Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:30:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1772 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > How
> > > many in the Arab world condemn Extremist Muslims' actions? The silence is
> > > deafening.
> >
> > Where do you get your vast knowledge of what goes on in the arab world? CNN
> > and such? They transmit what you're expecting to hear already.
>
> I don't watch CNN-- heck, I don't watch network news either because as you
> correctly point out, they are agenda-driven.
Worse: even when the agenda is not there visibly, all we get is a snapshot
of a detail and not the panoramic view.
> > Talking with actual arabs is a lot more instructive; forget the mosques - if
> > you were arab and wanted to understand the "western" civilization, would you
> > go to churches before anything else?
> >
> > Try that. You'll be surprised how close the average arab and the average
> > european/american man feel the same issue (I know I was).
>
> I agree, and here is my point. *Sensible*, rational Arabs need to SPEAK OUT
> against these crazies, because the lack of vocal opposition from the Arab world
> translates to implicit support. I want to hear about protests against Muslim
> extremists in the Arab world. Instead, I hear Imams *fueling* the fires of
> hatred.
And again I pick my comparison: what happened to dissidents in the 1500's?
they went to the stake. The modern day equivalent varies according to
country, in Algeria is a slit throat for instance :-(
There are still few in the arab world who understand in full the madness of
it all, and the populace is not yet ready to listen to them. We know they
will inevitably be given attention, fortunately - the downside is it won't
be in the immediate future.
> > > > However, Christianity is not what
> > > > drives them. ? it?s greed, nationalism and to a lesser extent some form of
> > > > political ideology.
> > >
> > > So why bring Christianity into the discussion in the first place?
> >
> > Why bring Islam?
>
> Because these extremists are *using* Islam to justify their evil actions. The
> Muslim world should be *far* more vocal in their distancing of themselves from
> radicalism. I don't hear it though.
Christianity was used as well; the few who spoke were silenced.
Turn to Algeria for an example of arab dissidence. They have both sides:
islamists and non-islamists. And weirder: the government is a dictatorship,
but is on the anti-islamist side! How does that explain?
> > > > Likewise, was the Oklahoma bombing perpetrated by a Christian, or a "loony" >who
> > > > happened to be a Christian? Furthermore, I'd be the last person to link
> > > > Israeli terrorism to the Jewish faith, [How many have died in the Middle East
> > > > due to
> > > > the interpretation of religious texts by right-wing extremists/nationalists in
> > > > the Christian and Jewish faiths?] but is Zionism not a form of religious
> > > > fundamentalism?
> > >
> > > Again, you analogy is flawed. The overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews
> > > *CONDEMN* terrorist acts perpetrated in the name of their respective
> > > religions. This is not the case in the Islamic world.
> >
> > Again I must call your attention to the fact that the "Islamic world" goes
> > from Morrocco to the Western China; and what you see on the telly is always
> > the same places, always the same people, always the same words.
>
> Again I say that I don't watch the telly:-) I read and listen.
Ok, fair enough.
Then I ask this: from 1000 news that you've heard about muslim populations,
how many regarded the middle east? How many regarded, OTOH, Africans,
Uigurs, Turkish, Indonesian, Malayan (just to name a few)?
I suppose you can see what I mean - even with the best of intentions, we get
what calls attention for being on the news, not whatever else happens.
> > The further one gets from the Middle East region, the more one realizes how
> > wrongly our perception of muslims in general is guided - even though you'll
> > never admit it, if the dominant religion in the Middle East were
> > Christianism, there would still be conflict!
>
> You would have to paint a scenario, because I can't see your point.
Scenario:
Figure that the crusades on the 11th century, after their initial success,
proceeded to capture more than just a few coastal cities; that they even
expanded as far as the Persian border.
Now immagine they had resisted counterstrikes from Muslim powers. And that
to this day, the place would be a "Christian land".
#1 - there would still be an ongoing conflict, Muslim/Christian.
#2 - there would have been a Jew/Christian conflict; It would be harder to
accept massive Jewish immigration for a "Christian nation" in 1900, there
just wasn't the tolerance (1).
