ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
Found this very interesting, well-written, and representative of a lot of my own feelings. I'm awaiting a reply from ESR as to what distribution terms he'd like to impose, but surely linking (click the button below) to an offered permalink is fair use....even if it is a bookmark to the top page of the site.
<div align=center> <a href="http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_armedndangerous_archive.html#83695716"><img name="aim" width=100 height=40 border=0 src="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/graphics/aim-off.png" onMouseover='this.src="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/graphics/aim-on.png"' onMouseout='this.src="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/graphics/aim-off.png"' alt="Click to Read" title="Click to Read"/></a></div>
Got distribution permission.
<h3>Why We Fight — An Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto</h3><p>WHEREAS, the year since the terrible events of 9/11 has exposed the vacuity and moral confusion of all too many of the thinkers, politicians, and activists operating within conventional political categories;</p><p>WHEREAS, the Left has failed us by succumbing to reflexive anti-Americanism; by apologizing for terrorist acts; by propounding squalid theories of moral equivalence; and by blaming the victims of evil for the act of evil;</p><p>WHEREAS, the Right has failed us by pushing `anti-terrorist' measures which bid fair to be both ineffective and prejudicial to the central liberties of a free society; and in some cases by rhetorically descending to almost the same level of bigotry as our enemies;</p><p>WHEREAS, even many of the Libertarians from whom we expected more intelligence have retreated into a petulant isolationism, refusing to recognize that, at this time, using the state to carry the war back to the aggressors <emphasis>is</emphasis> our only practical instrument of self-defense;</p><p>WE THEREFORE ASSERT the following convictions as the premises of the anti-idiotarian position:</p><ol><li><p>THAT Western civilization is threatened with the specter of mass death perpetrated by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons placed in the hands of terrorists by rogue states;</p></li><li><p>THAT the terrorists and their state sponsors have declared and are pursuing a war not against the vices of Western civilization but against its core virtues: against the freedom of thought and speech and conscience, against the life of reason; against the equality of women, against pluralism and tolerance; against, indeed, all the qualities which separate civilized human beings from savagery, slavery, and fanaticism;</p> <li><p>THAT no adjustments of American or Western foreign policy, or concessions to the Palestinians, or actions taken against globalization, or efforts to alleviate world poverty, are of more than incidental interest to these terrorists;</p></li> <li><p>THAT, upon their own representation, they will not by dissuaded from their violence by any surrender less extreme than the imposition of Islam and shari'a law on the kaffir West;</p></li> <li><p>THAT, as said terrorists have demonstrated the willingness to use civilian airliners as flying bombs to kill thousands of innocent people, we would commit a vast crime of moral negligence if we underestimated the scope of their future malice even <em>without</em> weapons of mass destruction;</p></li> <li><p>THAT they have sought, and on plausible evidence found, alliance with rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; states that are known to have active programs working towards the development and delivery of weapons of that would multiply the terrorists' ability to commit atrocities by a thousandfold;</p></li><li><p>THAT Saddam Hussein poses a particularly clear and present danger in combination with them, a danger demonstrated by his known efforts to develop nuclear weapons, his use of chemical weapons even on his own population, his demonstrated willingness to commit aggression against peaceful neighbors, and his known links to the Islamist terror network in Palestine and elsewhere.</p></li> </ol><p>WE THEREFORE DECLARE that both the terrorists and their state sponsors have made themselves outlaws from the moral community of mankind, to be dealt with as rabid dogs are.</p><p>WE FURTHER AFFIRM that the `root cause' of Islamo-fascist terrorism lies in the animating politico-religious ideas of fundamentalist Islam and not in any signicant respect elsewhere, and that a central aim of the war against terror must be to displace and discredit those animating ideas.</p><p>WE REJECT, as a self-serving power grab by the least trustworthy elements of our own side, the theory that terrorist depredations can be effectively prevented by further restrictions on the right of free speech, or the right of peacable assembly, or the right to bear arms in self-defense; and we strenuously oppose police-state measures such as the imposition of national ID cards or airport-level surveillance of public areas;<p>IN GRAVE KNOWLEDGE that the state of war brings out the worst in both individual human beings and societies, we reject the alternative of ceding to the world's barbarians the exclusive privilege of force;</p><p>WE SUPPORT the efforts of the United States of America, its allies, and the West to hunt down and capture or kill individual members of the Islamo-fascist terror network;<p>WE SUPPORT speedy American and allied military action against the rogue states that support terrorism, both as a means of alleviating the immediate threat and of deterring future state sponsorship of terrorism by the threat of war to the knife.</p><p>WE SUPPORT, in recognition of the fact that the military and police cannot and <em>should</em> not be everywhere, efforts to meet the distributed threat with a distributed response; to arm airline pilots, and to recognize as well the ordinary citizen's right and duty to respond to terrorist aggression with effective force.</p><p>WE SUPPORT, as an alternative greatly preferable to future nuclear/chemical/biological blackmail of the West, the forcible overthrow of the governments of Iraq and of other nations that combine sponsorship of terrorism with the possession of weapons of mass destruction; and the occupation of those nations until such time as the root causes of terrorism have been eradicated from their societies.</p><p>WE DEFINE IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion <emp>within</em> the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it.</p><p>WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Left — the moral blindness that refuses to recognize that free markets, individual liberty, and experimental science have made the West a fundamentally better place than any culture in which jihad, 'honor killings', and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion.</p><p>WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Right — whether it manifests as head-in-the-sand isolationism or as a a Christian-chauvinist political agenda that echoes the religious absolutism of our enemies.</p> <p>WE ARE MEMBERS OF A CIVILIZATION, and we hold that civilization to be worth defending. We have not sought war, but we will fight it to the end. We will fight for our civilization in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.</p> <p>WE HAVE AWAKENED; we have seen the face of evil in the acts of the Bin Ladens and Husseins and Arafats of the world; we have seen through the lies and self-delusions of the idiotarians who did so much to enable and excuse their evil. We shall not flinch from our duty to confront that evil.</p><p>WE SHALL DEMAND as citizens and voters that those we delegate to lead pursue the war against terror with an unflagging will to victory and all means necessary — while remaining always mindful that we must not become what we fight;</p><p>WE SHALL REMEMBER that the West's keenest weapons are reason and the truth; that we must shine a pitiless light on the lies from which terrorist hatred is built; and that we must also be vigilant against the expedient lie from our own side, lest our victories become tainted and hollow, sowing trouble for the future.</p><p>WE HAVE FAITH that we are equal to these challenges; we shall not be paralyzed by fear of the enemy, nor yet by fear of ourselves;</p><p>WE SHALL SHED the moral cowards and the appeasers and the apologists; and we shall fight the barbarians and fanatics, and we <em>shall</em> defeat them. We shall defeat them in war, crushing their dream of dominion; and we shall defeat them in peace, using our wealth and freedoms to win their women and children to civilized ways, and ultimately wiping their diseased and virulent ideologies from the face of the Earth.</p><p>THIS WE SWEAR, on the graves of those who died at the World Trade Center; and those who died in the Sari Club in Bali; and those who died on U.S.S. Cole; and indeed on the graves of all the nameless victims in the Middle East itself who have been slaughtered by terrorism and rogue states:</p> <p>YOU SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN.</p>
Eric S. Raymond <br />
2 November 2002 <br />
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/aim/support.html">(Your signature here)</a><hr><small>
<p>©2002 by Eric S. Raymond. Link freely, print rights are reserved.</p><p>You can also read <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/aim/background.html">background information</a> on the manifesto.</p>
</small>
Well, that was a badly thought out shallow analysis full of sweeping generalisations in a format that requires far more definition lacking both forethought and factual basis. I want two minutes of my life back i just wasted reading that pile of trash. :angry:
That's enough vituperation outa you.
Quite restrained actually. The temptation for a 3 page diatribe was overridden by the nagging feeling of a psychology exam on thursday.
Originally posted by jaguar
I want two minutes of my life back i just wasted reading that pile of trash.
Just consider it a "minority report".
I figured you''d love it. Glad you didn't bother to respond in detail, since I'm planning to ignore three-page diatribes anyway. Even though you're busy, I know we'll see two or three others.
"Reflexive anti-Amercanism" is <i>le mot juste</i> for so much of what shows up here from certain quarters. "The idiotarianism of the Left...apologists for terrorist acts, propounding squalid theories of moral equivalence....vacuity and moral confusion...."
"[We] reject the alternative of ceding to the world's barbarians the exclusive privilege of force.....meeting a distributed threat with a distributed response" Right on the money.
Interestingly enough, we don't see too much of "the idiotarianism of the Right" here on The Cellar, although Goddess knows there's plenty of it elsewhere. I'm expecting a few three-page diatribes there too, where there will be equally bad spelling but much worse grammar. :-)
Brilliant idea, lets sterotype every poition on both side of politics into two extremes and claim to be the sole voice of sanity. Such insight and depth of understanding is no better than any of the positions it attacks, and takes some of the worst points of both in the process, tata for this thread.
Stereotypes are funny, alligator wrestler.
I agree, problem is i think this thing is meant to be serious
Originally posted by jaguar
Brilliant idea, lets sterotype every poition on both side of politics into two extremes and claim to be the sole voice of sanity.
I'm the one TRUE voice of sanity...the rest of you need to pack your bags and go home. Thanks. :)
This is an attempt to seed a new cohesive political position on foreign affairs in a country that hasn't had to do so very often. It is to figure out and/or signal whether there is enough agreement to take the movement further.
So if you don't agree with the movement, of course you'll find it silly and stereotypical. By the time you've gotten to understanding what it's talking about, you are in disagreement with it at a very high level.
I felt that the term "idiotarian" was a non-starter, but after I thought about it for a while, I figured it had some kind of viral marketing value. It's terrible form to define yourself by who your political opposite is, and terrible form again to define yourself via an insult. For the purpose of serious discussion of issues, it's totally wrong to start by being insulting. But that's what makes it viral, too; it expresses how serious the matter is, how serious the believers are, etc.
Hey, it's the 2000s, and people are always up in your face to make a point. This is just what you have to do to get attention.
The problem is if it gets too directly insulting, if a serious discussion of issues isn't allowed afterwards, etc. Empty invective doesn't go very far.
But it is not a new policy. It is a mix of mostly hawkish opinions without the stuff that annoys the libertarians while condemning both sides of mainstream politics for their extremes. There is nothing new, nothing interesting, and nothing of real value. It also is a very superficial analysis of the situation, taking only the most obvious facts and symptoms without looking at the causes or underlying reasons before deciding a course of action designed to solve the problem in the long term without understanding the implications of asymmetrical warfare on traditional defense policy and mentalities. Thus the course of action addresses the symptoms in an incomplete way without facing some of the harder facets of the problem and does nothing to alleviate the underlying issues that have played a signifigant role in the rise of the problem let alone suggest (and i admit this is the signifigantly more challanging issue) methods by which the root causes of islamic terrorism can be erradicated.
For a 'manifesto' its also lacking definitions of key terms which makes it deeply inarticulate adding to the fundamental problems that already exist. In fact the only definition is that of IDIOTARIANISM, which according to their definition attempts to reinvent the wheel with a grammatical abomination. The fact it defines itself by what it opposes rather than what it stands for is telling in the extreme. The only good thing about is it is not guilty of the circumlocution that many similar documents are rife with, sadly this is not due to good writing or reasoning.
It’s knee-jerk in point form. I hope UT, that explains why it’s silly.
I agree that current political figureheads aren't doing particularly well, but that's about it. The thought of having citizens fighting back against terrorism is quite disconcerting, as I have seen little to inspire trust in humanity.
Also, er...how does one uphold the American ideals--freedom, namely--while running around killing people primarily because of their religion?
Call me a sissy, but I'd much rather remove the motivation than the means. Regardless of how many armed maniacs you kill, there'll always be more.
--Sk
There is a word for people like you skunk.
Rational.
Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.
while running around killing people primarily because of their religion?
Who exactly is doing that?
The only part i liked was the last line. Ill agree with dave on that one, the US doesn't usually attack people for thier religion.
I was basically with him up to 6. and 7. I'm not convinced the publicly available evidence shows an alliance between Saddam and the terrorists in question. (Aid for certain operations _certainly_, an alliance like that of the Taliban and Al Queda where Saddam would hand over WMDs to them, not proven).
I also do not believe that attempting to discredit radical Islam would be a good idea -- I can think of nothing that would better ensure its survival.
Originally posted by jaguar
Brilliant idea, lets sterotype every poition on both side of politics into two extremes and claim to be the sole voice of sanity.
If people like Noam Chomsky and John Ashcroft wouldn't fulfill those stereotypes quite so accurately, they probably wouldn't have the power they do.
Originally posted by dave
Who exactly is doing that?
WE FURTHER AFFIRM that the `root cause' of Islamo-fascist terrorism lies in the animating politico-religious ideas of fundamentalist Islam and not in any signicant respect elsewhere, and that a central aim of the war against terror must be to displace and discredit those animating ideas.
Maybe I was reading a bit too much into it.
--Sk
He doesn't even get it right. There is no such thing as fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalism applies to a Christian religious movement around 1900 that called for a return to the 'fundamentals' of Christianity.
The difference with the Islamic extremism that is fueling Bin Laden, et al. is that he isn't calling for a return to anything. Instead, he is, by account of most Islamic scholars, misinterpreting the Quran.
So the use of the term fundamentalism is either an attempt to frame the thinking of these people in Western terms, which is not necessarily an accurate undertaking, or a demonization based on the perjorative nature of the term. I think that because of the way the term has slipped into our mainstream consciousness, it's a combination of the two. And that always bothers me - because without an accurate understanding of the enemy, we are bound to over or under qualify who the enemy actually is.
Sorry, that's just my basic rant about the term 'fundamentalist Islam.' I prefer the term extremist, which doesn't carry the connotations of the first term (of course, it has its own problems, but that's a whole different story).
