not spoiling mrs deathlynx' remembrance thread.

[Patriot911]

Apology accepted. However, there's no medical excuse for hate, you know?

No there's not. It's an issue. One I work on every day.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

It's not and never was about the US, it was and is about Western value systems which appear to be soulless and without any redeeming features concerning spiritual rather than economic wealth. That's the impression I got after September 11.

Yeah, this is mostly accurate. The US was the target because we have the most arrogant country (and I'm sorry to people from other countries, but there is a reason for that, maybe not an excuse, but a reason) and because we are the nation most likely to be seen as "untouchable." The Twin Towers because it was part of the World Trade Center, a representation of unity in Western culture.

In terms of US culture, however, I don't believe money is as strongly an influence as it is a means to an end. Social stature is greatly influenced with money; I think that stature is the true issue here. Even among those of similar wealth, popularity is a defining point. In a capitalist society, money can give us more freedom, but once we have enough money, I don't know that the excess equals more power. Bear in mind, I'm not referencing the political or corporate worlds but our actual society, the terms upon which we deal with people on a personal level (and yes, while they affect one another, they are indeed different worlds).

I think that's one of the things outsiders don't quite get about the US. Money is always a means to an end among the actual people, in my experience (I'm not associated with Bill gates or Donald Trump, so I can't claim to see all that much in terms of people with financial excess, I'll admit, so exists my bias on the issue). Other countries see the money, because it's how we get from here to there. It's what takes us around the world, either on personal trips, business trips, or in political terms, as in providing "aide" (I add quotations because obviously others see this as an impedence instead of an attempt to help) to other nations.

My biggest problem is with the reaction to 9/11. That reaction played right into Bin Laden's hands.

The attack on the Towers was intended to goad the West, especially the US, into attacking an Islamic nation. By doing so the Islamists in Al Qaeda hoped to recreate the conditions in which the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan.

They succeeded.

The approach of Al-Qaida is reminiscent of the Crusades. 'You are infidels and must be destroyed'.

I disagree here, with both of you. I don't believe they wish to kill us, or to get us to attack anyone. Personally, I think it was intended to do the opposite. I think the point wasn't to provoke attack, but to get us to be distrustful of the world around us, to look at the widespread influence of the Islamic faith as though every follower of Islam might be the enemy, and be wary of them. It was intended to make us more cautious of our involvement outside of those nations that share our philosophy, to stop or slow the spread of our own influence. To contain Western Culture. We were almost definitely going into Afghanistn, but Iraq most likely was not intended to become a target.

The people in the current administration had intended to attack Iraq from their first day in office. They had been planning it since the end of the first Bush administration. The fall of the Soviet Union had left a vacuum that left the U.S. as the only world's superpower, and the people in the current administration intended Iraq to be a message to the world about who is now in charge.

But, they couldn't sell that idea to the U.S. public and they knew that. The public would not accept their sons and daughters dying in a foreign land for something as abstract as Pax Americana.

Yes, my last comment ended that way for a reason. We disagree again, old friend. The administration didn't intend to invade from the beginning. They were headed by Bush, who above all else, thinks he's John Wayne. The big thing during the last election: Whether or not Bush believed he was right. I think he did. He's not evil, or a warmonger, or anything of the sort. He's an idiot. He believed something stupid, pursued it, and now we're stuck there. It's as simple as that.

Bin Laden won.

No one wins in situations like this. No one. We saw Bin Laden's fifteen minutes. He will release tapes, etc, but 9/11 was most likely his big hurrah. It's not over by a long shot, but he didn't win any more than we did.

It wasn't that they don't like you personally. It wasn't that they hate your freedoms, you were there, you were huge and you were soft.

Soft? Hmmm....

What were you saying, Rob, about goading a fight?

Q_C

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Good, fucking, Christ.

(Runs to the can to puke)

Not everyone's ready for the truth, it seems. Take your time, buddy.

 

[rgraham666]

Well Q_C, I'll disagree with you.

Most everything I've read on Islamist goals and strategy since the end of Afghanistan showed that they intended to bring about a classic 'war of liberation' in the Muslim world. Wars that Western nations have consistently lost from Algeria to Afghanistan. They believe that when that war is lost, the current governments in the Muslim world will fall leaving them the space to take over.

It's an insane belief, but that's what they hope for.