#3 - endemic conflicts would occurr due to the most petty of matters: water.
There is plenty in Mesopothamia and Turkey, but it lacks in Syria and
Palestine - so even among the "Christian nations" that would exist over
there we would see conflict.
> > > The fact is that they are simply intolerant
> > > of *anyone* who does not view the world as they do. The reason for their
> > > terrorism is their hatred and intolerance.
> >
> > Ok, let's try this angle:
> > When I was younger, my parents used to take me to a Dominican Friars' chapel
> > to attend mass; years later, when I knew it had been the Dominican Friars
> > who were in charge of the Inquisition, I was confused: if they had done that
> > and the gospels were still the same now as then, was I attending a service
> > guided by a criminal organization?
> > So I spoke with one of the Friars about this. What he told me then, I'll
> > never forget: "Those who did that were insane men in a time of great
> > changes; they found a motive, means, and then it became an escape goat. As
> > soon as the 'novelty' became common knowledge, the need for social
> > revolution faded - and the insanity was abandoned"
> > What I read in his words regarding "time of changes" was the age of
> > exploration: gold, then like now, makes men behave irrationally. Only
> > today's gold comes from oil pits rather than Monteczuma's treasure :-)
> >
> > My point: massive intolerance it's not intrinsecal to Islam. *Now* it's
> > happening with Islam, as it happened with Christianity 500 years ago, and
> > the same way it's more than likely to happen with other creeds for as long
> > as there are men and women willing to follow organized religion.
> > Why is Islam the current, so to speak, unstable society? Because there has
> > been a quick shake of the social foundation in the past half century, and
> > the society was not ready yet. So there was a conservative reaction, a
> > "return to the purist values"; the escape goat became Israel (as always),
> > the means became the oil-dollars, and it all began.
>
> So we agree that there is massive Muslim intolerance, but what are we to *do*
> about it?
I agree such intolerance exists, but that it is being induced - it is not a
natural feeling with the commonfolk.
> Christianity may have gone sour 500 years ago, but what was the
> worst case scenario back then?
Can it get worse in concept? Killing people for believing different, and
sometimes NOT EVEN THAT?
Don't bother to provide the "German 1930s example" - only the numbers are
different.
> As you mentioned, things corrected themselves.
> Today, however, the stakes are *vastly* higher. One small group conceivabley
> has the power to extinguish millions of lives with the press of a button. We
> cannot afford to ride out the storm-- the potential price is too high.
Ah, but there is a good thing nowadays: access to information is easier.
Litteracy is more spread out. Communication is easier.
So the process of abandoning "hard-core" religious lifestyle won't take as
much time now :-)
> It is my fear that it is going to take the detonation of a WOMD to wake the
> world up to the threat that faces it.
We all know the threats. They aren't new, BTW. They just shifted actors.
> Is that the only difference from my
> position and yours and others who feel war isn't justified? I'm curious-- what
> would your reaction be to the scenario where a biological agent was released on
> the eastern seaboard of the US which killed 5 million Americans? And say it
> was a strain that could be traced to Iraqi facilities. Would that change your
> position at all?
Yes. That is, by any standard, "casus belli". Even if noone were even
injured, that action would be enough. But you'd have to prove Iraq was
behind it, it wouldn't have to be them to prove the contrary!
I'll tell you what: IF anyone pushes the button on a WoMD, I'll join the
armed forces of the offended party and will only stop when the hand which
pushed it is severed from the body. Fair enough?
Pedro
(1) - in 1900 there was still debate over where the future jewish state were
to be located: Palestine or Argentina. The first was chosen largely because
it was not a "Christian land".
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Agreed. <snip> (...) Okay, but what about the vast Muslim population in free societies such as the US, or even, say, France? (...) Okay, I see your point. But realize that even within Christianity itself there are *vast* differences, to the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) I'll make my point below. (...) I don't watch CNN-- heck, I don't watch network news either because as you correctly point out, they are agenda-driven. (...) I agree, and here is my point. *Sensible*, rational Arabs need to SPEAK OUT against (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