And as for the manifesto above - I think I'd have to agree with those who see it as a flaming hunk of crap. It doesn't actually add anything constructive to the argument, except to frame the extremes on each side as extremes. And after all that, it ends up taking a moderately rightist view without considering a moderate leftist view. This is, of course, supposing that the argument can be framed on a 2-dimensional, left-right plane. I tend to think that it's more Cartesian.
Originally posted by hermit22
It doesn't actually add anything constructive to the argument, except to frame the extremes on each side as extremes.
I don''t really agree with that. What it adds is a description a point of view that is in favor of our right to self-defense without supporting "Homeland Defense" as a synonym for "NIghtwatch" or "Geheime Staatspolizei", and stands in opposition to curbs on the individual rights of our citizens as a reaction to terrorism...everywhere from the airliner cockpit to the archetecture of our personal computers.
It also recognizes the true roots of what is referred to elsewhere in the manifesto as Islamo-fascism. Perhaps you prefer that term to the more mainstream "Islamic fundamentalist", or "Islamic extremeist", or perhaps not.
Whatever one calls it, the reference is to the call to holy war to impose sharia law on everyone on the planet. One can debate interpretation of the Quran (and the Bible, for that matter) until the sun burns out, but that's not the issue. What phrase would *you* use to identify this movement?
I don’t really agree with that. What it adds is a description a point of view that is in favor of our right to self-defense without supporting "Homeland Defense" as a synonym for "NIghtwatch" or "Geheime Staatspolizei", and stands in opposition to curbs on the individual rights of our citizens as a reaction to terrorism...everywhere from the airliner cockpit to the archetecture of our personal computers.
SO its a hawkish right wing view, with TIPS et al. Well that sure is revolutionary. What makes me laugh is its a right wing view, while decrying the right as extreme right. Kinda circular, take it far enough and its self-defeating. What gets me (it stuck me after i read the top article on the page this came from which is advocating arming children for reasons that entirely escaped me) is that the whole idea that the police can't be anywhere and don't have additional powers thing is a backdoor gun lobby argument - the cops can't do it so we all have to arm up and do it ourselves. How predictable.
If people like Noam Chomsky and John Ashcroft wouldn't fulfill those stereotypes quite so accurately, they probably wouldn't have the power they do.[/QUOTE] And they are the only face of the entire right side of politics from ultralibertarian to fundamentalist puritan christians?
Originally posted by jaguar
What makes me laugh is its a right wing view, while decrying the right as extreme right.
Actually, what's even more circular is declaring it a "right wing view" because it believes in collective and individual self-defense. Do only "right-wingers" believe in self-defense? I guess if you're far enough left it looks that way...and the ideologically correct response from the left is to let anyone with a real or imagined grudge to walk all over you because "it's understandable" After all, *they're* not responsible for what they do...it's *your* fault.
Sure it is.
Pay attention....AIM didn't decry "the right" as "the extreme right" . It decried "IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it." It then pointed out who it considered the idiotarians of the Left and the Right.
Is how "extreme" someone is--to the left or right--how much they're willing to sacrifice of somebody else's rights in support of their ideology?
Surely there's nothing "backdoor" about ESR's support of the right to keep and bear arms. RKBA is *about* the individual right of self-defense, but we've already heard your rants on that subject. If you find Eric's views about teaching kids shooting and gun safety mystifying, I refer you to the discussion in the blog archive, and especially to the piece he linked to at his personal site at tuxedo.org.
Predictable? I suppose. Most folks in the open-source community are familiar with Eric's view on RKBA and individual freedom and responsibility.
By the way...don't forget you bade "ta-ta" to this thread six posts ago. Wouldn't want you to waste any more time on it. :-)
and the idiologically correct response from the left is to let anyone with a real or imagined grudge to walk all over you because "it's understandable" After all, *they're* not responsible for what they do...it's *your* fault.
I guess if you're far enough right it looks that way too.
Pay attention....AIM didn't decry "the right" as "the extreme right" . It decried "IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it." It then pointed out who it considered the idiotarians of the Left and the Right.
WHEREAS, the Right has failed us by pushing `anti-terrorist' measures which bid fair to be both ineffective and prejudicial to the central liberties of a free society; and in some cases by rhetorically descending to almost the same level of bigotry as our enemies;
I'm not going near the gun topic, ripping this 'manifesto' a new one is far more entertaining that a tired flamewar.
By the way...don't forget you bade "ta-ta" to this thread six posts ago. Wouldn't want you to waste any more time on it. :-)
*shrugs* Helps my typing, slowly and i'm not allowed out of the house till the 19th.
Originally posted by jaguar
...i'm not allowed out of the house till the 19th.
Eh? Did Mom and Dad ground you? What about your exam?
I'm not going near the gun topic, ripping this 'manifesto' a new one is far more entertaining that a tired flamewar.
Sure...you're not going near RKBA just like you're dropping the thread. Thing is, this is actually all the same issue, just at different scales. "Leave your self-defense in the hands of 'the proper authorities' [the cops/Homeland Defense/the UN]. They'll show up in time to pick up the pieces when the crime is over. Just wave some non-lethal weapons around until then."
Originally posted by MaggieL
It also recognizes the true roots of what is referred to elsewhere in the manifesto as Islamo-fascism. Perhaps you prefer that term to the more mainstream "Islamic fundamentalist", or "Islamic extremeist", or perhaps not.
Whatever one calls it, the reference is to the call to holy war to impose sharia law on everyone on the planet. One can debate interpretation of the Quran (and the Bible, for that matter) until the sun burns out, but that's not the issue. What phrase would *you* use to identify this movement?
I don't like the term Islamo-fascism either. Fascism implies nationalism and, Arab pan-nationalism aside, al-Qaeda isn't really looking for that.
And I call any movement that is not accepted by the mainstream extremism; whether that is Ashcroft, Chomsky, or Wahabbism.
If i go out i lose a day, i take a 10 minutes break every now and then, i lose a couple of hours, self control mechanism.
I'm not responding the rest of your post, its just too silly and thus i am dropping this thread now, its lost all sembelence of logic.
Originally posted by hermit22
I don't like the term Islamo-fascism either.
I didn't ask you what term you don't like...so far you don't like *any* term for it. The question is what term you *do* find acceptable to refer to this movement?
Are you simply hoping that if it's never given a name that you won't have to deal with the issue? Or are you in such denial as to claim it doen't even exist?
Uhh, the argument that the cops can't be everywhere and therefore people must be responsible for their own self defense isn't a "backdoor" gun lobby argument. It's one used openly and loudly by gun freedom supporters.
As for Ashcroft and Chomsky: No, they are not the only faces on the right and left side of politics respectively. They are, however, loud voices who are respected by the mainstream of the right and left. And they exemplify the "idiotarianism" of the right and left that ESR describes.
(BTW, if you were paying attention, you'd notice the Manifesto does not include TIPS. TIPS is part of the "idiotarianism of the Right")
(As a computer science degree holder, I feel somewhat funny denigrating Chomsky... but he deserves every bit of it)
Originally posted by MaggieL
I didn't ask you what term you don't like...so far you don't like *any* term for it. The question is what term you *do* find acceptable to refer to this movement?
Are you simply hoping that if it's never given a name that you won't have to deal with the issue? Or are you in such denial as to claim it doen't even exist?
Hey, why don't you actually read my post? I said in two separate posts that the term extremism is the most appropriate. I think that without an at least vaguely accurate definition of what you're talking about, a valid debate is hopeless.
Then again, I'm also starting to think that you like this manifesto so much because you don't realize you're an idiotarian yourself.
russ i meant without tips, that was my point, my bad on the typing.
Originally posted by hermit22
Hey, why don't you actually read my post? I said in two separate posts that the term extremism is the most appropriate.
I did read it, including the place where you said callling it "Islamic extremism" "has it's own problems", which gives you an out to blow it off later, when it too becomes inconvenient.
In fact, it would probably be much safer for you to not name it at all, and instead to handwave in the direction of the Palestinian red herring, and not have anyone point out the stated objective of the "extremists": to impose their religion on everyone, by force, while offering that religion as the justification for what they do. Personally, I think "extremist" fails to capture how vile that is.
Of course that's not how all--even <i>most</i>--Islamic scholars interpret the Quran. But that's not the point....there's a lot of Christians who'd like to divorce themselves from other folks who style themselves Christian, too.
I think it's unfair to associate any social movement specifically with religion. There are a lot of things that make people turn to religion or some other philosophy - from economics, nationalism, social conditions, etc. In addition, every major philosophical movement goes through cycles - every few decades, its adherants want to go back and clear the barnacles of liberal interpretation off of the ship of their movement. We're seeing a lot of that in the resurgence of Christianity in America in the past two decades. Modern day Marxists claim that Communism failed because it didn't stick to Marx's initial ideas, and that future implementations need to reflect them more clearly.
So you see, my problem is with using the qualifier "Islamic." When you remove that, you're left with extremist, fascist, fundamentalist, etc. All of these terms have problems, but the last two are worse than the first because they pigeon hole the targets into an ideology they don't necessarily agree with. Extremism, however, is quite broad. And that breadth, unfortunately, is its problem. I think, however, in lack of anything resoundingly better, that its acceptable.
And what do you mean by the Palestinean red herring?
Originally posted by hermit22
I think it's unfair to associate any social movement specifically with religion.
Unfair? It's the people involved themselves that justify their fascism (n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government) on the basis of their religion. So if you object to that linkage you'd better address <b>them</b> directly, since they are the ones establishing it.
Look I've got no problem with Islam; there is much beauty and wisdom in it. But anybody who says "My religion says it should run all govenments and enforce my rules on pain of death; my religon also justifies armed jihad to establish our rule everywhere" is just not someone I can get along with. I think "islamo-fascism" identifies this group pretty well; "extremist" is too weak; there's lots of extreme positions that fall short of this in terms of being evil. And leaving out the islamic connection fails to identify this particular movement as distinct from other fascist power grabs.
By "Palestinian red herring" I mean the attempt to cast this terrorism as the struggle of the oppressed Palestinians. That's totally bogus; bin Laden didn't give a hoot about the Palestinians until he saw how universally negative the reaction to 9/11 was. See Premise 3 in the Manifesto.
Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.
Bin Laden has long said (going back to his original fatwah in 1996) that there are 3 things he wants fixed:
- US out of Saudi Arabia
- Sanctions lifted from Iraq
- Home for the Palestinian people
He didn't just "come up" with that because the world reacted violently to 9/11. Not only that, but you sound like you believe that there was no terrorism before that tragedy, or that bin Laden did absolutely nothing before it.
Also, it doesn't necessarily matter what the people involved say. Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is one of thousands of various social forces that influence people's opinions and actions. And no matter what someone claims as their ideals - or what cover they use to sell those ideals - you have to look at the content of their message to see where they really stand. And of the three agenda items, only the first one has anything to do with religion. The rest are social.
Finally, to constantly frame it as "Islamic" whatever is irresponsible. It casts a negative light on the religion that 20% of the world's population calls their own. Since it is not representative of the religion, the stigma that gets attached is inappropriate.
Think about it this way: how often did the media call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? How about Bray or Hill (first advocated and the second killed abortion doctors)?
And that Manifesto was obviously written by someone whose entire familiarity with terrorism is based on mass media. I can't take stock in anything like that, sorry. Referencing a part of the manifesto, then, as proof does not actually prove anything, nor does it represent a valid course of action (which, in my mind, it doesn't). I don't mean to sound like a white tower snob here, but how can you argue for such a drastic course of action when you don't have all the facts?
Originally posted by hermit22
He didn't just "come up" with that because the world reacted violently to 9/11...
In the first fatwah the Palestinians are a distant concern next to banishing secular control of Saudi Arabia and imposing sharia law everywhere, and he explicitly invokes Ibn Taymiyyah and Al'iz Ibn Abdes-Salaam in calling for that. His main motivation seemed to be getting out of his Afghani exile and back into "the land of two holy places"...code for Saudi Arabia.
...you sound like you believe that there was no terrorism before that tragedy, or that bin Laden did absolutely nothing before it.
You mean like tryng to get blessed as the defender of the Saudis against Iraq? Of course, *that* was back in the early 1990's. He wasn't particularly gunning for the Yankees until they got in the way of his triumphant return to rescue his homeland (who had banished him) from those awful Iraqis....who suddenly became his bestest Muslim brothers only a few years later, after they lost the war he tried to sign up to fight against them.
He engaged in a fair amount of terrorism against US targets before 9/11, but only after the US spoiled his reentry to Saudi Arabia to fight what became Desert Storm <i>against</i> his "Iraqui brothers".
And no matter what someone claims as their ideals - or what cover they use to sell those ideals - you have to look at the content of their message to see where they really stand. And of the three agenda items, only the first one has anything to do with religion. The rest are social.
You'd better read the first fatwah again, then come back and tell me it's a social document whose central theme isn't the call for imposition of religion in the place of secular law.
I think "islamo-fascism" fits because it distinguishes this movement from other forms of fascism. Would you be happier with "Wahabist fascism"? Unfortunately few people in our culture know what Wahabism is.
Think about it this way: how often did the media call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? How about Bray or Hill (first advocated and the second killed abortion doctors)?
I've got no problem with identifying as a "Fundamentalist Christian terrorist" someone who assasinates doctors and then cites the Bible as justification.
As for McVeigh, he never articulated what he was trying to do clearly enough for me to try to label it. What the media does I have no control over.
McVeigh wasn't about Christianity so much as he was about sticking it to the government. I think he was very... right in his ideals. But went about getting the message across in a totally unappropriate manner.
John Allen Muhammad follows Islam; no one is calling him an "Islamic terrorist". Just a terrorist. I think that's important.
Originally posted by dave
McVeigh wasn't about Christianity so much as he was about sticking it to the government. I think he was very... right in his ideals. But went about getting the message across in a totally unappropriate manner.
John Allen Muhammad follows Islam; no one is calling him an "Islamic terrorist". Just a terrorist. I think that's important.
