Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:58:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1646 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> <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?
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 are concentrated in the "banlieues" of Paris
and Marseille - if it were't Islamic extremism, it would be something else
to catalize the unrest due to misery. Without a job, one has a lot of time
to think in politics and such :-/
> > > > 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.
I can not argue with that. It's the same with all "big" religions.
> > > > > 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.
The thing is, there *isn't* a natural feeling. If one weren't induced, all
we'd see would be indifference.
Now, the thing is: do you want indifference, or a positive feeling towards
you (in generic terms)? If the first, then go ahead and "off with their
heads!"; if the second, then it's a lot more complicated - it'd take a new
"inductive agent".
That's part of the "afterwards" problem: sure SH can be erradicated... and
then what?
> > > 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.
(I'd like to call your attention to the fact I didn't call Islam "immature"
- I think it's suffering a conservative reaction to change, and that it is
just part of the development for any society, in more than one moment)
> 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.
I can understand your point. Of course, the downside of the violent approach
is that it too causes an escalade :-/
> Israel has taught us this.
Israel, like any other nation, has taught us good and bad things. One of the
bad ones is how *not* to start a nation (despite its right to exist).
> 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.
Of course. Now, are we discussing Iraq, or something else?
> 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.
You say you'd die for a cause. I would give my life for it too.
Now what particular authority would you recognize to a foreigner to say that
cause were twisted, even if he were right? Wouldn't you follow the group you
were living in, in which you were taught, in which you recognized the system
of values? It's a matter of authority, the kind of authority that comes from
within a society and not from the outside.
> > > 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.
The nukes weren't dismantled - their owners changed names. So I keep my stance.
> 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.
You fail to see one thing: a suicide bomber, acting alone, does not have
access to nukes; acting in groups, he may have. But then the problem remains
for the rest of the group: he may die to the purpose of improving his
group's position, but his group is erradicated as a consequence of his
death, rending the whole thing pretty much absurd. His death, to which he is
prepared, won't benefit those for which he dies.
It would take for every single muslim to be a suicidal in order for MAD to
lose its relevance. Will you claim that to be true?
> We in the civilized world are not accustomed to this kind of
> insane threat, and need to adjust our thinking accordingly.
"We in the civilized world"? The ones who have arranged for two world wars
already? I wonder what your standard is :-S
> > > 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].
Unless the benefit from such action for the alleged offender is none. What
would anyone gain in doing that?
Out of curiosity, have you seen "Minority Report"? It comes to mind whenever
I read "preemptive".
I also remember that episode with McArthur and the Korean nukes in 1950 -
what would have happened if he had "preemptively" bombed Vladivostok? The
russians never entered the war, despite what he thought... would they have
entered if attacked?
> War at that point is a no-brainer!
That is what makes your war fair, unfortunately - the fact someone else
started it against you. That's also why it's said war IS a no-brainer,
period :-P
> I am not
> willing to wait for such catastrophic justification when a stitch in time could
> have saved nine.
If you're going after the ones who were behind 9-11, go for it. I'm with
you. If you're going after Saddam for that reason, prove he was behind it first.
If you're going after whom you *think* will do similar actions, forget it.
> [1] But the point is moot anyway-- horrific events have *already* occurred...
> on 9-11-01.
Prove Saddam had anything to do with it. The Administrations has been trying
to do it for the past 17 months, and nothing yet - any chance he may be
innocent of that one in particular? If you want his head, let it at least be
for the right reasons!
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
