|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jun 9th, 2006 03:34 PM | |||||||
| mburbank |
I was going to say something clever about how you pretending that this was an "Aw shucks" argument was kind of cute, but Ziggy already said it. Maybe you know people who make that argument, but you haven't met any here. "If you were actually doing this I'd say yes. But what you, and others are actually doing is playing the moral equivalence game. Some look at history and see it as a reason to take action. Others seem to look at it and take it as an excuse for apathy and blind relativism. As if suicide bombing and intolerance were just phases these nations go through, heck, they'll grow out of it. We did! I mean, how could we POSSIBLE criticize Islamic extremists who killed a reporter this year? WE BOMBED JAPAN! AND WHAT ABOUT VIETNAM, AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS!!? IT WOULD BE SOOO HYPOCRITICAL!! " 1.) Try not to tell me what I'm actually doing. It's extremely rude. Except when I do it to OAA and then it's hillarious. I would never dream of doing it to you. I may cry. 2.) Moral equivalence is not a game or an excuse. It is an acknowledgement that all societies risk falling into evil. It is a call for vigilance, not an excuse for apathy. I personally apologize for the bad moral relativists who frightened you in your youth. 3.) I have yet to hear any countries public presenation that were not ludicrosly hypocritical (forgive my relativism). I am unconcerned with hypocrisy, whicyh I believe is the language of national speech and take with a grain of salt. I do think, though, that the more we insist on believeing any wrong we ever did was an accient or no big deal goes hand in glove with foreign policies that have at very least encouraged tyhe spread of te same extremism we are now fighting. Hind sight is twenty twenty, but until we stop seeing oursleves as vastly superior to the wee brown froggy peoples of the earth, we will make the same mistakes. I think beheading journalists and dropping nuclear weapons on cities are very ugly things, and both should be worked against strenously. However, I think beheading the pilot of the enola gay would not have solved anything and it doesn't look to me like bombing Iraq is working very well as a method of decreasing beheadings. "I feel like I'm perfectly capable of feeling guillt for our own wrong doings, for the wrongs of my country, my religion, and whoever else, while at the same time calling out other evils. My guilt-meter can multi-task. " Lovely. Kudos. I think your guilt meter works a lot better than the collective guilt meter of the people instituting our foreign policy, but that's neither here nor there, since guilt and learning are to entirely separate things. HOW did we as a civilization pass out of barbarism? HOW do we keep from slipping back into it on a daily basis? Those are things to think about and we might actually come up with a more productive foreign policy or at least do less damage if we at very least concidered the matter. But why would we do that when we can drop cluster bombs on evil doers? The very fact that cluster bombs, land mines and other totally indiscriminate weapons in our vastly superior arsenal are there shows that we are not overly concerned with who we kill. I am not saying we target innocents, the way the terrorists do. We just care way more about killing the guilty than about not killing innocents. Yes, yes, yes, they are worse than we are, hugely worse, nothing relative about it, but that's the whole point. It isn't enough to be savagery lite, especially when we have the money to do much of our savagery at a very civilzed remove. Dropping a bomb on a building is easier, cleaner, and you are targetting bad guys and their infrastructure as opposed to civillians, but it's also so expensive! "it doesn't mean there aren't serious cultural and governmental problems that encourage terrorism." I couldn't agree more. Do you think our current methods are working? I respect you far more than the president or the secretary of deffense, as I respect others who think our current course of action, while horribly costly, may wield worthwhile results in the end. I know people who think that the results already yielded in voting and the current governments are worth the cost in anguish. Respectfully, I don't. I do not think the path we are on can result in stability. I think it is fatally flawed. And yet, somehow, I think you ahve arrived at your conclusions without 'playing games' or 'being apathetic'. Hmmm. How could this be? "AND OMG, THE GUILT!!! HELP ME, I'M LIBERAL AND FEEL SHAME!!" While certainly liberal, the only things I'm ashamed of are things we've done in my lifetime. Things we did in the past might be humbling or instructive, but I see very little value in being ashamed. Again, for all liberals everywhere, I apologize for the bad hippies who frightened you at some critical point in your developement. You should talk to more angry socialist grandchildren of labor activists. We're lovely. "Do we let radical Islam slide" I'm sorry for the bad hippy that suggested that. I'm certain he or she is an idiot. I'm sure there's almost no groiund to stand