I think it's a good thing they aren't labelling Muhammad as a Muslim, but that's probably because he's from <crap, the name of the sect escapes me>, which is considered by many Muslims to be pretty tin-foil hat extreme.
McVeigh mimicked
The Turner Diaries, which was rooted strongly in the Christian Identity movement.
Maggie....
I'll address the fascism thing first, because it's quick, and easier. Look up fascism. One of the first requirements is nationalism - and bin laden isn't looking for that on any level.
You'd better read the first fatwah again, then come back and tell me it's a social document whose central theme isn't the call for imposition of religion in the place of secular law.
Ok, just read the fatwah again, and I still got the same message: it is a social commentary in the vein of Qutb and Al-Bana. The basic message (of the first part; the second part is his call to battle) is that Islam has been corrupted by the West, and the result is social oppression. The two most poignant situations of this, according to bin laden, are Israel/Palestine and Saudi Arabia. He speaks of the social inequities that have arisen because of the influence of the West on the ruling class. In this way, he sounds like a less intelligent Qutb or al-Banna. So yeah, it calls for an overthrow of secular law, but it is because that secular law has created a corrupt social system.
One of the requirements <b>isn't</b> "nationalism". Go look.
The Turner Diaries was rooted strongly in the fucking nutjob movement. I'm no big fan of Christianity, but I still don't believe a labeling of McVeigh as a "Christian Terrorist" is accurate (whereas I do believe a labeling of Mohammed Atta as an "Islamic Terrorist" <b>is</b> accurate) - his act was not induced by religion, but instead a pretty strong dissatisfaction with the United States government.
I'm sure we could all come up with a better person or group to label "Christian Terrorist(s)" - I just think McVeigh is an awful example. And that's all I was pointing out. :)
Originally posted by hermit22
Ok, just read the fatwah again, and I still got the same message: it is a social commentary in the vein of Qutb and Al-Bana.
Well, that's a fundamental disagreement we probably can't resolve.
Qutb doesn't represent "social commentary"; the basis of his crusade--oops, excuse me: "jihad"--was religious orthodoxy. His call to overthrow Nasser was built on the theory that since Nasser didn't hew to the dogma of Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Wahhab, he was not a true Muslim and therefore should be deposed, and replaced with a government enforcing sharia law.
Imposing your own religious dogma on others through gaining control of the government just isn't "social reform" to my mind; if it is to yours we have no common ground to meet on and discuss this.
I will add that I could certianly understand someone who labelled Nasser as a "fascist" (despite his cozying up at times to the Soviet Communists), and that this is a reason to qualify the aims of Al-Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the panoply of organizations with similar goals as *islamo*-fascist, just to distinguish them from the other kinds of fascism floating around the region.
Again: wow. Have you ever read any Qutb? Go pick up Signposts. It's an informative look inside a way of thinking; much like Das Kapital or Mein Kampf was about their respective ideologies.
Qutb was about social commentary. Along with al-Banna, he was about the ulama being corrupt, and distorting the law of the Quran. I doubt you'll find the word "jihad" in any of Qutb's works; especially in the sense of Lesser Jihad that bin laden (erroneously, according to most Islamic scholars) uses.
When people see social injustice, they respond in different ways. Often, a certain group is villified: Qutb and bin Laden both demonize the West. Qutb, however, believed that the way to social reform was to educate the masses through Islam. His ideas were, in many ways, like the Protestant Reformation. The ulama was in charge of religious rulings, much like the Catholic church, and he believed they had spent so much time analyzing and liberalizing Islam that they had complicated what, to him, was a simple religion. He believed that the religion had to be spread, and the best way to do that was to help the masses through charity. bin Laden, on the other hand, thinks that the best way is through terror. But he still retains the "society is corrupt" ideals. No matter what his prescriptions for it may be, his social commentary remains intact as social commentary.
And back to this damn fascism argument. Have you gone and looked it up yet? Fascism is a social movement, with nationalist overtones. Nasserism could be considered fascism. But bin Laden is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Nasser. To put the two anywhere near each other is just ridiculous.
So not only do you use a term of a high perjorative nature; you continuously use it incorrectly. That's all I'm concerned about. Quit trying to read everything from a normative sense. Don't pass judgement on it before going in; rather, analyze the content of it. You'll find that Qutb, bin Laden, Marx, etc. make some good observations about society. It is in their prescriptions that they fail; it is the prescriptions that the media sees; and the prescriptions that temper our bias.
Originally posted by hermit22
And back to this damn fascism argument. Have you gone and looked it up yet? Fascism is a social movement, with nationalist overtones.
Again, no, it is not. Go look it up. Seriously.
Here. I've done the hard work for you.
fas·cism
n.
<ol><li>often
Fascism
<ol type=a><li>A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
<li>A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.</ol><li>Oppressive, dictatorial control.</ol>
Doesn't really need to be nationalist, does it?
Originally posted by hermit22
So not only do you use a term of a high perjorative nature; you continuously use it incorrectly. That's all I'm concerned about.
I'd send *you* to the dictionary to read the definition of fascism again, but it's a message you don't want to hear. Of *course* it''s perjorative; and deservedly so.
Quit trying to read everything from a normative sense. Don't pass judgement on it before going in; rather, analyze the content of it. You'll find that Qutb, bin Laden, Marx, etc. make some good observations about society. It is in their prescriptions that they fail; it is the prescriptions that the media sees; and the prescriptions that temper our bias.
Actually, I don't particularly give a rat's fuzzy behind about bin Laden's philosophy, or that of any of his kindred, pe se. There's no shortage of "good observations about society" from Mencken to Orwell, Twain to Ghandi, from Jesus to Heinlein to your-favorite-pundit-here; their names are legion.
It's what you call the "prescriptions" that threaten us. It's the "prescriptions" that are indeed fascism, dress it up as you will. (Nationalism? Go ahead and try to tell me that "nation of Islam" is only metaphor and rhetoric.)
Starry Sky above us, if "fascism" an unfair perjorative for coercive establishment of sharia law as a part of a global state religion, what shall we call it when you dess up cold-blooded mass murder of innocents as a "prescription"? "Euphemism" is too weak by far, and "meiosis" doesn't cut it either.
It's the "prescriptions" that have already killed thousands of innocent people in our country, on which they have declared war multiple times. You'll just have to pardon my "normativeness" in judging it:. I judge it to be a direct threat to me personally.
For me this has absolute priority over how "good their observations about society" may be. All their "good observations" can take their proper place in the marketplace of ideas among everybody else's; when the likes of these people walk in my door with a bomb strapped to their waist, I'm simply not interested in how keen their social commentary is, nor am I inclined to grant their ideas priority simply because they're willing to kill me.
Maggie, perjorative as in lying under oath or pejorative as in this post? ;)
I'm surprised at you!
Keep that dictionary handy.
Bin Laden wasn't nationalist only because he couldn't take over a government to become nationalist about.
Most of the Arab world is quite fascist.
Islam apparently makes running government by Islamic law part of the religion.
In Saudi Arabia, the nation with the two holiest of Islamic sites, government appointed mullahs call for the total annihilation of all Jews and western "crusaders". The majority believe that bombers are martyrs. Their opinion can't really be called extremist; there, it's mainstream.
As far as Marx goes, tens of millions of people were killed by governments called "Marxist". One Marxist apology is that he was misunderstood and people just didn't get the implementation right somehow. How many tens of millions will die in Marxism Ver. 2?
When I was a toddler, I took a fork and stuck it in an electrical socket. I didn't need to be told not to try it with a spoon instead. It wasn't the implementation that shocked the living shit out of me, ya follow?
It's obvious that you don't want to listen to reason and instead engage in emotiveness, but I'll try anyway.
You said I should look up fascism. From
www.m-w.com:
fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
Where in here does this talk about religion? No, instead, it talks about nationalism, and ethnicity. A semi-valid argument could be made that bin Laden is looking for a pan-Arab Islamic state, but his writings would indicate that, at least temporarily, his goals are less universal. Yes, he wants to rid the world of the infidel (the US), but the US is not the whole world. (He does extend the fatwah against the West.) In addition, the people that are reading his fatwahs and nodding their heads now think of themselves as Yemeni, Egyptian, etc. The impetus for a pan-Arab state, or a pan-Islamic state is largely gone. More and more people recognise themselves by nationality first. And even that goal is not of a centralized autocratic government, although social regimentation could be argued. What he is calling for is more of a religious movement that has political implications - not a political movement.
Fascism was really a 20th century secular movement in Europe. In the end, though, actions can take on a fascistic nature - but that doesn't make a movement fascism.
So, for however many times now, your inappropriate use of fascism fails the test of logic. You are using a perjorative term - which generally should be avoided in a civilized conversation in order to alleviate the overblown emotions that result - and using it incorrectly.
But we're really just splitting hairs on this. The more important part is the following.
Second, your dismissal of bin Laden's social commentary is a sign of blindness. Why do you think the death and fear that his terrorism creates hasn't made him a criminal in the eyes of many Arabs (I simply say Arabs, though it probably applies to oppressed peoples the world over)? Simply because his social commentary resounds with them. If you ignore the reasons why people do the things they do, you cannot stop them from doing them. This doesn't mean you coddle every crazy that comes along - but if a terrorist is making what is at least valid comments to his base, you find a way to not make them seem valid. Sometimes that means propaganda - but propaganda can not cover up real suffering when the option is wrapped up in a pretty little bow. So, instead, you cut out the problem. You improve social conditions. Eventually, the force behind terrorist campaigns collapses.
To dismiss your enemy's philosophy without examining it is foolishness. How can you win a war against a cunning enemy who can slip between your cracks if you "don't particularly give a rat's fuzzy behind" about how they think?
The chance of you getting hurt or worse in a terrorist attack is, thankfully, exceedingly remote. Therefore, to act and think in just blind, responsive, emotional terms is not necessary. Until the time that it is, it is imperative that our response is to study and understand - and eventually defeat them. Using perjorative terms and faulty arguments that are not backed up by facts (I'm not talking about you so much as the hunk of crap manifesto posted earlier) does nothing to assist this, and only clouds the issue.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Bin Laden wasn't nationalist only because he couldn't take over a government to become nationalist about.
Most of the Arab world is quite fascist.
This is what I'm talking about. The social inequities of the region, and the tyrannical governments that reinforce them, are what give bin Laden his base. I'd agree that it would quickly turn into nationalism and fascism if given the opportunity. But since he is not really in a position of real power, but just standing on a soapbox, he can't impose his own brand of it.
Islam apparently makes running government by Islamic law part of the religion.
In Saudi Arabia, the nation with the two holiest of Islamic sites, government appointed mullahs call for the total annihilation of all Jews and western "crusaders". The majority believe that bombers are martyrs. Their opinion can't really be called extremist; there, it's mainstream.
As far as Marx goes, tens of millions of people were killed by governments called "Marxist". One Marxist apology is that he was misunderstood and people just didn't get the implementation right somehow. How many tens of millions will die in Marxism Ver. 2?
[/B]
Probably a lot, and that is regrettable. People don't learn from the mistakes of their forefathers. And I think one of the biggest problems is that there are still social inequities, and they spawn these movements. Sometimes they spawn good ones like democracy instead. But they will continue as long as people are truly oppressed.
The political dynamic in Saudi Arabia is very interesting. Those same government appointed clerics are what bin Laden hates, because he thinks they are corrupt. Any deviation from fatwahs that are strictly shari'a in nature are decried by the very vocal, very conservative minority. I can't find it right now, but there was a recent history on Saudi Arabia that showed how the moves to liberalize were killed by that minority - which is generally armed and filled with a great fervor for their cause. The government is constantly being pulled towards them, but still wants to hold onto its wealth (which is its power).
I would say that the Saudi Government is moving away from its anti-Zionism though. It offered to recognise Israel last year, an unprecedented move for it. The resolution gained traction in the OIC, but kind of sputtered out from there. I'm sure you can find hundreds of examples on the opposite side, and I won't necessarily discount them, but I do think this is an important first step.
It's the second half of the Koran that prescribes a system of society (including government). Most interpretations of this are at odds with bin Laden, Qutb, etc. But because its terms can be hidden among quotations, it offers relevance to many.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Marxist by any stretch, and I hope I'm not conveying anything of the sort. I'm not really an adherent to any extremism.
There have always always always been social inequities. Never before has it led to this kind of terroristic reaction. This is different.
That Friedman editorial in that NY Times article from last week said bin Laden's base comes from a very different place than you say it does. The last two paragraphs:
"There are domestic roots for what happened [on Sept. 11]," says Mr. Jamri, "and the root is that if you squash freedom, if you stop freedom of expression, insult this person and just give him money, he transfers all this money into revenge, because of having lost his dignity. We have six people from Bahrain in Guantánamo Bay. One is a member of the ruling family. The other five are . . . from the upper class. And for a young man from the ruling family, who receives a monthly salary, who is 23 years old, to go to Afghanistan to fight, there must be some sort of an explanation."
"There is a vacuum," he said. "You empty a person, you fill him with money, you fill him with material things, but that does not fulfill his aspirations as a human being. He has some objectives. He has feelings. He is not fulfilled. And all of a sudden someone comes and tells him that the cause of all that is this global power [America], which has insulated us, which continues to look at us as a bunch of nothings, who are basically eating and sleeping and going after women. And all of a sudden he directs his anger at what he thinks is the reason why he doesn't have what he wants — his sense of being a true human able to express himself and having influence on his society and being respected locally and internationally. This lack of respect as a dignified person has resulted in a bin Laden phenomenon."
Yes, there have always been inequities, but it wasn't until the tail end of the Industrial Revolution that opposition came to them in the form of terrorism. I'm not sure what the reason for that is.
Terrorists have always come from the elite. The Narodyana Volya, the first modern terrorist group (Russia, 1878-1881) was almost entirely of the intelligentsia and the rich, who couldn't stand to see the inequities going on around them. Their rhetoric was supported by the masses, and it laid the groundwork for the Bolsheviks a few decades later - many of whom were also from the elite.
