into an ideology not governed by a wahabiist reaction to modernity spurred by elites but rather into a unique and culturally grounded arab socialist project. Possible, though seemingly unlikely.

[Preechr]

Yeah, I thought Syriana was a pretty good movie, too, but it WAS just a movie...

[kahljorn]

it's not as if I was quoting the unobjective, capitalist hating portion of the manifesto.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Well Iranian president doesn't seem to keen on the upcoming confrence.

he said predicting the downfall of the US and asking for more fighters to drive us out. (despite the fact if they sent peacekeeping troops instead of rebels we COULD leave QUICKER!)
__________________________________________________

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted the collapse of Israel, the U.S. and Britain, attacking what he called their ``oppressive behavior.''

``The Zionist regime is on a steep downhill towards collapse and disgrace,'' Ahmandinejad told supporters at a rally of Basiji militia forces near Tehran today. In a reference to the U.S. and U.K., he said ``the collapse and crumbling of your devilish rule has started.'' The speech was carried live on state television.

Iran doesn't recognize Israel, and Ahmadinejad drew international condemnation after saying in October 2005 that Israel should be ``wiped off the map.'' The U.S. and Iran have had no diplomatic ties since 1980 following the seizure of diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

The U.K., which has an embassy in Tehran, is among the three European countries pushing for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

The Iranian president also called on neighboring countries to drive out ``foreign occupiers,'' in a reference to U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``The people of the region are well able to establish regional security,'' the president said in the speech near the shrine of the Islamic Republic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. ``The presence of foreigners is the source of discord and conflict.''

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, whose visit to Tehran yesterday was postponed because of the curfew imposed on Baghdad since Nov. 23, will fly to the Iranian capital tomorrow, state television reported separately today.

The Iraqi president's trip to Iran is aimed at ``expanding bilateral ties in business, trade and transport affairs,'' the report said. Iraq security will not be the main issue discussed in this meeting, the Iranian Foreign Ministry's press office said on Nov. 21.

source: Bloomberg.com