Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:19:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in
> defence here.
De plane, boss, de plane! De fence, boss, de fence!
Oh, sorry, defense. Ummmmmmmm, okay, maybe if I knew what I was supposed to be
defending. Perhaps if I read on and not pick on a minor error...
:-)
>
> Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign.
>
> This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so
> lyrical, but it is a deep and personal concern to me that the popular media
> seems to do little to inform our thinking on the social forces at work. Instead
> we focus on the endless supply of terrorist incidents, which to my mind are far
> removed from the seat of the problem, and are just the visible and threatening
> consequence of a far larger and deeper ugliness that needs to be dragged out
> into the light and cleaned up.
>
> And don't let me be misunderstood. I'm a fan of many things American, and a big
> fan of Americans generally. I am just not a fan of American foreign policy. I
> am also a fan of John in that he is at least prepared to be out here engaging.
> Worse are those not prepared to engage.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> >
> > "Loving Freedom" doesn't mean "Loving Freedom {for me}". Denying others'
> > rights to win your own hardly qualifies someone as a "freedom lover"-- more
> > like a disgusting hypocrite.
>
> It is said that Americans lack a sense of irony. I had never really thought of
> it as a serious jibe.
I find something ironic in that claim. :-)
>
> How does the Guantanamo Bay gulag fit in with this? This is denying others'
> rights in a vain attempt to win improved security and thereby freedom.
See! Proof! What could be more ironic than that! Note the subtle
juxtaposition of the gulag and Cuba on the same island.
>
> Surely John is not accusing the American administration of being disgusting
> hypocrites.
I am.
>
> > > The 'terrorists', so labelled by the states they attempt(ed) to coerce, of
> > > revolutionary (C18) America, republican (C20) Ireland, or modern Palestine,
> > > Israel, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq among others would all likely ascribe
> > > to a love of freedom as their prime motivation. Each would claim with some
> > > justification that their freedoms and aspirations are being significantly
> > > impaired by the freedoms the state in question chooses to exercise in the
> > > name of national security, defending (privileged) minority groups, civil
> > > liberties, or good administration.
> >
> > Oppression [never] justifies the murder of innocents.
>
> Interesting theory. No sense in it at all in relation to adult 'innocents'.
> The brutally and mercilessly oppressed could well be open to the entirely
> sensible argument that those who take benefit from the oppression are guilty
> nonetheless. This isn't a supposition of mine - this is part of the
> indoctrination.
Admittedly my son has the cartoons cranked up (Teen Titans), but I can't make
heads or tails of what you are saying here.
>
> > What is the gain?
>
> I don't want to labour obvious points, or rehash what the American
> administration has already been at pains to explain, but it is the 'shock and
> awe' factor that causes people to radically review their thinking.
"Shock and Awe" is simply Really Big Explosions (kinda like American cinema).
>
> > Liberation from Evil = Evil from Liberation.
>
> I don't get this, sorry.
"War is hell" no matter how you slice it.
> > Iraq is a good country with good people; we always believed that.
> > The problem was their leader.
>
> If this were true (the part about the problem being their leader), one might
> have thought that taking him out would have seen the end of conflict. Obviously
> this is not all there is to it.
The leader and his whole political apparatus. Offing Saddam would have left one
of his even sicker sons in charge. Kill both his sons and the Bath party is
still in charge, There wasn't much of a point in doing anything except removing
the whole apparatus (assuming it was worthwhile to bother, of course).
>
> > North Korea is a hell-hole of oppression {because} of KIJ. This is why
> > Democracy is so important-- it gives the power to the {people}!
>
> I am a fan of democracy. A big fan. I don't believe in forcing on people, and
> I don't believe in simply giving it to people. Democracy has to be won.
> Democracy carries a great deal of responsibility. It requires a great deal of
> tolerance and a commitment that many simply do not grasp. Waltzing in and
> passing it out like lollipops is not helpful in the mid to long term.
Absolutely.
> Nowhere did I suggest negotiating with terrorists. I am not suggesting
> negotiation. We have nothing to negotiate with unless we can present a real
> alternative to the systematic injustices that create the suffering and
> hopelessness.
Kill those causing the suffering and the hopelessness? Oops, that cuts both
ways. :-) (that's an ironic smiley, not a happy smiley...oh wait, I',
'Merican, I can't be ironic)
>
> When we have the alternative, and a perceptible commitment to delivering on our
> side, then the negotiation will happen all by itself. Not necessarily with the
> titular leaders of the 'terrorist' movements, but certainly with their
> operatives and their support base.