on between 'letting it slide' and invading and occupying a country on false premisses. As for the 'sure, but that's the distant past, now we're there, what are you going to do now?!' argument, I'll admit I'm not sure. I'm far more sure of what we shouldn't do, which is build really large permanent bases on account of it makes us look like we plan on staying for a while. I also think Invading Iran might not be a great idea. I know we haven't done that yet, and the days when we did things like that are in the past, but I do worry. I think it might be good to try some new approaches to dealing with radical islam, because killing them in droves does not seem to be working. "It's his fundamentalism that has helped free a heck of a lot of muslims from a tyrannical regime." While that may at some future point prove to be the case, I do not think the Iraqis are free of anything yet. They have traded terror for terror, misery for misery. We will never know if or when Sadaams dictatorship woud have fallen or to whom or what might have repalced it. But without implying that Sadaams dictatorship wasn't a very, very bad thing, I think what they have now is also very, very bad. And if any of this was ever about freeing people from tyranny... I'm sorry, I just don't see it. That's a label we put on things way after the fact, and to any degree it's true, accidental. If that was ever in any way his aim, his fundamentlism, simplistic and brutal, couldn't comprehend the seething stew of ethnic, tribal tension he was wading into. I have no problem with faith informing a world leaders decisions. I have serious, serious problems with fundamentalism informing them. Fundamentalists are not keen on doubt, and are not known for flexability. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 03:02 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
 [quote] Quote:
Quote:
And who's making the neat little boxes? "Well see, there's these jihadists, who say they are muslims, but they certainly aren't. And then there's the rest of the muslim world, who loves gum drops and ponies and would never blow up a shopping mall." I think it's more complicated than that, and if anything, YOU are the one trying to white wash things so as to not "generalize" things. it's not merely about good vs. evil. But there is a clear enemy. This doesn't mean Islam is the enemy, nor does it mean that one particular nation is the enemy. Terrorism is a tactic. It is one of the tactics adopted by Islamic fundamentalists. Quote:
Quote:
Otherwise, I dunno, widespread preaching of hate and intolerance all throughout the Middle East? How are civil rights looking in the Middle East? How about the countries that allow the Koran to dictate their judicial system? What about state sponsorship of terrorism? You think terrorism is bad, right? Does this stuff really need to be spelled out for you, I mean, I know you aren't making a lame relativist argument, but it seems like you're setting up to make a really, REALLY lame relativist argument. Please, clear this up for me. Quote:
Zarqawi acted alone, Bin Laden? just a guy. Sadr? Just your average rebel. Al Qaeda? Simply a club of men with similar interests, like the Elks and Eagle Scouts. Their religion has NOTHING to do with this, not at all! DON'T SAY ISLAM! And we're already talking about those things, so calm down, chief. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 02:51 PM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Actually Ziggy, I'm hinting that terrorism will continue to exist until Islam goes through another reformation. There have been periods in history where Islam has shown great tolerance and brotherhood, but this isn't one of them. (I'll add this disclaimer for your pickled brain: terrorism is not an exclusively Muslim sport.) Stop stereotyping everything I say if you're so worried about generalizing. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 02:02 PM | |||||||
| ziggytrix |
Kevin, quit being such a faggot. I have never given a fuck who gets their feelings hurt. There's a world of difference between insulting someone's religion and destroying someone's home and killing their family. If you buy that militant Jihadists commit atrocities just because someone insulted their religion, and for no other reason (oh wait, they HATE freedom - those two reasons then), well you believe whatever the fuck fairy tales help you sleep at night, buddy. Quote:
Second, we haven't been there a million times. What better time than now to outline what exactly are the systematic problems in Islam and the Middle East, and what should we, the great and mighty America, do about them? But why are we talking about this? There is so much more interesting news from yesterday. The fact that a member of Al Qaeda allegedly gave us a tip on finding Zarqawi's location, the effect of his death on the price of oil, or the reported reactions of Iraqis to the news of his death are all more interesting and relevant than PoliSci 101 babble about moral relativism or ABCD's inability to type the word 'terrorist' without hinting that as long are there's Islam, there will be terrorists. And yet I can hardly wait to get home and read this thread in its entirety. 