And it isn't just George W who was behind the attack on Iraq. It was a major portion of the cabinet. Read Paul O'Neill's book on his days in the Cabinet. The very first NSC meeting discussed an attack on Iraq. If you check the Net you can find all kinds of stuff on PNAC, The Project For a New American Century. The people behind that, many of them future members of the Bush Cabinet made it very clear that the New American Century was to be based entirely on American military might. And that Iraq would be a good place to demonstrate that might.

Also, check out Richard A. Clarke's book Against All Enemies. He was the Bush White House's first counter-terrorism chief. He writes on how the day after 9/11 the talks were not about the events of the previous day but about how leverage the event to justify an attack on Iraq.

Check out the book Future Tense. It has the best synthesis of the Islamist and neo-conservative projects and histories.

 

[S-Des]

So because a tiny number of nutbars who use Islam to excuse their evil actions, and not a major real action at that, we should kill millions of innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and whose only correspondence with the nuts is their religion?

That's really fucked.

You know, I've noticed how often phrases like "tiny" are used to describe Muslim extremists. That's interesting considering when incidents like the Danish cartoon happened, you saw at least a million people world wide rioting in the streets and waving guns. When you say tiny, do you mean you believe there to be a few thousand extremists, a few hundred thousand, a few million, or more? It depends on if you are talking about people who are actually reading to strap a bomb on their chest and blow themselves up, or the people who train and support them, of course, but it really is an important question (even though no one can know the real answer).

 

[rgraham666]

Yes, tiny is a relative thing.

However, I doubt that the number of people involved, directly and including the people who actually performed the deed, numbered more than fifty. Very difficult to maintain operational security otherwise. They didn't need more than that anyway.

I've heard various numbers on the membership of Al Qaeda and its suppporters. The largest was a guestimate of about 100,000.

There's a billion Muslims. Which makes the Islamists a tiny part of Islam.

A little factoid. The first act of Islamist terrorism was an attack on The Grand Mosque in Mecca.

We here in The West are less special than we believe.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Islamic fundamentalists hate America because they hate modernity and hate the liberal Enlightenment values that America epitomizes. Those values are like a dagger to the heart of Islamic fundamentalism. They include

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

 

[Brute_Force]

Islamic fundamentalists hate America because they hate modernity and hate the liberal Enlightenment values that America epitomizes. Those values are like a dagger to the heart of Islamic fundamentalism. They include

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

This is an incredible oversimplification based no doubt on U.S. media interpretations of Islam and the so-called ideologies that sustain Islam. The group of Muslims who believe what you state are in the minority. If you had read even a modicum of current political and ideological concerns of the Muslim world, you would know this.

I refer you back to what Gauche Critic and others have said: It is not American beliefs that radical Jihadists attack, it is American actions.

 

[Liar]

Islamic fundamentalists hate America because they hate modernity and hate the liberal Enlightenment values that America epitomizes.

So why don't they hate the rest of the western world equally? And don't give me any hodgepodge about how America is more modernier or enlightenedi...um...er. Because, well, it's bull.

Islamic fundamentalists hate America because you relentlessly and loudly support and empower Israel, whom they really fucking loathe.

Of course, that America, as a part of the modern west, IS all the things you listed, adds plenty of fuel to the fire for them, since they already started hating.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This is an incredible oversimplification based no doubt on U.S. media interpretations of Islam and the so-called ideologies that sustain Islam. The group of Muslims who believe what you state are in the minority. If you had read even a modicum of current political and ideological concerns of the Muslim world, you would know this.

I refer you back to what Gauche Critic and others have said: It is not American beliefs that radical Jihadists attack, it is American actions.

Please note the text of my post: "Islamic fundamentalists hate America . . ."

Let's be clear: It was Islamic fundamentalists who knocked down the two towers, bombed the London subway, bombed the Indonesian nightclub, etc. Whether they represent the Muslim mainstream or a fringe is frankly nothing that any non-Muslim can really say with certainty. We can only hope that the latter is the case.