There ain't a lot to negotiate with Osama. His supporters can't be negotiated
with directly so much as identifying why they support Osama and perhaps address
those concerns.
>
> > You think, to your credit, that if everyone were just rational
> > and all viewpoints were considered, a peace can be formed. The problem is
> > that there are people in this world who don't value rational thought.
>
> Its true, there are some. But not many. Over time (even if its generations),
> and on the evidence of their own eyes, almost everyone can be engaged in a
> reappraisal of their ideas. Hopefully even you can come to see the humanity in
> these 'terrorists'.
The problem is that while most might value "rational thought", they in fact
might have no clue as to what "rational thought" is. Rationally, for example,
you need to identify what exact group of terrorists you are ascribing "humanity"
to, or other wise you leave it open to confusion (for example, I fail to see the
"humanity" in a bunch of religious zealots flying a plane full of people into a
building full of people).
> > > Anyone who suggests that urban terrorism can be defeated by tighter security
> > > and increased brutality on the part of the state has simply failed to learn
> > > the lessons of other conflicts in other places in other times.
> >
> > Anyone who suggests that negotiating with terrorists will achieve peace has
> > simply failed to learn the lessons of other conflicts in other places in
> > other times
>
> I couldn't agree more. Simply negotiating to give away whatever petty demand
> some tin pot terrorist leader might think would be nice today is not a strategy.
> I did not suggest it was. But working up a viable offering that removes the
> oppression and addresses the hopelessness is an entirely sensible negotiation
> process. As others have already indicated, this approach is the one that
> delivers positive and stable outcomes, and has done so in other places.
That makes the assumption that there is some "oppression". You are using such
vague terms and vague examples that one can hardly judge. For example, attempts
at removing the "oppression" (Saddam) failed.
>
> > > When it comes to the test, against all odds, it is more likely that body that
> > > overpowers the lash. Terrorism can be reduced in this way, sure, but not
> > > vanquished, and it can get a lot worse, and any improvement comes at what
> > > cost to the cherished freedoms of the community?
> >
> > So what are you suggesting???? Not oppose terrorism because you fear that you
> > might make it worse??? Give in to terrorism?
>
> Of course not. It is a mistake to think that everyone else also sees the
> options in black versus white, or all or nothing.
>
> Of course we must be vigilant, defend ourselves and our way of life. What we
> must not do is simply inflame the problem. Despite the sandbox mentality of
> hurting those who have hurt us, we must instead work to build an alternative
> that addresses the hopelessness, all the while defending ourselves.
I think I'm going to scream if I hear one more vague and unidentified
"hopelessness".
>
> > I'm sorry, but the only solution is to fight it until those who desire change
> > are willing to go about it in a civil manner.
>
> 'I will hurt you and hurt you and hurt you until you do things my way'. This is
> the very definition of a bully isn't it?
Well, yes, but as I understand the example above, the bully is the other party
and John is refering to standing up to the bully rather than crying, "Why are
you hitting me"?
> > That's the point!!!! There is [NOTHING] that would ever motivate me to
> > deliberately and savagely kill [INNOCENT CHILDREN]! These people are {beyond
> > rational thinking}.
>
> I am pleased for you that your life has never exposed you the kind of injustice
> that much of the rest of the (mainly non-western) world lives with every day.
> It will make it harder for you to understand. Even so, it is a worthy
> endeavour.
>
> And this is part of what makes the argument about 'innocents' (other than
> children) rather thin. It is possible to live in such a nice and mentally
> undemanding world for so long that it is not possible to imagine it could be any
> other way for anyone else. And by this lack of imagination, we can fail to
> appreciate issues. And by failing to appreciate the issues, we fail to address
> them. By failing to address them we support the very systems that cause the
> problem. Its only a short skip and a rhetorical jump to find these happy,
> unimaginative people just as guilty as those who participate knowingly.
You need to identify the failures that have failed to be addressed.
>
> > > Discover that the things that would make you
> > > behave the way they do
> >
> > That's a profoundly offensive and disgusting lie!