|
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 01:59 PM | |||||||
| adept_ninja | Well one couldnt even call this a jihad because it has not been called by a actual muslim offical. Osama is like a angry martin luther of our time. Islam is going through a reformation right now kind of like the christians did but its a bit different because there is no centralized head of religion like the pope so its complicated. Osama techniqually; according to his relgious doctrines has no authority to call a jihad or issue fatwas. Also to clear shit up there is no "holy war" it is either "just" which is supported by god or "unjust" which is not. jihadist doctrine was modified greatly once the prophet died because he didnt set anyone to take his place, so anyone who knew him personally could say anything that the prophet once said and that would be a law. | ||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 01:41 PM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
If we're going to blame all crimes of humanity against the collective religions, can we at least get an aestrisk ? There are more then a few things I'd love to let Fawaz Gerges know, but that's neither here nor there. JIhadist isn't a made up term, you bozo, it's just a poor choice from a multicultural ectasy dealer like yourself. Take the right pill. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 12:19 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
I mean, good lord man, have you forgotten the Spanish Inquisition and Jim Crow laws!!? We must remain absolutely PARALYZED by the past of the west, Europe, America, and everyone except for Muslims in the Middle East. We can't point fingers here! |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 12:05 PM | |||||||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
The OKC bombing was the work of people who made no such claim that God was on their side, as far as I know. But throughout the Crusades BOTH sides ostensibly used religion as an excuse for grabbing all the power and resources they could. I'd say there's a lot of that going on right now, mostly on the part of the Jihadists. Oops sorry, there I go using that made-up word again. ABC, with all your knowledge of all things Middle Eastern, would you give Fawaz Gerges a call and let him know to stop using it, too. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 11:04 AM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
The problem with this "aww shucks, all religion has its nuts" argument is that it completely overlooks some serious systemic problems not only in islam, but more specifically in the middle East. I won't get into them, because we've been there a million times. It's my understanding of where other nations, cultures, and religions have been in the past that makes me take Islamic extremism so seriously. This isn't just a small group of crazies causing a lot of problems. And while the actual number of people blowing themselves up and fighting in iraq may be very small, relative to the size of the muslim faith, it doesn't mean there aren't serious cultural and governmental problems that encourage terrorism. Quote:
I mean, how could we POSSIBLE criticize Islamic extremists who killed a reporter this year? WE BOMBED JAPAN! AND WHAT ABOUT VIETNAM, AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS!!? IT WOULD BE SOOO HYPOCRITICAL!! I feel like I'm perfectly capable of feeling guillt for our own wrong doings, for the wrongs of my country, my religion, and whoever else, while at the same time calling out other evils. My guilt-meter can multi-task. Quote:
Do two wrongs make a right? Is bad policy in the past justification for irresponsible policy today? Do we let radical Islam slide, even at the expense of our security, because we supported it in the past? Quote:
I agree with you wholeheartedly however that we are doing some things wrong. I would love to have a different administration take this on, one that's tough on radical Islam, as well as terrorism supporting states, yet with a little bit more tact, a lot more diplomacy, and less with the trigger happy. I don't like the Bush administration, however I still realize that we have a very clear enemy in this fight. Quote:
Past presidents, some of our greatest, used religious rhetoric to justify everything form wars to economic policies. I don't believe that this was a "Crusade" on Dubya's part. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 10:25 AM | |||||||
| mburbank |
I'm not all that clear on what motivated the Oklahoma city bombing. What exactly do you think is different about the Crusades, Kev? Or the Inquisition? Do you believe Western nations have evolved beyond that sort of atrocity for those sorts of reasons? Although I would disagree that would certainly be an arguable position. Do you think that past genocides and holy wars are irrelevant to the current situation because they aren't happening now and this is? Again, defensible, but I would say the past might be instructive and serves as a decent shield against arogance and superiority, two forces strong in our current foreign policy and not entirely unrelated to the predicament our soldiers are currently in. You go to war with the administration you have. We actively encouraged and empowered Islamic fundamentalism in a few global hotspots during. Perhaps encouraging religous fundamentalism is a bad idea an we might think about not encouraging it in the future. It may be that encouraging and empowering religous zealots could be counterproductive even if, and this is highly speculative, they are not Muslims. I'm not saying that we aren't currently fighting Islamic extremism. I'm saying I think we are fighting it blindly, poorly, and in a way which entrenches and supports our enemy, and that this is largely due to arrogance. I don't think it would hurt to remeber that we have not been holier than thou for very long in the march of history and there are no guaranties we will remain holier than thou. Why does the most extreme for of the Muslim religion currently wield so much power? This is the problem we face right now. I don't think any amount of bombs will change the equation. I'm not convinced that we are doing anything that adresses the question. Here are to schools of rhetoric about what we are doing in Iraq, and I believe neither one. 1.) We are there to control their oil. 2.) We are there to bring Democracy. I believe we went