I think Friedman's right in that the idleness that can come with wealth leads people to be easily taken in by easy reasoning. Most cult members, for example, are of the rich, or at least the intelligent class. I don't think this is a bin Laden phenomenon; it's been going on since terrorism began.
There are generally three levels to any terrorist organization: the leaders, the soldiers, and the sympathizers. When I say bin Laden't base, I'm referring more to the sympathizers, who don't take part in any terrorist action.
Originally posted by hermit22
Where in here does this talk about religion?
That's the problem. This movement seeks to erase the distinction between religon and government. If they achieve their goals, they will be one and the same, and in absolute control.
A semi-valid argument could be made that bin Laden is looking for a pan-Arab Islamic state
That's "semi-valid" in the same sense that water is "semi-wet". It's only not valid in the sense that the ultimate goal is larger than that...today pan-Arabia, tomorrow the world.
Yes, he wants to rid the world of the infidel (the US), but the US is not the whole world. (He does extend the fatwah against the West.)
Is that supposed to comfort me? The ultimate ambition of this movement is global domination with your "interesting social commentary" as a dogmatic base. .
What he is calling for is more of a religious movement that has political implications - not a political movement.
By their own words these people will not rest until there is notpolitics other than their religion. How long will you spin around in this shell-game of "it's religious....no, it's political and social"
Fascism was really a 20th century secular movement in Europe. In the end, though, actions can take on a fascistic nature - but that doesn't make a movement fascism.
Well, since we're in the 21st Century now, by that reasoning there can be no more fascism...I suppose we can all relax.
"Actions can take on a fascistic nature - but that doesn't make a movement fascism." You really don't think that's doublespeak?
"It can't be fascism because fascism is secular..." (Of course you just got telling us that this is a social movement, not a religious one) It can't be fascism because fascism is European...These are "actions of fascistic nature", but it's unfair and perjorative and emotionally loaded to actually call them fascism.
Second, your dismissal of bin Laden's social commentary is a sign of blindness.
No, it's a sign that my priorities differ from yours. I don't move someone's social commentary to the head of the line because he's a terrorist. That's how you advance on a threat list, not how you advance a point of view. I won't reward a terrorist by making his priorities mine.
This doesn't mean you coddle every crazy that comes along - but if a terrorist is making what is at least valid comments to his base, you find a way to not make them seem valid...You improve social conditions. Eventually, the force behind terrorist campaigns collapses.
No, that's allowing him to seize control of your agenda...which amounts to coddling every crazy that comes along.
To dismiss your enemy's philosophy without examining it is foolishness. How can you win a war against a cunning enemy who can slip between your cracks if you "don't particularly give a rat's fuzzy behind" about how they think?
Oh, I *do* care how they think. It's the social commentary I'm dismissing (or more accurately, leaving in it's proper place in the pile). How they think tactically is very much a matter of concern.
The chance of you getting hurt or worse in a terrorist attack is, thankfully, exceedingly remote....Until the time that it is, it is imperative that our response is to study and understand...
Nonsense. Would you have given that same speech at the WTC between the first attack there and September 11? I suppose you probably would have.
Do you really expect me, to use your word, "coddle" this movement just because the probability that I personally--as opposed to one of my countrymen--will be attacked is low, based on the fact that we're just shy of 300 million in population and their current weapons are 'limited'? At least until they really get hold of some of the nifty WMD they've been seeking...
"Don't worry about that sniper in the high-rise, there's lots of people on this street; chances are he won't target you personally. Besides, so far he only has a bolt-action rifle, his rate of fire is really feeble. Most reports place him *days* away from a grenade launcher or full-auto weapon. Right now you should be studying his demands, they're based on very interesting social commentary, you should try to understand the terrible injustices that force him to murder people at random..."
Look, anywhere these people's version of sharia law is imposed, I personally will be executed. No question about it. Sorry if my sympathy level for their interesting points of view is very low...I'm just so unfair, biased and blind as to use perjoratives to describe them. But if they catch me, they'll push a stone wall over on me.
There's a bias for you.
Using perjorative terms and faulty arguments that are not backed up by facts (I'm not talking about you so much as the hunk of crap manifesto posted earlier).
The manifesto is a statement of another point of view.
Consider it a counter-fatwa.
The chance of you getting hurt or worse in a terrorist attack is, thankfully, exceedingly remote. Therefore, to act and think in just blind, responsive, emotional terms is not necessary. Until the time that it is, it is imperative that our response is to study and understand - and eventually defeat them.
Can't stop thinking about these sentences. Quick followups.
- When you say "study and understand", do you mean the rest of the entire world has to do this, or is it okay if a few really bright people at the state department do it? Because frankly "Friends" is finding a second wind this season with stronger writing, and I don't really have any extra time to devote to reading the Quran until maybe the Spring.
- If at the end of all this studying and understanding, we find that they have deeply-held but irrational beliefs that all the Jews and westerners should all be killed or enslaved, would it *then* be okay to inform them of our counter-opinion via JDAM? Or do we try UN sanctions.
- The small odds of me personally getting randomly killed in terrorism are somehow not a comfort. I would rather nobody get randomly killed in terrorism.
I've decided to not bother answering MaggieL right now; this discussion is dead, and I think she has proven her reputation here. Nothing I can say here will do anything to open her mind.
But Undertoad: you crack me up. :)
I think, however, that anyone who wants to have any interest in the world should try to have a basic understanding of the major conflicts outside of the soundbites of network news. The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, but that's only successful when the people are educated. Of course, no one except the experts can be expected to know everything about a field - that's why they're experts. I suggest, if you're really interested in understanding the theoretical basis, picking up Ibrahim Abu-Rabi's "Intellectual Origins of Islamic Resurgence in the Modern Arab World." It gives a pretty good overview of modern Islamic thought.
Obviously, actions can not always be done on the basis of a total understanding; but they must be predicated by an attempt and a willingness to do so. And appropriate action should take place under any credible means, including launching missiles into taxi cabs.
I bring up the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack because it is this realization that allows people to think logically; outside of the fear that currently holds America hostage. The fear holds rational thought hostage as well.
Originally posted by hermit22
I've decided to not bother answering MaggieL right now; this discussion is dead, and I think she has proven her reputation here. Nothing I can say here will do anything to open her mind.
But Undertoad: you crack me up. :)
So, you're not actually going to answer Tony's second question either? I thought he asked a valid one, not rhetorical at all, even though it was framed humorously.
Originally posted by hermit22
I've decided to not bother answering MaggieL right now; this discussion is dead, and I think she has proven her reputation here.
I think she ripped the guts out of your specious little argument and had them for lunch. But that's just me. YMMV.
Maggie, you've proven that you don't like to read my posts before you comment on them. I did answer his questions. Go back and read my posts and you'll see that.
Hubris Boy, I decided that I have already refuted all of Maggie's arguments, and continuing the conversation would just repeat myself. I don't have time to do that.
Originally posted by hermit22
Maggie, you've proven that you don't like to read my posts before you comment on them. I did answer his questions. Go back and read my posts and you'll see that.
I read it repeatedly, I don't see any answer to Tony's second question....unless it's possibly buried in that incoherent sentence about missiles and taxicabs. I can only make that tentative connection because it's possible you might think a JDAM is a missile, and because you're saying you did respond to the question. It's a huge reach, though. How a taxicab might enter into this I have no idea.
"Appropriate action taking place under credible means" almost sounds like English but it fails to scan, for me at least. Actions don't take place "under" means. Actions might possibly be executed *by* means, the means being the instrumentatilty of the action. But I have no clue as to which actions and means you're referring to.
Can you paraphrase your response more directly? Remeber, the question was "<i>If at the end of all this studying and understanding, we find that they have deeply-held but irrational beliefs that all the Jews and westerners should all be killed or enslaved, would it *then* be okay to inform them of our counter-opinion via JDAM?</I>"
"Yes" or "No, because..." might be understandable answers.
Just on background, a JDAM is a Joint Direct Attack Munition, an air-launched precision-guided gravity bomb.
"Appropriate action " under "credible means" is what I said, and I stand by it. Read it. Get a dictionary, if you can't understand what that means. You'll see that under can mean to be covered - which, in this sense, implies that the actions are committed with credible reasoning. It can also mean that it is subject to something - the credible reasoning. So I don't care if you think it's improper English - it really isn't, and the meaning is clear. If not, here's an equally succinct version: Any action has to be appropriate and credible. Does that make you feel any better?
The people killed in Yemen last week were riding in a taxicab - thus my reference to one. I admit, I made an error in calling a bomb a missile, but that's the first error in this whole conversation - and a minor one at that. But you seem to like to ignore the big discussion, and focus on unimportant semantics.
You're gonna have to cut me some slack here in figuring out what you are talking about. "Means" are not "reasons" or "justifications", they are "methods" or "instrumentalities". "Means" can't be "credible"; they are either effective or ineffective.
Terrorists killed by the CIA in the middle of Yemeni desert in a car filled with comms gear and explosives (a "taxicab" if you like, I suppose a GPS could be used to compute fares) seems to have little connection to Tony's question about "delivering our counteropinion with a JDAM". The Predator attack wasn't particularly ideological, it was self-defense. I assume Tony is referring to an attack on a state-owned target somewhat bigger than an auto, like a building--you know, like the Pentagon or the WTC-- using a JDAM on a single vehicle makes no sense. The Predator attack was delivered with a Hellfire missile. JDAMs were used tactically in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and will probably be used if a war happens in Iraq.
So, with that distraction out of the way, again: was the answer to Tony's question "yes" or "no"?
I will not engage in this semantic debate. You are incorrect, and oblivious to the intentions of the statement. Furthermore, you have demonstrated an absolute refusal to listen to my arguments. It is not worth my time to try to engage in such a discussion. No wonder your posts got deleted a while back.
All it would take is "yes" or "no"...is that so hard? "Appropriate action by credible means", to the extent that it says anything, reads to me as 100% weasel words.
If you can't or won't paraphrase it, or even nail it down as to agreeing with or disagreeing with Tony's proposition, it leaves me skeptical that you actually intend any fixed meaning by it whatsoever.
I'm not "oblivious to your intent", I only asked you to state your meaning plainly and with less ambiguity, rather than leaving enough wiggle room for your friends free to act as they please while you condem their enemies for similar behavior. Because *that's* the intent I'm perceiving right now.
"Semantics" is the study of the meaning of language; if you won't clarify your meaning, you can expect semantics to enter the discussion at some point.
I've clarified my meaning twice. I refuse to give carte blanche either way. You have to respond in an appropriate manner, or you are engaging in the same type of behavior as the extremists you're protesting.
And who the hell are my friends? If you're trying to imply that I'm linked to terrorism or extremism in any way...I work and study incredibly hard so that I can get a job combatting it. So don't even try to paint me in such a corner.
Originally posted by hermit22
I've clarified my meaning twice.
If you are not providing clarity, you can't be said to be clarifying. All you have said is "I say what I said and that's what I meant, go look it up". You refuse to simply say clearly that you either agree with or disagree with the proposition, so that falls somewhat short of "clarifying".
All I'm seing is a fig leaf of ambiguity that tries to cover the gap in your double standard with fog. Say clearly yea or nay, admit you won't respond...or leave it to everyone to reach that conclusion anyway.
There's no double standard. It's called rationality, not extremism. You're calling for a definite answer to an uncertain question, and I provided you with a rational answer that says basically, if you would learn to comprehend what you read, that appropriate credible action is necessary and recommended. That's an unequivocable yes if a specific action is appropriate and an unequivocable no if it is not. You can not expect someone to foresee what will happen in the future and make a blanket permissive statement. That's like saying "Billy is a smart kid, so I respect and admire every action he ever does." That's foolishness, and it is even more foolish to apply that to a nation-state.
So it seems to me that your hang up that you think the world is black and white, right and wrong, good and evil; with no grey area. Well, I'm sorry, but you need to wake up. There is little to no such delineation in the world. It is almost all grey.
So...terrorist violence is an appropriate means of expressing idiology? Tony posed a specific example. Simply saying that "appropriate things are appropriate" is kind of empty.
The example you rung in of the Predator Hellfire strike certainly wasn't motivated by idiology, it was a tactical response to a tactical situation: someone the CIA knew to have attacked an US warship was detected enganging in further operations in that same country, and they interdicted him with violence. His idiology--the *reasons* for his attacks--were not at issue, nor do I think they should have been.
This brings us back to my earlier point: when a group attempts to advance it's politicsl and idiology by commiting acts of violence against any target they think will generate attention or sympathy, it's beyond foolish for the group attacked to allow such acts to actually advance that idiology on their own agenda.
This is why you don't humor a child who throws a tantrum; if you reinforce such behavior by rewarding it, you will only encourage more of the same.
The way I analyse Tony's hypothetical is:
You have offered the opinion that "now that the-group-that-shouldn't-be-called-fascist-or-islamic is comitting terrorist violence on Western targets, the West should pay more attention to the interesting social insights propounded by the group. That the West does not do so is evidence of Western religious and cultural prejudice and blindness".
Tony's response in this framework might be presented: "Very well, if the West does study these ideas as you propose, but concludes they are mistaken, is attempting to advance *our* ideas by picking targets for their terror value and obliterating them an appropriate response?"
"Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander", you see.
But Mags, now you've taken my rather flip statement further than I ever would, and it makes me look bad. I don't want to kill people just because they think differently, I want to kill them when they proclaim loudly that they want to kill me and then prepare to do so.
I guess the point is that I'm not really all that concerned with WHY they want to kill me. If they want to kill me, that is enough. I'm not going to fucking study why I should be killed or enslaved. To me, after they decide they want to kill me, their philosophy is no longer deserving of study. It's deserving of termination wth extreme prejudice.
Originally posted by Undertoad
I don't want to kill people just because they think differently, I want to kill them when they proclaim loudly that they want to kill me and then prepare to do so...
Well...I certainly didn't mean to suggest that either you or I believed your hypothetical was something that *should* be done.