>
> I agree that that there are some people who could simply not countenance the
> idea of striking another, and maybe you are one of these. In my time I have
> found myself in situations where I knew that if I did not act, and hurt someone,
> a much greater hurt would be done. To my own surprise, I have found it in
> myself to act. As I read about the day to day lives of people living in the
> hopelessness of the areas of the world that are the 'breeding grounds' for
> terrorists, I wonder whether in their world, I might not find myself driven to
> act. And I am not suggesting I want to go around putting bombs on trains,
> letting saran gass loose on subways. But far lesser actions, actions directed
> at the oppression have unfortunate side-effects for your 'innocents', and have
> been lumped in with what we call 'terrorism'. I would hope that I could find
> other more useful and less violent things I could do that might actually make a
> difference, but if I couldn't, if there weren't, what then?
(insert screams here)
> > You do not understand the problem of Islamo-terrorism I am afraid.
>
> I desperately hope that you are right. Your view is so much simpler.
I think I can safely say that John most certainly does not understand the
problems of Islamic terrorism.
>
> > The simple truth is that it has {nothing} to do with economics. This
> > is about {religious intolerance}; you are a target because you are not one
> > of them, not because you oppress them in some way.
>
> Goodness gracious. Can anyone seriously ascribe to this painfully simplistic
> and jingoistic view? Its nice, because you don't have to think too hard, you
> can just work out what religion or club or lodge someone belongs to, and on that
> basis, support them or shun them.
John: land, homes? Aren't those part of economics? Can followers of Islam
participate fully in all levels of government in Israel?
Vote Republican - it's easier than thinking! :-)
>
> The Anglo-Irish issue used to be painted in these terms (Protestant and
> Catholic). Town after town, year after year this has been shown to be nothing
> but the empty rattling of extremists invested in violence (on both sides).
I'd say it was the Irish against the non-Irish with religion being an easy but
not entirely correct identifier, but then my great grandmother left milk out for
the little people, so rational thought may not run in the family (dang, that
irony must be from ireland, not America - I know it isn't from the German side
of the family!).
>
> Islam is not new. Its been around for considerably longer than western
> democracy, and even longer than the United States of America. Yet the faith has
> not been driving people to ruthlessly and violently lash out. For a time, it
> was the Muslim world that was the scientific and philosophical light of
> humanity. So why has it suddenly reared up now?
Isolation by the trade routes bypassing them, so that they were less and less
exposed to outside ideas. Or simply wiped out in the case of Spain.
>
> This is not a religious issue.
It's part of it.
>
> > > The litany 'there is simply no excuse for terrorism' echoes loud from those
> > > who stand to gain the most from the preservation of the status quo.
> >
> > So what? It doesn't negate the Truth of the statement.
>
> No of course not, but it points out that those who espouse it have a vested
> interest that likely overcomes their interest in the truth or falsity of it.
> And I suggest that there is an excuse for terrorism, there is a reason for
> terrorism, and until we acknowledge it, fail to be shocked by it, and deal with
> it, then we're stuck with it.
We can't just blow it up real good? Dang.
> I don't understand why it should offend you though, although obviously I feel
> for you that it does. All this idle taking offence at things is only a
> distraction from addressing the issues. Preening and posturing is not helpful.
Yeah, but it makes you feel good temporarily (assuming you don't examine your
feelins too closely).
>
> And it is scary as hell, because it points out that in these 'terrorist's'
> minds, they are mostly everyday people, with an extraordinary conviction. But
> we can't simply kill or imprison them all, even though we seem keen to spend a
> great deal of money, and undermine a great many personal liberties in an attempt
> to do just this. We really need to find a way to understand.
Stated in a less namby-pamby PC touchy-feely way that will force conservatives
to actually address the situation rather than dismiss what you say as
namby-pamby PC touchy-feely liberalism: We need to address the root cause rather
than restrict ourselves to dealing with the fallout.
Yes, I finally figured out what was bugging me: I knew what you were trying to
say, but I had a hard time with the manner in which you were saying it.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) Mmmmmm. Brevity being the soul of wit etc. 'namby-pamby PC touchy-feely' is a collection of adjectives I seldom encounter in relation to myself (I think if I was John I'd be offended ;-), and its not like the additional detail is helping very (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly
|
| (...) Well, Bruce old man, you sat me back on my heels there for a minute, but no, this is not an error, just yet more American Imperialism and intolerance! 'If you don't do it like me you must be wrong'. Top marks. Next you'll be explaining to me (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 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
|
|
|
|