there for muddy, undefined, multiple and in some cases mutually exclussive reasons. This may have something to do with how muddy, undefined, multiple and sometimes mutually exclussive the results have been. I think one thread that brought us to the moment we are now in (just one among many, don't get nutty on me) is that we are of God and they are not. Amidst the many reasons we went to war, I think in there, to some degree, far less crazy than what it takes to behead someone, it helped that W is (by his own description) a fundamentalist. I'm not saying that we brought this on ourselves. Far, far, far, from it. But I think there is a strong cultural tendency to think America has never done anything bad, and if we did do anything bad like say, slavery, or killing all the Indians or putting the Japanese in camps, that's history and it will never happen again and we sure as hell don't do anything like that today and any claims that we do like the School of the Americas or overthrowing elected Democracies or White Phosphorus or torture is just trumped up bullshit or a few bad apples. And if, by some bizarre circumstance we ever did do anything bad, it couldn't have contributed to the bad things that are happening now. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 09:30 AM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | And hey guys, what about the Crusades and Oklahoma City? it's all the same. | ||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 09:27 AM | |||||||
| mburbank |
Violent religous extremism is the same. While at this moment in history there is a noteable amount of VRE associated with Islam, it doesn't strike me as a different phenomena when Hindus set people on fire and it hasn't been such a long time since Christians had their fair share of VRE that they have any reason to think they have evolved beyond it. There is a human tendency to believe God's message is "Kill everyone who does not believe exactly as you do." This is a common historical meme across all periods. I would suggest that all religous fundamentalism and intolerance are on this spectrum (not equal Kevin, not the same, just on the same side of a very long, but dangerously slippery slope). This is why I believe the best wy to end terrorism is to kill everyone who is not a Unitarian. You have been warned. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 02:41 AM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Um. Well if you're not reading my posts, that would explain why you're reacting to things you only imagined. The 2 articles you linked address a variation of Salafism. They do not support your hazy claim that "Jihadism (with a capital 'J') is a movement that started in Egypt in the 70s." because simply put - that's incorrect. Perhaps you mean the organization Islamic Jihad which formed in the 70's, but they grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood which originated in the late 20's. Muhammad Abduh was Egyptian, and is credited with sparking some reformation of the movement that became Salafism, but he died after the turn of the century. Sayyid Qutb was widely influential, but dead by 1966. Anyway, that only accounts for one of many groups with varied and conflicting ideologies, that believe in violent forms of Jihad. Since not all Salafists are terrorists, and not all terrorists of the Islamic faith are Salafist, or Wahhabists - that doesn't really take us anywhere productive. Do people use the term Jihadist? Sure. But, if your goal is to help pinpoint the bad Muslims and seperate them from the general good, then you're using the most self defeating terminology possible, since most all Muslims practice some harmless types of self reflexive Jihad. We're discussing religious campaigns utilizing terrorist means. I think it's misleading to sanitize it, and it's juvenile to claim anyone here is suggesting these groups are representative of an entire religion "in general". If a Rabbi, a Priest, or a Mufti are ordering bombings, then it's impossible to have an educated discourse on the topic with someone who insists on seperating their actions from their beliefs. By your response, it appears we can at least agree we're talking about people of the Islamic* faith. Maybe you missed the posts here putting that into question, claiming otherwise. |
||||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 12:35 AM | |||||||
| ziggytrix |
OK sure, before I get distracted - I think that, like any real fanatic, these cocksuckers think they are, in fact, the only REAL Muslims. Now, let's not ignore everything else you had to say. It would be such a shame to ignore any precious wisdom you let spell from your fingers today. We are both familiar with the word 'jihad' but that's not waht I was referring to. Jihadism (with a capital 'J') is a movement that started in Egypt in the 70s. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to, being the resident authority on all things Middle Eastern, but if not, read this and this and then tell me everything they got wrong, since I'm sure you're a much more reliable authority on the matter than these Brookings Institute wannabes. But from my understanding, whatever word you wanna use: Al Qaeda, Salfi-Jihadist, Islamo-fascist, whatever - there's a story that goes much deeper than "disaffected Muslim youths". Unless, of course, you are totally uninterested in all that pro-Muslim apologist rubbish. And just where do you imagine I'm arguing that there is no need to differentiate?! I'm arguing that you seemingly choose not to differentiate in your postings, and get bothered any time someone calls you on it. Because I was busy at work today, I for the most part didn't read your previous posts, so I would like to respond that YES, disassociating the IRA from their religious background is essential, unless you want to argue that members of the IRA are representative of Irish Catholics in general. Nor would it be productive to talk about violence throught the history of Judaism when discussing Kahane Chai (a figure with whom I'm not familiar). Not unless you had some sort of chip on your sholder for the entire religion which that particular extremist claims to represent. This is exactly my point! But if you'd rather talk about something else, fine go ahead. Tell me more about this rampant bigotry I overlook (assuming I actually read it) everywhere else on the forum. Or if you prefer, elaborate on your statement that "This will only serve to further radicalize more young Muslim*!!!!" I'm so sorry for distracting you from your original point, please don't let me distract you from your noble goal of educating this forum, and carry on just as though I didn't ask about your clever little asterisk. Or you can just point out that all these sects with all their agendas are, in fact, real Muslims, and agree that the real problem here is that real Muslims are just plain mean. And we killed one of the really mean ones today! It doesn't get any mroe real than that!  Jesus H. Christ, you'd think I actually gave a fuck. |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 07:21 PM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