The point of it as I saw it was that by turning the situation around as you did, you were highlighting why the *original* violence was, to use the delicate term, "inappropriate"--a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>. This is why I pointed out that the Predator Hellfire attack wasn't idiological, it was self-defense.
I guess the point is that I'm not really all that concerned with WHY they want to kill me. If they want to kill me, that is enough.
That was my point exactly, before. But when I said I "didn't give a rat's fuzzy behind" about this idiology, I simply got a lecture on my lack of sensitivity to all the "interesting social observations" these people have made, and how unlikely it was that I personally might be a direct victim anytime soon. Apologists who say "Oh, there's no need for such an overreaction, a big country like ours should calmly take a few hits so these poor oppressed people can buy some press" are way off-base.
Again...advancing an idiology by sponsoring attacks on prominent high-value targets is *not* a legitimate method, and it's wrong-headed to cast a defensive response to such an attack as idiological.
Originally posted by Undertoad
I guess the point is that I'm not really all that concerned with WHY they want to kill me. If they want to kill me, that is enough. I'm not going to fucking study why I should be killed or enslaved. To me, after they decide they want to kill me, their philosophy is no longer deserving of study. It's deserving of termination wth extreme prejudice.
That's all well and good -if- you have some way of guaranteeing your moral superiority. Even if you intend to avoid pissing people off, what's to say something out of your power wouldn't compell people to want to kill you? Diplomacy goes both ways; if you don't want people trying to kill you, it would probably help to not kill them at the drop of a hat.
Mind you, I fully understand what you're saying in the current context. I just think it's a particularly limited and short-sighted policy, applicable only to situations in which you're clearly on the side of Good and Light. How well will 'terminate with extreme prejudice' work when you're not dealing with morally ambiguous small countries or terrorists?
My biggest gripe about politics is the short-sighted and self-centered approach most people seem to have. If our goal is to <a href="http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/pd.html">survive</a>, wouldn't we be best off doing some sort of mutually-beneficial-make-people-like-and-respect-us thing?
--Sk
(edit: I suck at the grammar.)
Once they decide they want to kill me, they have given up that moral high ground.
I don't need everybody to like and/or respect me. In a civil society we can figure out how to get along anyway. I don't really like or respect the Amish, but I do buy their fine baked goods from time to time.
If you've decided to kill another, preemptively, do you still have the moral high ground?
Is there any circumstance in which you don't have the moral high ground?
Originally posted by Skunks
Mind you, I fully understand what you're saying in the current context. I just think it's a particularly limited and short-sighted policy, applicable only to situations in which you're clearly on the side of Good and Light.
Actually it's a tactical policy applicable to situations where you're under direct attack. Which is that "current context" you're talking about, no?
If our goal is to survive, wouldn't we be best off doing some sort of mutually-beneficial-make-people-like-and-respect-us thing?
Sure. :-) We'll just be...*nice*, and everybody will like us. Everybody. Except that tiny minority who have already declared 1) we're devilspawn and 2) they're ordained by God to set us to rights by the sword.
1) isn't really that big a deal, it's 2) that calls for some more energetic action.
Originally posted by NicName
Is there any circumstance in which you don't have the moral high ground?
Doggonit, I must have missed the episode where self-defense became immoral.
Undertoad
I guess the point is that I'm not really all that concerned with WHY they want to kill me.
Then you can't make any judgement call about their culture, their history, their political system, their society, their current belief systems, and their motivations. You cannot claim any sort of moral right. You are aware that you could 'know more', but you refuse to. Willful ignorance equals moral inferiority, simple as that.
If they want to kill me, that is enough.
They are of course wrong in wanting to kill you; but to use willful ignorance as a shield from finding out the reason why somebody would reach a state in which he wants your death is criminally narrow-minded.
I'm not going to fucking study why I should be killed or enslaved.
Maybe they want to kill you because your government is helping enslave their people? Maybe they want to kill you because your government is spending 1/3rd of its foreign aid to a state that has made racism its modus operandi, with their brethren - some of them completely innocent of anything - as the target?
Does that make their methods right?
No, of course not. Does it make you incredibly ignorant for having
1. The education
2. The financial means (computer, internet)
3. The benefit of a democratic society to exist in
4. The gift of free speech and thought
and throwing it all away in blind hatred, rather than seeking to understand? Learning doesn't equal CONDONING, but in your hatred you don't
want to know. Willful ignorance is your shield, assumed moral superiority resulting from that ignorance is your weapon. How does that make you different from a radical islamist who doesn't
want to know about democracy and science and women's rights and history, and all the good things about the US, merely seeing his people blown up with American weapons and subdued with American money, deciding to blow up the WTC?
That's right. It doesn't.
Ignorance is ignorance. Death is death. Wishing death on other without learning is wrong, either way. Stupidity is stupidity. Closing your eyes out of your own desire is the first link in the chain of terror.
To me, after they decide they want to kill me, their philosophy is no longer deserving of study. It's deserving of termination wth extreme prejudice.
Thus, escalation begins. Unless you are willing to commit genocide, you are the second step in a never-ending war of hate and ignorance.
It's fairly typical, actually, in the current anti-intellectual climate we are living in; seeking to know more and THEN making your judgement is condemned in favour of blind blanket condemnations. That may just be the reason why I find posting here subjected to increasing hostility: the praising of an anti-"idiotarian" manifesto, broadly painting all of different beliefs as idiots, is just another example of the aforementioned climate.
MaggieL
Doggonit, I must have missed the episode where self-defense became immoral
Oh dear. I must have missed the episode where murdering hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians who can barely read or write in a Third World country, lest alone organize resistance against their dictatorial oppressors, became immoral.
It happened. It'll happen again. Where does self-defense end, and murder begin? How smart are those smart bombs really?
Self-defense ends the second you kill an innocent. If you want to seek the high moral ground, try not to kill any children. I forgot. It was the Iraqi and Afghani peasant children's fault that the WTC was blown to bits. They deserved to die.
X.
Originally posted by Xugumad
Self-defense ends the second you kill an innocent.
When innocents are killed as a result of defending against an attack, the culpability belongs to the original attacker.
Simpleminded conclusions like yours are the reason Saddam wrapped his high-value targets with human shields of innocent civilians, and then pumped the resulting casualties for propaganda value.
Rewarding a terrorist by advancing his agenda because he's willing to commit violence for its publicity value is completely wrongheaded, and invites further violence from any nutball who has a cause but lack a concience. And to sit there and accuse those who won't fall for such a ploy of "criminally narrowmindedness" abets the terrorist's crimes.
Originally posted by MaggieL
When innocents are killed as a result of defending against an attack, the culpability belongs to the original attacker.
Keep telling yourself that.
1. The US is keeping the feudal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia in power for political reasons. (Iran is another good example in the Spindle of Atrocity)
2. That dictatorship has oppressed and murdered dozens, if not hundreds of opponents of its authoritarian regime.
3. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, opposed to the current regime, and its cruel actions, all sponsored by the US.
4. The victims in the WTC and Pentagon were "killed as a result of defending against an attack" by the US on the Saudi people.
All of the above are logically consistent with your line of argument.
They are also wrong. How can you be so naive?
Simple-inded conclusions like yours are the reason Saddam wrapped his high-value targets with human shields of innocent civilians, and then pumped the resulting casualties for propaganda value.
I assume those human targets are the fault Saddam is still there? Why, exactly, has he not been removed in the past decade since he proved to be such a trouble-maker in the middle east? Why is the US listening to the UN and letting him off the hook with some weapons inspections when he should be removed for being such a collossal villain? Where is the consistency and logic in such a foreign policy approach?
Ah. I see.
Rewarding a terrorist by advancing his agenda because he's willing to commit violence for its publicity value is completely wrongheaded, and invites further violence from any nutball who has a cause but lack a concience.
And to happily murder hundreds of innocent Third World civilians because remote bombings are so much cleaner and less problematic, domestic-policy wise, than an actual invasion, is of course not wrongheaded at all.
CNN doesn't give a damn about dead foreign children, felled by smart bombs. CNN does give a damn about crying American mothers, weeping at the loss of the soldiers who would have fallen in an invasion. Wake up.
And to sit there and accuse those who won't fall for such a ploy of "criminally narrowmindedness" abets the terrorist's crimes.
You didn't read my post properly, that quotation applied to willful ignorance. I still condemned terrorist actions, considering them to be wrong, and I didn't say that dealing with the issue is wrong. It didn't stop you from implying meaning where there was none.
After all, how could we talk about this issue without painting everyone to the left of Ashcroft as (dangerous traitorous commie) peaceniks who are betraying the American people and support terrorism? The David Horowitz school of character assassination seems to be taking students this year.
"Abets the terrorist's crimes", indeed.
(And that a supporter of ESR's political views could possibly consider someone else to be "simple-minded" is rather fascinating..)
X.
X, just a quick request, is there any way you could present your argument without being such a complete and total ass about it? Thanks.
OK, taking it one step at a time:
1) Terrorists commit violent acts directly and deliberately against noncombatant civilian targets to advance their political aims; a violent vehicle with a propaganda payload.
2)The terrorists then conceal themselves among the shelter of *another* noncombatant civilian population, and then paint the unintended results of any response aganst them as indiscriminant slaughter of innocents by the victims of the original attack, their fault for not bowing to the terrorist's agenda in the first place.
3) To then criticise the victims of the original attack for their failure to embrace the intended propaganda effect of the original attack as "narrowminded" or "blind" is to intentionally work to advance the goals and increase the effectiveness of the original attack, no matter how much self-righteous hand-wringing accompanies it attempting to achieve distance from complicity in the evil of the original attack.
What an arrogant, cowardly, cynical shell game: kill one batch of innocents for publicity, kill another bunch as camoflage, and then blame it all on your enemies.
First off, thanks for jumping in X. I was getting tired of Maggie not listening to anything I had to say.
That being said, I have more to say to her. :)
They don't necessarily conceal themselves among *another* group of people. Most terrorists come from a society that has at least some support behind them. For any terrorist to succeed, they have to have that support. Otherwise, they'll be turned in straight away. Look at it this way: it is estimated that for every terrorist 'soldier' there are 35 people in the support network - and that doesn't even count the sympathizers.
Your third argument is flawed simply because you can't understand what either I or X are saying. We're not saying that the victims of terror should "embrace" the terrorist propaganda. What we are saying is that there are reasons why these terrorists are not shunned by their communities. Most propaganda is based on a grain of truth, which is used as the starting point for a series of lies. But that little bit of truth, something that rings true to their base, has to be there for them to garner any kind of support. Then they are caught in the net, and are more willing to listen to any of the lies that follow.
So we are not arguing for the terrorists. We are arguing that the reasonings behind the terrorist's philosophy need to be understood if we are ever going to eliminate them. Killing a few, we have seen, is just a Band-Aid. More spring up in other parts of the world. (You could say that the same is true for the spread of Communism.) You have to show that they are wrong, and myopic declarations of their evil nature do nothing to advance this.
So we aren't arguing along the same lines as the terrorists. If anything, you are. Terrorists, especially religious terrorists, promote every struggle to the level of "cosmic war." Suddenly, they are fighting for the will of God, and their enemies are the enemies of God. What you are doing is the same thing. We live in a more secular society, so our concepts of "God" and "infidel" boil down to "good" and "evil." You are doing this, Maggie. You are painting anyone with a dissenting viewpoint as on the side of terrorists and therefore bad. Your delineations are along the same lines as the terrorists - just the sides are flipped.
I think that these people are evil. They have evil intentions. But to paint them as such without bothering to understand their evilness is to play right into their game (the one you outlined directly above). It promotes argument 3 in the minds of the people in argument 2, and the ranks of the terrorists grow.
I don't pretend to know that I have all of the answers, nor do I claim to be an expert on terrorism. I have done a little study, though, and it has taught me that this form of quick delineation does little good in forming a complete and cohesive policy. That is why I object to it.
Originally posted by hermit22
I think that these people are evil. They have evil intentions. But to paint them as such without bothering to understand their evilness is to play right into their game ...
If they are already evil, to see them as such requires no painting; it's there to behold.
*I* think their "grain of truth"--your words--being only a grain, has already had such study as it deserves; and commiting more terrorism doesn't entitle it to more consideration. Should we now devote deep study to the rest--lies, by your own definition--that accompany it?
I think their evilness is already well-understood; will this additional study yield some new enlightenment as to their goals, means, or anything else for that matter? Or is it just what it appears to be: a bid for mindshare at gunpoint? Since you're such an exponent for this, do share with us some of the insights you've gained from your own broadminded inquiry.
Originally posted by Undertoad
X, just a quick request, is there any way you could present your argument without being such a complete and total ass about it? Thanks.
X's posts were just fine - no more belligerent than, say, MaggieL's posts. Unless anyone with an opposing argument happens to be an ass.
Originally posted by MaggieL
I think their evilness is already well-understood; will this additional study yield some new enlightenment as to their goals, means, or anything else for that matter? Or is it just what it appears to be: a bid for mindshare at gunpoint? Since you're such an exponent for this, do share with us some of the insights you've gained from your own broadminded inquiry.
Understanding the dissenting viewpoint is necessary not merely in combatting the terrorists but in ensuring greater safety of innocent people. The masses are the ones with the most power when it comes to making sure that innocent people are not killed, but its precisely the masses who are most endangering innocents of dissenting viewpoint by proclaiming them to be evil and ignoring their pain.
People don't commit terrorist acts just because they're bored or because the Great Satan needs some bleeding, they commit the acts because something is fundamentally wrong in their society.
And societal troubles are important. If we're doing something to endanger a society but refuse to recognize how it hurts others, we only hinder ourselves in solving the terrorist problem. You don't punch a man in the teeth and then act suprised when he punches back.
Originally posted by Kutz
People don't commit terrorist acts just because they're bored or because the Great Satan needs some bleeding, they commit the acts because something is fundamentally wrong in their society.
They commit terrorist acts because they believe they have something to *gain* thereby, whether they're the thug who wants to finance his crack appetite with your wallet or an ex-Saudi spoiled rich kid who yearns to be repatriated as a popular hero, and doesn't care who dies in the process.
