Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:27:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1753 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > 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.
Agreed.
<snip>
> 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 :-(
Okay, but what about the vast Muslim population in free societies such as the
US, or even, say, France?
> > > 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.
Okay, I see your point. But realize that even within Christianity itself there
are *vast* differences, to the point of war! Eastern Orthodox Christianity is
probably less familiar to me than Reformed Judaism.
>
> > > > 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.
All the more reason to cut off the head of despots who don't represent the will
and natural feeling of the commonfolk IMO.
>
> > 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.
You are correct; it can't get worse in concept. My point was that it was worse
due to the sheer numbers potentially involved.
>
> > 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 :-)
I agree! Just as industrialization has sped up for successive modern
countries, hopefully the maturation of Islam will speed up as well to catch up
with the 21st century. But in the meantime, one of the things (only thing?)
such an immature world view respects is raw power and bold force. The absolute
*worst* response to terrorism is non-violence, because this only emboldens
terrorists to step up their terrorist activities. Israel has taught us this.
A *crushing* defeat of such a POV would go a *long* way to help extremist
muslims see the error of their radical ways. It is *impossible* to negotiate
with terrorists, because once you do, you have lost, because the terrorists see
that you don't have the stomach to fight. They are willing to die for their
twisted cause; we must be ready to kill (and die) for freedom's sake. Freedom
isn't free-- it has a price. We must be willing to pay the price of freedom,
or we will surely loose it.
>
> > 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.
I disagree. For example, the Soviets and the Americans pointing 10,000s of
nukes at each seemed dangerous on the surface, but the strategy of Mutually
Assured Destruction actually got both countries through the cold war (except of
course the USSR, a casualty, albeit *peaceful* casualty of the cold war:)
because nobody wanted to die.
This new threat is altogether different. Mutually assured destruction is a
perfectly valid outcome for a suicide bomber who has the promise of N number of
virgins to look forward to in the afterlife. Now the threat becomes highly
dangerous, because one side is irrational and has no value for human life, not
even their own. We in the civilized world are not accustomed to this kind of
insane threat, and need to adjust our thinking accordingly.
>
> > 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?
No, because we must *premptively* work to insure that we never reach such a
horrific "casus belli"[1]. War at that point is a no-brainer! I am not
willing to wait for such catastrophic justification when a stitch in time could
have saved nine.
JOHN
[1] But the point is moot anyway-- horrific events have *already* occurred...
on 9-11-01.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Have you even looked? From Aug '98 [ie before the USA woke up to terrorism]: Fight terrorism, but not through Draconian laws (URL) Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the British Muslim community has no sympathy whatsoever for any act of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Regarding the US, I have no insight. Regarding France, two things take place: a) the vast majority of the muslim citizens has a feeling of distance towards politics (to which a number of explanations concurr); b) the extremists who do exist (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Worse: even when the agenda is not there visibly, all we get is a snapshot of a detail and not the panoramic view. (...) And again I pick my comparison: what happened to dissidents in the 1500's? they went to the stake. The modern day (...) (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
|
|
|
|
