ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto

[Nic Name]

There's lots of flavors of Christianity that aren't my buddies either. But they haven't threatened me with death lately.

Do you need links?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Nic Name
Do you need links?

Not really. I like to do my own threat analysis.

The Jihadists have and use vastly superior firepower; for them I'd really like to see my tax dollars buy me some defense leveraged by economies of scale and inspired by scriptures like the Talmudic Tractate Sanhedrin 72b...not that we're Jewish, but we do know A Good Idea when we see it, too.

Not that we wouldn't be pleased if a Jihadist threat were stopped or deterred by our household defenses (like ESR said, "meet the distributed threat with a distributed response"). But we're Equal Opportunity about such things; when attacked we don't intend to waste time quibbling about the merits of the precise ideology of the attackers, as some other folks might like us to do.

That said, by my reckoning the "Christian" threats are more local, low intensity, and better-met by lower-tier defenses; in that event we'll rely on the household armory to hold us until the cops can get here. Since I pay my local taxes as well as my federal ones, the local cops have served us quite well; I'm confident of their support even though they're likely mostly Christians themselves.

[Chefranden]

Originally posted by MaggieL

Oh, I'm not confused. Just amused.

That's nice. I'm having fun too.

I'm dismissing neither Islam nor Christianity. But I draw a distinction between the two religions as a whole and the particular sects in question...Jim Jones isn't represerntative of Christianity, and the "worldwide jihadic fascists" or whatever you think they should be called today (as a courtesy I"ll detach "islamo-" from the term if you like, but I know a fascist when I see one) aren't representative of Islam as a whole, as some courageous Muslims are willing to tell us. There's lots of flavors of Christianity that aren't my buddies either. But they haven't threatened me with death lately.

Well not yet at any rate.

Not at all. I seek to eliminate him and his coreligionists because they seek to kill me, and will if they can.

This isn't about ideology, it's about survival. If they weren't seeking my death, I'd be delighted to ignore them, as I wish they would me. After a few mass murders my country responds militarily, and you say "See? You're as bad as they are." What a load of hooey.

I'm not particularly concerned with their principles, that's an issue their apologists keep wanting to bring into this discussion. Then when I say "I don't care", they respond "Well, you should! If you'd been embracing these principles, this violence wouldn't be necessary!". That's nonsense too.

There's just no equivalancy here, seek it as you may

I like that word hooey. It's just so wonderfully dismissive. Let us not think about them. Let us show them that our bomb is bigger than their bomb. Ah the raptures of combat. You do well in pointing out the idiocy of their argument, what I'm saying is that if you look at their argument in the mirror it is our argument.

I'm not seeking equivalency; I'm merely pointing it out. For example, at least from their point of view, you are not leaving them alone. You sent your infidel army to occupy their holy land. You help keep the oppressors of their people in power. You help infidels occupy their second holiest city. You are not innocent in their eyes any more than they are in yours. I think that they would agree with you as well about the survival thing. It is to them the survival of their way of life against yours. You might not be aware of your ideology but they are. To them you are saying, "I will live well at your expense."

Yes I think we are as bad as they, but on the other hand they are as bad as we. I condone neither side. I just point out that both have the same mindset and pretty much the same behavior. Of course you are aware that this side is not above murdering a few thousand people to force that side to do it's bidding and visa versa. When you do it is merely regrettable collateral damage as opposed to their despicable villainy. I'm not sure how they describe the reverse but it will be something similar.

I'm not an apologist for them, or for us. If I had the opportunity I would make the same arguments to them, and I suspect get about the same criticisms. However, I would hope that maybe some folks on both sides would step back far enough to see the other side has a point and be willing to not use bombs to get their own across.

I am disappointed with our side for not taking the moral high ground. I would like to be the good guys. To me that would lay in acting as Jesus pointed out in the Matthew quote above and not in dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi and Afghani citizens who had nothing much to do with 9/11 in the first place.

I don't think that anyone in the thread is asking you to embrace the principles of the enemy but merely to acknowledge that he has some, and may therefore be acting from a place similar to yours. That he is in fact human with a mommy and a daddy, and the same feeling of sorrow and anger at injustice that you feel. I for one am not for embracing anyone’s principle. Let's instead embrace one another.

[Undertoad]

For example, at least from their point of view, you are not leaving them alone. You sent your infidel army to occupy their holy land. You help keep the oppressors of their people in power. You help infidels occupy their second holiest city.

How, then, would you explain why all the other people of the world aren't equally as bloodthirsty?