I'm sure both of them will tell us "society is to blame".
Originally posted by MaggieL
They commit terrorist acts because they believe they have something to *gain* thereby, whether they're the thug who wants to finance his crack appetite with your wallet or an ex-Saudi spoiled rich kid who yearns to be repatriated as a popular hero, and doesn't care who dies in the process.
I'm sure both of them will tell us "society is to blame".
That's an unfair blanket statement.
It is very probable that terrorism will always exist simply because, as you stated, terrorist acts can be committed by simple thugs looking for money, drugs, or glory.
The fact is, however, that there are a great many terrorists and potential terrorists out there with serious ideals which are their most powerful driving force when it comes to committing terrorist acts.
When some disgrace to humanity uses the excuse "society is to blame," they effectively mar the power and truth of the phrase as you pointed out. And, without investigation, you're correct in saying that it's an impossibly weak excuse.
However, those terrorists or fanatics who truly believe in their cause will use that same excuse, and our best hope is to actually pay attention. If we can calm the situation - pacify those who are truly upset to the point of willfully comitting suicide - then we are only helping the situation.
True, terrorism will most likely always exist partially for the reasons you described. But there are many kinds of criminals out there, and it only helps to try.
Originally posted by Kutz
That's an unfair blanket statement...the fact is...that there are a great many terrorists and potential terrorists out there with serious ideals
You actually believe binLaden & Co. acts out of deep principles and serious ideals rather than selfish opportunism? Personally, I don't buy it.; your pronouncement of your belief to be "the fact" doesn't make it one.
When this crew directly threatens me with death--very directly, mind you; their proclaimed "religious beliefs" call for my personal immediate execution should they somehow gain dominon over me--it becomes pretty much impossible to impress me with how principled you think their stand is.
But there are many kinds of criminals out there, and it only helps to try.
Sorry. My own patience with them is exhausted. The harm in "trying" is that it diverts attention and energy from more deserving pursuits.
Originally posted by MaggieL
You actually believe acts out of deep principles and serious ideals rather than selfish opportunism? Personally, I don't buy it.; your pronouncement of your belief to be "the fact" doesn't make it one.
When this crew directly threatens me with death--very directly, mind you; their proclaimed "religious beliefs" call for my personal immediate execution should they somehow gain dominon over me--it becomes pretty much impossible to impress me with how principled you think their stand is.
Actually it is not a matter if any of us believe it. What matters is if bin Laden & Co. believe it. I for one think they do. People who are in things for personal gain don't fly in airplanes they know will dive into buildings! So at least some of &Co. are acting out of their deep principles and beliefs which by their actions they prove their seriousness.
It is possible; I suppose that bin Laden could be the, Baker-Swaggart-Farwell of Islam. But those sorts usually align themselves with the powers that be and use the money extorted from widows and orphans to buy airplanes, diamond mines, and caddies. They certainly don't live in caves like the dessert fathers did. And while they rant against the powerless like un-wed-mothers in need of abortions, they don't follow in the footsteps of Girolamo Savonarola and beard the governing powers for their misdeeds. Again there is not much use for personal gain when you're hiding from 2000# bombs in caves and under rocks and have hundreds of armed drones looking for your ass. That sort of thing makes it hard to spend your millions on anything but guns.
In point of fact Kutz is right. Drug Lords and other normal criminals have a healthy respect for their own asses. People that "know" they will go to heaven because they are doing "God's Will" don't give a rat’s ass what happens to them personally. If you don't respect that, what ever your personal feelings, and act accordingly your ass is going to get burnt as per 9/11.
Originally posted by Chefranden
Actually it is not a matter if any of us believe it. What matters is if bin Laden & Co. believe it. I for one think they do.
But....didn't you just say that your belief about it didn't matter? :-)
People who are in things for personal gain don't fly in airplanes they know will dive into buildings!
So at least some of &Co. are acting out of their deep principles and beliefs which by their actions they prove their seriousness.
I don't doubt the islamo-fascists *seriousness*; I take their deadly intent very seriously. Hence this entire thread.
We haven't seen binLaden or Zawahiri themselves flying any airplanes into buildings. And even their minons who did were convinced a martyr's reward awaited them personally at the end of the tunnel. This doesn't demonstrate that the movement as a whole is "principled", any more than Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite or others of their ilk were. How much time have we all spent studying *their* beliefs for "interesting social insights"--beyond adding to the demagogery HOW-TO?
Of course, <b>they</b> only killed members of their own cult. These folks have higher ambitions than that.
Originally posted by MaggieL
We haven't seen binLaden or Zawahiri themselves flying any airplanes into buildings. And even their minons who did were convinced a martyr's reward awaited them personally at the end of the tunnel. This doesn't demonstrate that the movement as a whole is "principled", any more than Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite or others of their ilk were. How much time have we all spent studying *their* beliefs for "interesting social insights"--beyond adding to the demagogery HOW-TO?
Actually, it's a pretty well-researched subject in Sociology and psychology. The difference, of course, is that they are researching it, and not making blanket statements based on a few soundbytes.
Originally posted by MaggieL
But....didn't you just say that your belief about it didn't matter? :-)
I know I can be dense sometimes but I don't understand your confusion.
I don't doubt the islamo-fascists *seriousness*; I take their deadly intent very seriously. Hence this entire thread.
Its good that we can agree on something, even if I don't think that lableing is very productive.
We haven't seen binLaden or Zawahiri themselves flying any airplanes into buildings. And even their minons who did were convinced a martyr's reward awaited them personally at the end of the tunnel. This doesn't demonstrate that the movement as a whole is "principled", any more than Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite or others of their ilk were. How much time have we all spent studying *their* beliefs for "interesting social insights"--beyond adding to the demagogery HOW-TO?
A few Points
1. Leaders seldom take the role of foot soldier. We didn't see Mr. Bush or even Mr. Rumsfeld off loading from a c5 galaxy with a hundred pound pack and an M-16 either. Though I'd like to see them get the experience they missed back in the 60's no one really expects it to happen. We expect them to stay home and practice their "demagoguery" so we can stay stirred up enough to be willing to kill and maim a few thousand "rag heads" as an answer to our problems.
2. Just because a person or an organization doesn't hold your principles doesn't make them un-principled though people often believe that it does. It seems that is something you may hold in common with bin Laden as he seeks to eliminate you (and the rest of us) because he believes us to be un-principled, just as you believe him to be. You see him as evil and he sees you as evil. You believe that his death will be righteous, and he believes that your death will be righteous. And perhaps you both believe that trial by combat will decide the issue.
3. I wouldn't lump bin Laden or &Co. in with Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite and their followers. Applewhite stirred only a few 10s of people and Jones only a few hundred, where as bin Laden has stirred millions beyond his immediate group to want to kill and maim a few thousand "infidels" as an answer to their problems.
4. I wouldn't dismiss Islam a souce of social insight because of bin Laden any more then I would dismiss Christianity as such a source because of Jones. (I would dismiss comets though.) Though an athiest, I agree with much that is written in scripture such as: [COLOR=red]“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the
RE-publicans the same? kjv Matt. 5:43-46 [italics mine] [/COLOR] I would like to add something simular from the Koran but I am too ignorant of it.
5. I don't see bin Laden as "evil" but he is an enemy. I will explain that in a differant post if you like, because this one is getting too long.
Of course, they only killed members of their own cult. These folks have higher ambitions than that.
Absolutely! They wish to eliminate evil.
Originally posted by Chefranden
I can be dense sometimes but I don't understand your confusion.
Oh, I'm not confused. Just amused.
...even if I don't think that lableing is very productive.
Everybody in-thread has been using their own labeling. Since I doubt we agree on what's "productive", we surely won't agree on "productive labelling".
I wouldn't dismiss Islam a souce of social insight because of bin Laden any more then I would dismiss Christianity...
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.
It seems that is something you may hold in common with bin Laden as he seeks to eliminate you (and the rest of us) because he believes us to be un-principled, just as you believe him to be.
Not at all. I seek to eliminate him and his coreligionists <i>because they seek to kill me</i>, and will if they can.
This isn't about ideology, it's about survival. If they weren't seeking <i>my</i> 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.
Absolutely! They wish to eliminate evil.
Well, "they seek to kill people in addition to their own cult members", is the distinction I was thinking of; this doesn't require us to agree on something as abstract as "evil".
You do say...
bin Laden has stirred millions beyond his immediate group to want to kill and maim a few thousand "infidels" as an answer to their problems.
How admirable. But "a few thousand"? You don't do your heroes justice; they're ready to kill a few thousands of *millions*--anyone who resists, in fact.--to establish their brand of religion in global control. binLaden has been very effective compared to the other cult leaders, but then he has a budget many orders of magnitude greater....money talks.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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/
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.
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.
How instructional. He chose no particular target because all targets were equivalently attackable -- not because of their politics, but because of their infidel status.
Oooh! Oooh! I wanna be an infidel! Pick me pick me pick me!!!
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:
[COLOR=blue]I am the good guy[/COLOR] , [COLOR=red]bin Laden is the evil guy.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]I am the good guy[/COLOR] , [COLOR=blue]Maggie is the evil guy.[/COLOR]
bin Laden's argument:
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.
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.
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.
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".
.
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)
X, I resent not making your list. Maybe its my own fault for getting tired of the inconclusive discussions and moving on. Up until 911 the folks here were pretty rational about this stuff, since 911 they've lost their minds, but thats representative of the rest of the country. I've been throwing the Chalmers Johnson at them occasionally but have made no headway. I was quite pleased when you picked up the baton and was quite willing to let you run with it. Maybe we should have spelled you, I daresay the rest of us enjoyed your input. Come back any time, yours is a valuable voice here.
My "dig" referenced your style because I refuse to even address arguments so full of ad hominem. I won't talk with people who do that kind of thing with malicious intent, why should anyone?
I will miss you if you go, but I press you with this: why would you want to hang around someplace where everyone agrees with you? Why would you be so mad at people who disagree with you? Why do you want to judge them not only incorrect, and ignorant, but aggressively, willfully so?
Most people who disagree with you aren't somehow basically broken; they just come at things from a different point of view than you do. You study things in depth from your direction, and so things that appear to be blatantly obvious to you may be blind spots to others. (And to others, the blatantly obvious for them is sometimes a blind spot for you.)
To take the step of deciding that those who disagree with you are in fact basically faulty is very intellectually dishonest. You do yourself a disservice. By coming to that conclusion, you ignore their points of view entirely. It closes your mind to the fact that there are many points upon which they are right and you are wrong. You think you cannot learn from them, so there is no point to sticking around.
See, nobody is always right. I made that my user title partly to remind myself that I'm sometimes wrong. Probably often wrong. The goal is not to be insecure in my own thoughts, but to allow myself to learn from others.
So when you say "you are wrong" in big bold letters -- call me "incredibly ignorant", "naive", etc. -- hey, I agree with you. I also find that it says much more about you than it does about me.
X, you can't go. It will just thin our numbers on this board. Do you really want to see this board become dominated by people like Maggie?
X, leave and I eat your brains.
MaggieL, be so kind as to educate us on the constitution of your evolved moral compass.
It must lack exclusion of the double standard. There can be no other reason why you would be so quick to dismiss THEIR acts as pure evil and OUR acts as... misunderstandings, perhaps?
Both we and the terrorists have been in the wrong. Nobody is apologizing for them. Nobody wants to send them chocolates and cards of apology. Just as no terrorist is apologizing for US international policy.
And you're right, nobody can just stand around waiting to be attacked. But that isn't what's happening. We're provoking the attack. We continue to provoke the attack, and this knowledge comes as a direct result of studying their motives and beliefs. In such a manner, a change in foreign policy could help to avert further terrorist acts and perhaps save many, many lives.
It's important not to consider the situation in terrible extremes. We are right to try and defend ourselves by preventing further terrorist attacks - but that doesn't necessarily mean fighting back with guns and tanks and smart bombs.
So, is it appeasement, then? No. Appeasement means that we allow a direct plan of aggression. Letting Iraq invade Poland would be appeasement. Letting the Al Qaeda make a few more attacks to avoid trouble would be appeasement. Checking US policy to avoid offending the sovereign rights of others is not appeasement, it's diplomacy.
I'm not saying you're wrong to want to defend yourself, or to be angry at the terrorists who comitted these acts, or to want to fight back. More important than "fighting is wrong" - which is fairly hard to verify - is "fighting sucks." So we have to avoid it when possible. And in this case, avoiding it would probably lend us to the superior alternative.
Originally posted by Xugumad
I wrote very carefully about "civilians" and "innocents" and uninvolved parties.
The victims of the terroist attacks on WTC were 100% "civilians" and "innocents"...in fact they were the *intentional targets* of the attacks. The military *responses* to those attacks have made every effort to *avoid* civilian casualties. It's not a double standard.I just don't accord folks who hijack airplanes and deliberately fly them into buildings full of civilians or wrap themselves in high-explosives and shrapnel and dentonate in a shopping mall the same standing I do to the military who *respond* to those attacks under orders to deny the attackers further sanctuary so they can strike again.
If there's "equivalance" there, I don't see it. I'm not going to be able to reach agreement with someone whose values make those two kinds of acts equivalant; they're colorblind in a range where I see colors. Just because an act is violent doesn't make it automatically wrong. *That's* a moral compass more evolved than "war is evil".
Kutz, what policy are you proposing, exactly? Our "provocation" consists of not simply giving these people what they demand. We don't run our foreign policy based on the wishes of whoever tried to kill us most recently...or even on whose voice is the most strident or empassioned in our own internal discourse.
"Respect for soveriegnty" is all well and good, but it is not absolute. Soveriegn states who cynically and knowingly shelter and support terrorists are engaging in warfare by proxy. Sooner or later sanctions escalate beyond the level of sharply worded diplomatic notes and unenforced Security Council resolutions. Soverign states who invade neighboring soverign states and are defeated in combat live by the terms of a cease-fire or suffer the consequences; just because hostilities are suspended doesn't mean the bazzar is open again.