First of all, what the fuck is a Jihadist? The word Jihad is so tied in to Muslim culture, that by using that term in place of terrorist, it is YOU who is blanketing all Muslims. Jihad means many different things. Secondly, the aestrisk was in response to the idea that Muslim radicals aren't real Muslims, but now you're not arguing we need to differentiate, you're arguing we need to stop identifying these people altogether, because it makes you uncomfortable probably because you're the one scared you might be a bigot. It's odd though... you keep trying to assign religious bigotry to the things you imagine I've said, but you completely overlook bigotry everywhere else it appears in this forum. So you don't like me, and I'm a dick.... but don't get distracted now - what do you think? Are Islamic terrorists actually Muslims!? |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 06:15 PM | |||||||
| ziggytrix |
You're the one who brought it up with your fuckin asterisk. If you are so painfully aware that not all Muslims are Jihadists, then why to you continue to use the word Muslim in place of Jihadist at every opportunity? Is it becuase you are a religious bigot, because you have an agenda, or just because you're a dick? |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 05:34 PM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
You really don't think the Koran has verses devoted to judging Muslims who stray? Since you can only seem to relate to this conversation through the terms of moral equivalency, I'll remind you that most every religion would consider that one of the worst sins of all. Care to argue how the Koran is any different? Why don't you tell us what the Koran says about disobediant Muslims who refuse to follow the Koran? |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 05:22 PM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
What, the aestrix wasn't enough? Would it make sense to dissassociate the IRA , or Kahane Chai from their religious interests? So how does it serve the conversation to white wash the context of these crimes by calling Islamic terrorist, simply terrorist? We can't even all agree what distinguishes a terrorist act, from a hate crime, from a random homicide. This might sound wacky, but there's conversation to be had even beyond the accepted truth of a statement like "Not all Muslims are terrorists"...... maybe you're the one struggling with the concept if you keep having to bring it up in every terrorism thread. It's not a revelation. |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 05:16 PM | |||||||
| ziggytrix |
That just seems so wishy-washy. "I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist, but if there weren't any Muslims, there wouldn't be any Muslim terrorists *wink wink nudge nudge* I'm not a bigot at all!" There are prevailing themes and links, and to try and lay it all at Islam is shortsighted, ignorant, and maybe just a tad disingenuous, though it is incredibly easy and convenient to think of it in those terms. If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal. Zarqawi was just a thug in a Jordanian prison until he met a cleric who showed him a better route to power. Before he died, he was urging Sunnis to step up the fight against Shiites. Can you tell me where in the Koran it says you're supposed to judge or kill other Muslims, or is this conflict maybe not really about Islam at all? |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 04:30 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Was that a yes? abc never said every muslim everywhere in the world supports terrorism. I think that was your natural assumption. However I think there is an effort by some/many/several to turn this into a collection of isolated incidents, with no prevailing theme or link. Not all of Islam is responsible for terrorism, but Islamic terrorism is the product of Islam. tis the reason for the season. |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 04:20 PM | |||||||
| ziggytrix |
I would hope a mainstream religious individual is justified in claiming the actions of a radical zealot are not reflective of the mainstream's belief. Otherwise any time some shithead did something in the name of _____ then _____'s everywhere would have to answer for that shithead's actions. I guess it's easier to generalize and stereotype though, and since I don't believe in anything it doesn't affect me, so carry on. |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 03:49 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Ziggy, does this have anything to do with radical Islam??? | ||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 03:45 PM | |||||||
| ziggytrix |
Oh, you mean like those Christians* who picket soldiers funerals with the signs saying "Thank GOD for IEDs" and shit? I guess you've got a point there. Maybe you should just call them terrorists, and try not to generalize all Muslims as being like these people? I dunno, maybe I should just ignore you. You're sort of a dick. |
||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 03:27 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Yeah, this is strictly a police matter. | ||||||
| Jun 8th, 2006 02:36 PM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx | well i've been informed that these muslims* are not muslims. they're just crazy people who spend a lot of time at mosques, quoting the koran, and recruit through these religious centers, while talking about muhhamed, jihad, martyrdom, shari'a, infidels.... there's absolutely no connection to islam. these muslims* are not muslims. i'm glad i had a chance to clarify that. | ||||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||||