The US has treated Central America with the same stick of supporting specific politics, sometimes awful politics, and many there are really ticked off. But they aren't trying to work out how to gas us.

Same with South America. A college friend of mine was from Uruguay, and he hated America with a deep passion. The US kinda played tetherball with the USSR, using his country for the ball. But he wasn't looking to ram airliners into buildings; instead, he went to the US for an education.

Meanwhile, France and Bali/Australia are fair game; what did they do to earn their status as targets?

This begs the question: what if we study why they want to kill us and we get it wrong? Or: what if we study it and find that we can't figure it out? Or, kinda my original question: what if we study it, and learn that it is actually based on irrational hatred coming from religious fervor for which there is no rational response?

[Nic Name]

Police investigators say that although Amrozi was "unhappy" many Australians were killed in the Bali blasts instead of the group's main target -- Americans, he did not regret the deaths.

"He thought many Americans were in Bali. When he knew many Australians died he was not happy. He doesn't regret it but he is just unhappy," a spokesman said.

"If we ask Amrozi, he and his group wanted to kill as many Americans. If you asked why, he said the United States had attacked Iraq, Afghanistan and was unfair in the Palestine-Israel affair. That's the motive."

http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/11/12/bali.bombing/

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Chefranden

I like that word hooey. It's just so wonderfully dismissive.

It said exactly what I meant.

B]
what I'm saying is that if you look at their argument in the mirror it is our argument.
[/b]

I thought *your* argument was that we should listen more to *their* argument. *My* argument was "I've already listened enough to their argument". Since my listening didn't have the result they thought it should, they're now attacking noncombatant civilians in order to advance thier argument.

That isn't an argument anymore.

I'm not seeking equivalency; I'm merely pointing it out.

I spoke metaphorically; you seek to point out equivalancy where there is none.

B]
When you do it is merely regrettable collateral damage as opposed to their despicable villainy. I'm not sure how they describe the reverse but it will be something similar.
[/b]

The reverse? There is no reverse, this is why your "equivalancy" is so specious. Have you even heard them apologize for killing Muslims who were in the WTC? Of course not, they were guilty of being infidels merely for being there. They *have* no "collateral damage", their targets are broad enough that all their casualties are intentional, they all advance the cause.

[Nic Name]

Al-Watan daily said the man had "direct links" to planning the Oct. 6 attack on the French oil tanker Limburg off the Yemeni coast, in which a Bulgarian crew member was killed and 90,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Aden.

The newspaper said Mr. al-Fadhli told police the attacker, al-Qaeda's Shihab al-Yemeni, filled his boat with explosives and went out to sea looking for a target. It was "pure coincidence" that he chose the Limburg.

AP is the source of this report.

[Undertoad]

How instructional. He chose no particular target because all targets were equivalently attackable -- not because of their politics, but because of their infidel status.

[elSicomoro]

Oooh! Oooh! I wanna be an infidel! Pick me pick me pick me!!!

[Chefranden]

Originally posted by MaggieL

The reverse? There is no reverse, this is why your "equivalancy" is so specious. Have you even heard them apologize for killing Muslims who were in the WTC? Of course not, they were guilty of being infidels merely for being there. They *have* no "collateral damage", their targets are broad enough that all their casualties are intentional, they all advance the cause.

Don't be silly Maggie, there is always a reverse. How would we know if he apologized or not? We are certainly not allowed by our media or government to listen to what they have to say. Neither do we apologize for our "benign" yet intentional collateral damage. If we mistake a wedding party for Al-Quida henchmen well so be it. Most of those 5000 or so Afghani citizens we've killed are as innocent as the people in the towers and your intentionality argument makes them no less dead. I don't think we've apologized for that.

But that is not the point. You seem to insist that I am defending his actions, when I'm only saying that they are similar to ours. I condemn his blowing people up and our blowing people up. I am condemning blowing people up as the solution to blowing people up.

I have perhaps made the mistake of thinking that because of your articulate posts that you think more with your Neo Cortex rather than your Limbic System . I don't mean that as an insult. Most people pay more attention to the Limbic System than to their logical faculties, which is why the obvious solution is so hard to bring about.

In an attempt to break through I'll keep it simple this time.

Maggie's argument:

I am the good guy , bin Laden is the evil guy.
I am the good guy , Maggie is the evil guy.

bin Laden's argument:

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Chefranden
How would we know if he apologized or not? We are certainly not allowed by our media or government to listen to what they have to say.