I agree when you say "it's not wrong to <i>want</I> to defend yourself"...but you seem to insert "want" because you think it's wrong to actually *do* it, and that's where we part company.
(By the way, for people who are upset about ad hominems, in my view "that's a idiotic idea" is an opinion, "you're an idiot" is an epithet or a personality, "you're an idiot therefore your ideas are idiotic" is an ad hominem.)
Oh yah, one more thing X, the reason I drop by the Cellar is for the community of the place. We can get absolutely ugly when we think someone has their head up their tucus but the thing is we can also exchange music info, good reads, meteor talk, gaming if thats your bag, jokes ;) eh David and sometimes we learn something in all these political blood baths. Maybe what you need to do, if you want to make the cellar work for you is to put a little more into the other forums.
Originally posted by MaggieL
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.
When all else fails try Ad Hominem right Maggie? That’s good fascist logic, hey girl! The old if you don’t agree with me you are evil ploy. That’s good. Bin Laden would be proud of you. Hell Himmler would be proud of you. There I feel better. I apologize for the Ad Hominem in return. Sigh, it would appear that I’m no better than you. But not really, because I didn’t mean it.
The victims of the terroist attacks on WTC were 100% "civilians" and "innocents"...in fact they were the *intentional targets* of the attacks. The military *responses* to those attacks have made every effort to *avoid* civilian casualties. It's not a double standard.I just don't accord folks who hijack airplanes and deliberately fly them into buildings full of civilians or wrap themselves in high-explosives and shrapnel and dentonate in a shopping mall the same standing I do to the military who *respond* to those attacks under orders to deny the attackers further sanctuary so they can strike again.
Self defenses takes place at the time of a hostile action, not months afterward. If some evening your neighbor threatens you with a weapon you may take action against him, but you may not go shot him in the morning even if you promise not to shoot his kids unless they are in the way. The action that Mr. Bush plans against Iraq in the near future is not self-defense it is an attack, during a time of no hostile action against us from those people. When the government takes certain actions that it knows will, in spite of being careful, cause thousands of casualties and then “intentionally” caries on with said action it is intentionally causing casualties. Saying oops I didn’t mean it doesn’t count in my book any way and it didn’t used to count in a court of law. If bin Laden were to have said oops I only meant to blow up the 20th floor, you wouldn’t have cut him any slack. Nor should you have. The atrocities of one side of a conflict do not justify atrocities of the other. The moral ball is always in our court, if we act as the enemy acts we are no better than he.
You haven’t made a case for bombing Afghanis, for bombing Iraqis, for killing children, for killing mothers, for killing fathers, or anyone else, except self-defense, which it is not, and worse we are the good guys because we’ll be careful therefore it’s ok.
Hey X, I'll say this again. 95% of people don't consider double-quotes to necessarily mean that someone is being quoted verbatim. Most adults also use them to paraphrase, even to the point of intentional oversimplification in order to make a point.
You jumped my shit when I did it, and now you're whining about Maggie doing the same. Nobody else places the special distinction between single and double quotes that you do, so if you want to communicate with other English-speaking humans, you may as well put your own special grammatical rules aside.
Yes, it's kinda silly for me to even waste a post to say this, but apparently it bears repeating.
Now take your bally and go home.
I'm actually on X's side on the quotes thing, though. Paraphrasing is usually not quoted; putting quotes around it is misrepresenting someone's words. Maybe we need to establish some sort of standard like that around here? It may seem ridiculous, but in order to communicate, you must speak in the language of your audience.
Quotes are used to delimit ironic usage and paraphrase as well. This is what causes people to make little "quote mark" gestures in the air when speaking. Almost always when quoting an actual posting here--especially an entire sentence or more, but even a short phrase when responding to it--I'll use the vB quote markup, unless I want to use a phrase of a few words embedded in a sentence. In an email based forum I'd be using the typical > quoting for quoting another post and conventional quotemarks in rhetoric.
As for single vs. double quotes, I only use them for nested quotes in prose; starting with double quotes on the outermost level.
Some people here make a real fetish of "ad hominem" without apparently understanding the term. Every time a position is deprecated is not an "ad hominem". And it's just amazing how some of the the folks who lead off with outraged an accusation that they've been attacked "ad hominem", and then follow right on with the most amazing abuse that shoots right past being an "ad hominem" into being a direct personal attack.
That said, I will myself indeed use the "ad hominem tu quoque" form when someone takes a position inconsistant with something they've said earlier or elsewhere in another thread. Tough.
Chefranden, what makes someone evil is not their disagreeing with me. The Jihadists can sit in their homeland and disagree with me until the Sun burns out for all I care. What makes them evil is annoucing their intention to impose thier religion on my people, and kill me in the process, and then beginning to prosecute their campaign.
Self-defense doesn't always happen over a timespan of minutes, hours, days or even months. When someone has declared their intent to kill you, has the apparent means, and has already executed several successful attacks, what possible obligation could you be under to allow them to continue unless you reach them in hot pursuit?
There *is* no hot pursuit of a suicide bomber.
Here is what Maggie typed:
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".
I think it is painfully obvious that she wasn't actually attempting to attribute the phrase "fighting is bad" as something that X said word for word.
I think that it is an obvious oversimplification in order to make a point. It's as if to say, "this is what your argument boils down to for me." (Whoops, I used double quotes.. no, I'm not implying that Maggie typed those words.)
Now, let's try it without the quotation marks:
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.
Wow, that's pretty darn unreadable.
I might possibly begin to understand why some see the use of quotes there as incorrect, but X went as far as to say that I should have known, from examining all of his previous posts, that <I>single</I> quotes meant intentional paraphrasing, while <I>double</I> quotes meant literal repeating.
That's the distinction I was referring to, and I believe you'd be hard pressed to find many people who attribute the same connotation to them.
not that i'm any kind of an expert ...
but i always thought that single quotes were used to mark a quotation occurring within another quotation ... you know, kind of like curly-brackets, square-brackets, parentheses ...
Well, I'm not going to waste any more thought or words on how I use quotation marks. Certainly not in attempt to humor X, who's so outraged at my characterizing a certain view as "kindergarden level" that he's thrown a tantrum and is now sulking.
Earlier in this thread I alluded to children throwing tantrums to get what they want. Once the tantrum is thrown "reasonable compromise" becomes positive reinforcemnent for tantrum throwing...no mattter what scale it's done on. You guys on the neopacifist tag-team can go chase after him if you like.
What seems to be weaving itself through this thread is a severe case of "I must be right" along with some barbs thrown in for added fun.
Griff, we're gonna put you in the running for either the official sage of the Cellar...or the official kiss-ass. ;)
You make the call. :) As always, you are right on the money Warren.
That settles it Griff...if I run for mayor of Philadelphia this coming year and win, I want you as my Chief of Staff. Yeah, you'll have to spend some time down here in SEPA, but I'll hook you up with a nice apartment over at the Phoenix (b/c you'll have to have an address in the city). Hell, for that matter, I'll find jobs for several members of the Cellar...even if I do that, I won't have nearly as many staff members as John Street currently does. :)
Originally posted by sycamore
...even if I do that, I won't have nearly as many staff members as John Street currently does. :)
But will you have more then he'll have after he gets done laying people off to make budget? After all, he says he's going to cut management first.
Originally posted by MaggieL
But will you have more then he'll have after he gets done laying people off to make budget? After all, he says he's going to cut management first.
So that explains why 2500 jobs will need to be cut. ;)
This whole deficit situation smells like a rat. Unless his union goons start threatening large numbers of people, I don't see him being re-elected next year. More in another thread...
Originally posted by Tobiasly
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.
This wouldn't be the same media that covered the war in Afghanistan and The Persian Gulf would it. You know, the Media that sat in nice safe air condition buildings and reported just what they were told to report. The media that never even protested not being allowed to go where they wanted to go and see what they wanted to see, is that the one. Oh sure I'm sure you are right. I'm sure they will tell the American people the real story behind the curtain of Oz, especially a story that might jepradize Mr. Bush's favorite war to be. Just like they told us every thing about how the government
screwed up on 9/11.Originally posted by MaggieL
...Chefranden, what makes someone evil is not their disagreeing with me. The Jihadists can sit in their homeland and disagree with me until the Sun burns out for all I care. What makes them evil is annoucing their intention to impose thier religion on my people, and kill me in the process, and then beginning to prosecute their campaign.
Self-defense doesn't always happen over a timespan of minutes, hours, days or even months. When someone has declared their intent to kill you, has the apparent means, and has already executed several successful attacks, what possible obligation could you be under to allow them to continue unless you reach them in hot pursuit?
There *is* no hot pursuit of a suicide bomber.
Well you are right there, no hot pursuit needed. That’s one criminal that takes care of himself.
Just for the moment I'm going to agree with your self-defense argument. Since this is Self-defense:
1. How does that justify (carefully of course) killing thousands of people that didn't have anything to do with the act? And once they are dead, how does that make you and your people safer, especially when the killing doesn't even lead to the capture or destruction of the master mind or any of his important people? There are some 1.3 Billion Muslims in the world with some 300 million of those considered to be radical. How many of that 300 million will need to be killed to make you safe Maggie? After all any one of the 300 million might be hiding Osama bin Laden.
2. Are we really in danger of being rubbed out by Osama and friends? Or are there things that are more likely to kill us that perhaps we should spend our money and effort on? Let's see: examining some causes of death in the decade starting in 1991: Heart disease: 7.10million; Cancer: 5.53million; Stroke: 1.68million; Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: 1.22milion; Adverse Reactions to Prescribed Drugs: 1.06million; Accidents: .98million; Diabetes: .69million; Pneumonia, Influenza: .65million; Alzheimer’s Disease; .45million; Nephritis, nephritic syndrome, nephrosis; .36 million; Septicemia: .31million; Suicide: .29million; Homicide: .17million; AIDS: .14million; Terrorist action .003million (or 3001, My reckoning of US citizen terrorist deaths are as follows: Trade towers: 2,726; Waco: 80; Murrah Building: 167; Washington Sniper 10; Bombing of the Kenyan embassy: 12; First bombing of the trade towers: 6; for a total of 3001.).
Well I don't know Maggie, it looks like you and your people are 46 times more likely to die of AIDS then of Osama. Perhaps we should bomb Gay's and Intravenous Druggies. I'm sure the LA, SanFransico and New York, being full of good citizens, won't mind the collateral damage since they know that we are being careful. Seems like we spent $several billion killing a few thousand Afghanis and didn't get Osama. We spent $2.3 million in Africa on the AIDS thing. Are we really using our resources wisely?
Apparently you and your people are 353 times more likely to get rubbed out by prescription drugs. If Osama has you worried you must be absolutely terrified when you open your medicine cabinet. I can see why you are upset. It's enough to give a person a heart attack. Speaking of hearts, you and your people are 2366 times more likely to killed by your own hearts then by Osama. Is that ironic or what? Maybe you should try a pre-emptive strike, Maggie, before your heart has the chance of doing you in.
[edited for spelling by, be]
1. How might the world be safer because there was a strong, resolute response to 9/11? Considering that 9/11 was, in itself, made possible by the lame response to the previous terrorist attacks? Who knows what sort of petro-bucks would be flowing into bin Laden's group right now, if we'd just shrugged and said eh.
2. Why not be honest and calculate your numbers based on economic damage, not simply those immediately killed.
Originally posted by Chefranden
Well I don't know Maggie, it looks like you and your people are 46 times more likely to die of AIDS then of Osama. Perhaps we should bomb Gay's and Intravenous Druggies.
Nice move--baiting and a smear job all at once. Whoever it is that you might think "my people" are, "Gays and IV drug users" is certainly wide of the mark. (Lesbians are not at higher HIV risk than the general population. Bisexual women are perhaps higher-risk than lesbians to the extent of their unprotected sex with men....which probably still leaves them at lower risk than straight women. All irrelevant to the present discussion.)
The people I want stopped *aren't done yet*; by their own claim this is only the beginning. Your pseudoactuarial anaysis is also irrelevant to their ultimate goals. After all, when the Nazis first started out they hadn't actually exterminated many Jews yet either, mostly for lack of opportunity. After a few years of appeasement they managed to create some dandy opportunities, though.
Nor are the Jihadists fairly compared to natural causes of death; there will always be natual causes of death; until we learn to be immortal the aggregate death rate will always be 100%.
I happen to think that dying because you let religious fanatics take over is an especially stupid and ignominious way to go. If that's actually to your liking because (even though you've tried to veil this message a little) "Jihadists aren't so bad because they only want to put queers to death", you should perhaps consider migrating to someplace like Nigeria, where lately they've been demonstrating who else is on their list. You might learn something; not all the lessons about the Jihadists are contained in their fatwas.
Originally posted by MaggieL
I happen to think that dying because you let religious fanatics take over is an especially stupid and ignominious way to go.
Lets not forget that even in the good old USA, this is possible. Unfortunately, our nuts are in the forefront of the movement to take the war to their nuts. Our nuts or heretics (
yikes strong language) from the Catholic/Lutheran/Episcopalian perspective believe they can bring on the second coming by fighting for Israel and converting the Jews. Sounds sorta familiar doesn't it. The
Left Behind series is second only to the Bible in sales to American "Christians."
This weekend marks the end of the Catholic year with the Feast of Christ the King, its a time of reflection for us. The battle between good and evil takes place first and foremost in the human heart where the choice between love and hate is made daily not in some apocolyptic fantasy. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we need to be careful not to empower our nuts who believe church and American state are one and while they have yet to cross the line their nuts have, the potential may be there.
Originally posted by Griff
Our nuts or heretics (yikes strong language) from the Catholic/Lutheran/Episcopalian perspective believe they can bring on the second coming by fighting for Israel and converting the Jews. .
There certainly are lunatic fundie Christian sects that claim to beleive such things, but I wouldn't describe them as particularly Catholic, Lutheran or Episcopalian...if anything that sounds more like lapsed Baptist spin-off.
That aside, I'd rate their "taking over" as about as "possible" as the re-ascendance of the "Heaven's Gate" crowd. To judge their incidence among the populatrion, count the bumper-stickers you see on the freeway displaying the word "rapture"
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we need to be careful not to empower our nuts who believe church and American state are one...
And that is *exactly* what the Manifesto (remeber the Manifesto?) is talking about when it decries <i>a Christian-chauvinist political agenda that echoes the religious absolutism of our enemies</i>.
The local "Idiotarians of the Left" have been stridently vocal in this thread; there don't seem to be any "Idiotarians of the Right" here.
Whoops, I didn't make myself understood. What I was saying was that Orthodox or mainstream Christianity does not subscribe to this kind of thinking.
Manifesto? Oh that manifesto, maybe its time to read it. ;)
Originally posted by sycamore
That settles it Griff...if I run for mayor of Philadelphia this coming year and win, I want you as my Chief of Staff. Yeah, you'll have to spend some time down here in SEPA, but I'll hook you up with a nice apartment over at the Phoenix (b/c you'll have to have an address in the city). Hell, for that matter, I'll find jobs for several members of the Cellar...even if I do that, I won't have nearly as many staff members as John Street currently does. :)
No offense, but you do understand that living in SEPA probably have me sucking the barrel of my 12 ga in less than 6 mos.
Originally posted by Griff
Whoops, I didn't make myself understood. What I was saying was that Orthodox or mainstream Christianity does not subscribe to this kind of thinking.
Ah...OK...I get it. Parsed your conjunction a bit differently from how you intended it.
Just a touch of conjunctionitist.
Originally posted by Chefranden
You know, the Media that sat in nice safe air condition buildings and reported just what they were told to report.
Were told by whom? Who exactly is it that tells the media what they can and can't report?
Originally posted by Griff
No offense, but you do understand that living in SEPA probably have me sucking the barrel of my 12 ga in less than 6 mos.
Aw come on Griff...we'll get ya a staff car...and I shouldn't need you more than 4 days a week. Just remember, you only need a Philadelphia address...I'm not asking you to actually live down here. Besides, the kids will love trips to the Please Touch Museum, not to mention the Art Museum and Fairmount Park. The Phoenix (IIRC) is right on the Parkway. Maybe we can get you a small plane and hire Maggie to take you to and from the sticks. :) (See! Jobs for everybody! Next up: Dave will be Director of Attitude.)
Originally posted by sycamore
See! Jobs for everybody!
Sounds like a Democratic administration to me. :-)
Careful there Griff--a Philadelphia address will make you eligable for participation in the Philadelphia debt reduction program...they call it "income tax"...collectable from folks who live *or* work in the city.
Griff's standard income would be increased by 4.6% to cover the Philly Glee Club.
Cronyism knows no political boundaries. :) Besides, I need some level heads in there, not the current chuckleheads running the game.
You're gonna have to come through with Maggies dream plane. Since we're on the state dime, I can get an old airstrip refurbished that my uncle built years ago. How much runway do we need? A guy up the road has a short strip we can use until our dream facilities are up and running. Now, I've got relatives in concrete, dairy, social services, computer science, flowers, excavating, blood products... lets get the ball rolling. Despite my current LP affiliation, Irish-Americans wrote the book on graft it just comes natural. Let's make hay while the sun shines.
How does another guy get in on this? I can fly too, and I hold the same certificate as Maggie does. I'm a bit out of practice, but that will change next year.
And we haven't heard about Maggie's dream plane yet. Perhaps it's an MD-11! An old airstrip won't quite hold up to that. I'll be going for my rotorcraft rating as well as my IFR rating pretty soon. I can get you where you want to go with a simple Bell JetRanger and some space in your own front yard! ;)
Brian
Originally posted by BrianR
And we haven't heard about Maggie's dream plane yet. Perhaps it's an MD-11!
C'mon, I already committed to nothing bigger than could work in and out of 3000'. Besides, I'm not multir-engine rated.
I'll be going for my rotorcraft rating as well as my IFR rating pretty soon. I can get you where you want to go with a simple Bell JetRanger...
Rotorcraft *and* IFR? And presumably Instrument Rotorcraft? You must be rich now. :-)
Getting a whirlybird rating will teach you not to use "simple" and "JetRanger" (used prices run about half a mil these days) in the same sentence, too. In fact, "rotary-wing aircraft" is a misnomer, it is well-known that they are not actually aircraft at all, but rather are collections of moving parts flying in close formation.
Operating a turbine helo from your home will teach you new things about community relations...:-)
Originally posted by MaggieL
The local "Idiotarians of the Left" have been stridently vocal in this thread; there don't seem to be any "Idiotarians of the Right" here.
Oh, I'm here :waves: ... I just happen to agree with the statements in the manifesto, is all ...
Originally posted by wolf
Oh, I'm here :waves: ... I just happen to agree with the statements in the manifesto, is all ...
But, accoring to the Manifesto that disqualifies you as an Idiotarian of either stripe.
That's one of the things that I thought that made the AIM noteworthy: it explicitly recognizes the parallel between the fascism of the Jhadists and the fascism of the likes of the religious right and "PoinDexter's Laboratory" (right down to the Illuminati logo).
We could always buy one of those turbo props that US Airways is apparently using on longer flights these days. (See my vacation thread in the Manifestos.) I hear those planes are loud though.
Hmmm...Brian...where to put you in the mix? Lessee, so far, we've got:
--Griff as Chief of Staff
--Dave as Personnel Director (aka Minister of Attitude)
--Maggie as Official Pilot (we can come up with a fancier name later)
--Shepps...fuck, what do I do with him? Political advisor is definitely good...Political Advisor/Head of Information Technology is even better.
--Brian...I think I'd like to have you and Hubris as security specialists. And this is PA, so you have more freedom with your weapons than in MD (or so I would assume). We'll make you the backup pilot if Maggie is sick or something.
--Hermit22 is going to be the "pure left" side of my staff. I have to have at least one of those, and people would scoff if I brought in some young punk from Melbourne. ;)
I need a "man on the street." In this position, this person just hangs out...at cheesesteak stands, in coffee shops and diners, wherever...they're going to be the "pulse taker," seeing what the people are saying. Joe seems to be the deep undercover type...you're hired.
Originally posted by MaggieL
Nice move--baiting and a smear job all at once. Whoever it is that you might think "my people" are, "Gays and IV drug users" is certainly wide of the mark. (Lesbians are not at higher HIV risk than the general population. Bisexual women are perhaps higher-risk than lesbians to the extent of their unprotected sex with men....which probably still leaves them at lower risk than straight women. All irrelevant to the present discussion.)
You like to make up your own meaning to a post, and then argue against that. I think that your people are who ever you think they are. That's what I meant by your people. As if a smart real-intellectual like yourself couldn't figure it out. [I amend "gays" in my post to refer to male homosexuals, since you are pretending that you can't figure that out for yourself.] The gays in the previous post are not "your people" but the people your logic would bomb to save "your people", since they are more of a threat then Osama
The people I want stopped *aren't done yet*; by their own claim this is only the beginning. Your pseudoactuarial anaysis is also irrelevant to their ultimate goals. After all, when the Nazis first started out they hadn't actually exterminated many Jews yet either, mostly for lack of opportunity. After a few years of appeasement they managed to create some dandy opportunities, though.
As much as you try to change the subject, we are not discussing them or their goals. We are discussing the goals of Americans like you who are willing to kill innocent people to feel safe. I'm left to believe that the reason that you don't address the questions possed is that you are unable to defend your morality. The point is that you want have inocent people killed to achieve your own end, just like Osama wants to have innocent people killed to achieve his ends. It would seem that a real-intellectual like yourself could be honest about it a least, and not hide behind the usual political slogans.
Then are you also Madame Maggie, that you can predict what is to come? You really predict that Osama will be able to build ovens to roast us in? You really predict that Osama will have the power to pop us in? You need to be reminded that the Nazis had an Army, Navy and Air Force. Where is Osama going to get that? Again you haven't said how many you are willing to kill to prevent that from happening. The Nazis were willing to kill all the Jews to make the world safe for Aryans. Where does it stop with Muslims Maggie? 2million is that enough for you?
What the heck does appeasement have to do with it? Explain please how not blowing up shepherds and shopkeepers, yes and even soldiers in Iraq is appeasement to Osama.
Nor are the Jihadists fairly compared to natural causes of death; there will always be natual causes of death; until we learn to be immortal the aggregate death rate will always be 100%.
I know that I don't know as much about history as a real-intellectual, but it seems from what little I know that certain groups of humans have always had other groups of humans as enemys. How is being killed by your enemy any less un-natural then by your heart? Are you less dead when you are killed by your heart then by a bomb? Are your loved ones less sad or even less angry? If it is no big deal to be killed by your heart or your drugs, or Ford, or Firestone, why does death by Osama incite you to bomb Iraqis?
I happen to think that dying because you let religious fanatics take over is an especially stupid and ignominious way to go.
Really? More stupid then being killed by the drugs given you to make you better? More stupid than being killed for celebrating a wedding? How are they going to take over? And if they can, how is bombing bombing two puny countries like Afghanistan and Iraq that already have no way of invading us going to prevent the take over?
If that's actually to your liking because (even though you've tried to veil this message a little) "Jihadists aren't so bad because they only want to put queers to death", you should perhaps consider migrating to someplace like Nigeria, where lately they've been demonstrating who else is on their list. You might learn something; not all the lessons about the Jihadists are contained in their fatwas.
I apologize if I've tried to veil my message; if I have it's been unwitting. (Oh my, there's an opening for you). I think however that I've already condemned killings by both sides of anyone. And to that I'll add my condemnation of take overs. I hope that is clear enough now.
I said nothing about Jihadists wanting to put queers to death. I think that either you like the straw man approach to argument or you don't read posts very carefully.
Actually, if I were to migrate I'd pick someplace like Norway, which doesn't seem to have to blow anybody up to get along and be safe. But if all us pacifists did that then who would protest your quick draw mentality? Besides I must make amends for the people I've killed for God and country, by trying to prevent more of the same. If I must suffer your sharp tongue in the mean time so be it. This time it would be nice if you actually answered the points I’ve made. Who knows? If your argument is impeccable then I may be converted back into a killer.
Originally posted by Chefranden
I think that your people are who ever you think they are.
Thanks for clearing that up, I guess.. If what you meant is "US citizens" then you should probably say that; following directly behind your comments about AIDS it wasn't very clear.
I said nothing about Jihadists wanting to put queers to death.
OK, must have been just me saying it and you ignoring it then. You'll have to pardon me if *I* don't ignore it.
As much as you try to change the subject, we are not discussing them or their goals.
Well, that was the substance of both the Manifesto and my explanation of my point of view: the Jihadists and their goals. Since you consider that "changing the subject" we're at cross-purposes here. "Bringing the entire planet under sharia law" is their stated goal, but that doesn't bother you (yet), so you go ahead pronounce it "not the subject".
You need to be reminded that the Nazis had an Army, Navy and Air Force. Where is Osama going to get that?
I see....the Jihadists and their goals aren't the subject, but their means are. Very well. They seem to have done OK so far without their own Navy and Air Force...stealing boats and airliners seems to be good enough. As for an army, maybe you haven't noticed, but binLaden claims to *have* an army. Of course his asymmetric warfare tactics rely a bit on the likes of you trying to tie his target's hands.
The Nazis were willing to kill all the Jews to make the world safe...
Gee, that's funny....so are the Jihadists, and they'll throw in the rest of the infidels, no extra charge. How about that. Just a coincidence, right?
The point is that you want have inocent people killed to achieve your own end...
Well, you keep hammering at that, even though it's not true. My view is that using innocent people as shields isn't a tactic that should be honored.
Far from *wanting* to kill innocents, I'd be delighted to see the Jihadists stand on their own rather than run and hide behind innocents after striking and then exploit any results for propaganda. Of course their story is that *our* innocents aren't innocent, but the ones they hide among are. Very convenient.
You seem to admire such tactics, or at least think the US should play along with them, so I doubt we can agree on this subject.
Actually, if I were to migrate I'd pick someplace like Norway, which doesn't seem to have to blow anybody up to get along and be safe.
That's one of the nice things about being a small NATO member, I suppose. The bigger guys provide your defense for a few decades, and then you can sneer at them for it as a bonus. Nice.
I'm sure Norway is safe--for now--as long as somebody else is the priority target. But the Jihadists say they will get around to Norway eventually, so you'd better have Plan B standing by in case your point of view prevails, after all, you're an infidel.
Almost like being a European Jew in the 1920-30s. So where is it you're living now?
But if all us pacifists did that then who would protest your quick draw mentality?
You could certainly do that from Norway as well as you are now. I still think you should try Nigeria, though.
Originally posted by sycamore
--Brian...I think I'd like to have you and Hubris as security specialists. And this is PA, so you have more freedom with your weapons than in MD (or so I would assume). We'll make you the backup pilot if Maggie is sick or something.
That would rule. I am digging this fantasy more and more every time something new is posted about it :)
Originally posted by sycamore
I think I'd like to have you and Hubris as security specialists. And this is PA, so you have more freedom with your weapons than in MD (or so I would assume).
Security specialist, eh? Hmmm...
How about "Minister Without Portfolio" instead? I prefer not to be encumbered with trivial details like job descriptions when I work.
I don't think that would fly here. We'd at least have to give you a nice-sounding title, so that the snoops over at the Philadelphia Daily News and FOX Philadelphia won't be too suspicious.
Originally posted by sycamore
I don't think that would fly here.
Yeah, get with the program. :-) Titles aren't meaningless, but a good pol doesn't allow hirself to be constrained by them.
Besides, if what you're really up to is in your job description, it can hardly be described as a "covert activity". If you're smuggling cigarettes, you don't want a title like "Minister of Agriculture"; that's giving too much away. Better your door should say "Community Relations--Office of the Ombudsman" or some such.