That's utter BS. Do you honestly believe that the media and the government are that powerful? Yes, they have a big say in what we see and hear, but they can't possibly impose some all-encompassing control over what we hear and what we don't.

You don't think there have been tapes of bin Laden's on Al-Jazeera that our government would prefer weren't shown? I thought we "weren't allowed" to hear that stuff?

And you think the media wouldn't air something like a bin Laden apology? Are you serious? They care about one thing. And it's not information control; it's ratings. Any news network would jump at the chance to air a bin Laden apology if they came across it.

You really think every single media outlet in this country is part of an overarching conspiracy to prevent the American public from hearing what they don't want us to hear?

Oh, and of <B>course</B> the media is in bed with the Bush administration. Yeah, they love each other all right.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Chefranden

I have perhaps made the mistake of thinking that because of your articulate posts that you think more with your Neo Cortex rather than your Limbic System. I don't mean that as an insult.

Of course you don't. *snort* Of course everyone can see that your point of view is calm, reasoned and rational, whereas mine is a knee-jerk reflex.

*I* think you have made a mistake in suggesting that cortical thinking never results in self-defense behavior. (You'll know when I start thinking with my thinking with my limbic system, because my rate of fire will go cyclic. Very contrasurival.)

I also think you've confused neuropsychology with phrenology, because that's the approximate level of your analysis.

By the way, to hold that the US actions are equivalant to those of the Jihadists *is* to defend the Jihadists.

[Xugumad]

MaggieL
By the way, to hold that the US actions are equivalant to those of the Jihadists *is* to defend the Jihadists.

Because it is OK to murder hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians living in squalor in a Third World country using our hyper-advanced weaponry.

After all, hey, they did it first.

And two wrongs make a right.

And you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

And as everyone knows, you can make the hatred stop or diminish by butchering their people, those who are innocent of *anything*.

After all, hey, if the evildoers (tm) are hiding cowardly amongst civilians, it's the terrorists' fault that we are blowing those civilians to shreds using smart bombs and remote cruise missile firings. Those thousands (?) of dead Afghanis sure were worth it in order to get to Osama bin Laden, and kill him. The thousands of dead Iraqis (from starvation, disease, etc) during the 90s sure were worth it - after all, it helped to remove Saddam.

... and justice for all.

X.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Xugumad
And two wrongs make a right.

<shrug> If you really believe the two are equivalant, no amount of explaining will convince you...your responses will only dissolve into the litany of question-begging we've already heard.

We'll may just have to wait until someone attacks *you* to advance their own littlle jihad before you to begin to develop a genuine moral compass that rises above the kindergarden level of "fighting is bad" and "two wrongs don't make a right".



.

[Xugumad]

MaggieL
<shrug> If you really believe the two are equivalant, no amount of explaining will convince you...your responses will only dissolve into the litany of question-begging we've already heard.

[...]before you to begin to develop a genuine moral compass that rises above the kindergarden level of "fighting is bad" and "two wrongs don't make a right".

Ad hominem attacks aside, there seems to be some sort of cognitive dissonance going on in your postings as they relate to my (and other people's) opinions.

I wrote very carefully about "civilians" and "innocents" and uninvolved parties.

You answer (not quoting me, but using quotation marks to make it look like I wrote it) with sardonic retorts about "fighting is bad", which completely misrepresents what I said.

You of course completely and utterly ignored the points made about killing innocents to accomplish a target that is eluding us, again and again. (but as we fail, we shift focus to distract from that. Osama who?)

Since pretty much nobody else with the occasional exception (hermit22, jaguar, sometimes spinningfetus, sometimes vsp, sometimes Nic Name) seems to hold even vaguely similar impressions of the hypocritical, failing, and alienating foreign policy that the US is pursuing (and make no mistake, WTC/Pentagon were the consequences of US foreign policy; horrible, unwanted, wrong consequences, but in their principal form inevitable nonetheless to any student of International Relations during the late 90s), I'll be happier not reading/posting on the Cellar anymore. Frankly, it is tiring to attempt to argue one's points and be rebuked by sneering incomprehension and willful ignorance.

I'm sure my departure won't be a great loss. Tony's dig earlier in the thread (referencing my style, but ignoring my points, quelle surprise) was enough of a hint for me.

Anyone else who wishes to talk to me privately, please email xugumad at yahoo dot com.

It's been a nice time, for much of it.

X.

"It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority... from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason."
-- Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity (1877)