I find it amazing that simply identifying a list of liberal values and asserting a plain fact about how they are perceived by certain groups is so difficult to accept by some.
~~~~~

Liberal values that Islamic fundamentalists cannot tolerate or abide:

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So why don't they hate the rest of the western world equally? And don't give me any hodgepodge about how America is more modernier or enlightenedi...um...er. Because, well, it's bull.

Islamic fundamentalists hate America because you relentlessly and loudly support and empower Israel, whom they really fucking loathe.

Of course, that America, as a part of the modern west, IS all the things you listed, adds plenty of fuel to the fire for them, since they already started hating.

What gives you the idea that they do not hate the rest of the western world? Please note that my post described the attitudes of Islamic fundamentalists.

Do you deny that they hate the liberal values below?

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

 

[Brute_Force]

Point taken, but your ideas are still fundamentally flawed. They are opinions you are masquerading as facts. Show them to be facts, and respect will be given. As they stand, these are merely opinions.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Point taken, but your ideas are still fundamentally flawed. They are opinions you are masquerading as facts. Show them to be facts, and respect will be given. As they stand, these are merely opinions.

Yes it's true: It is my opinion that Islamic fundamentalists hate the liberal values I listed, and are responsible for the terrorist incidents I mentioned. Every bit of evidence and information I have seen about their view and about history contribute to this opinion, and I am unaware of any plausible evidence that it does not accurately describe reality.


It is my opinion that Islamic fundamentalists cannot tolerate or abide:
- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

 

[Brute_Force]

Yes it's true: It is my opinion that Islamic fundamentalists hate the liberal values I listed, and are responsible for the terrorist incidents I mentioned. Every bit of evidence and information I have seen about their view and about history contribute to this opinion, and I am unaware of any plausible evidence that it does not accurately describe reality.


It is my opinion that Islamic fundamentalists cannot tolerate or abide:
- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

And I am not aware of any plausible evidence that your opinions are facts. Just because A (Jihadists) killed B (Americans) does not mean that C (you) are correct in your assessment of Islamic fundamentalist attitudes toward American values.

 

[Liar]

What gives you the idea that they do not hate the rest of the western world? Please note that my post described the attitudes of Islamic fundamentalists.

Do you deny that they hate the liberal values below?

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

You completely seems to have missed to point of my post, if you even read it to the end. I even pointed out that yes, they hate the things you list.

No they don't dig those things, but it doesn't explain why there's a Death to America rhetoric gonig on, and not as much a Death to Begium one.

America's specific geopolitic actions in the region, (before as well as after the Iraq war) certainly does.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And I am not aware of any plausible evidence that your opinions are facts. Just because A (Jihadists) killed B (Americans) does not mean that C (you) are correct in your assessment of Islamic fundamentalist attitudes toward American values.

So let's be clear: Is it your view that Islamic fundamentalists are not deeply hostile to these liberal values that are shared by western societies?

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Focus on this life, not some afterlife
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- The vision we share of self-chosen life

 

[Liar]

Found the ctrl-v function, have we?

 

[Patriot911]

And I am not aware of any plausible evidence that your opinions are facts. Just because A (Jihadists) killed B (Americans) does not mean that C (you) are correct in your assessment of Islamic fundamentalist attitudes toward American values.

Can you show us proof that she's not right? Not to kick a dead horse, but I've been over there and she is right. They treat the women as chattel. That's a damned fact I've seen with my own two eyes.

I have a question for you Brute_Force. Why do you defend the Islamic Fundamentalists with so much fervor?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You completely seems to have missed to point of my post, if you even read it to the end. I even pointed out that yes, they hate the things you list.

No they don't dig those things, but it doesn't explain why there's a Death to America rhetoric gonig on, and not as much a Death to Begium one.

America's specific geopolitic actions in the region, (before as well as after the Iraq war) certainly does.

Sorry Liar, you're right, I missed that last item in your post.

I have not said anything about the other issues you and BF included in your responses to my posts, so have not engaged those portions of your responses. I don't really care to get into pointless debates about whether they hate us for what westerners believe or what Americans do. I will say that the Danish cartoons made it tough for those who insist that it's solely the latter.

My posts in this thread have made two (and only two) simple assertions: Islamic fundamentalists are deeply hostile to the liberal values that are widely shared in the west, and that they are the ones responsible for the most notorious acts of recent terrorism against populations where those values prevail. Introducing all that other stuff in response may be seen as trying to avoid engaging these thorny realities (or in some cases to deny them.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Found the ctrl-v function, have we?

When you come up with a really effective riff, why not keep playing it?

(Plus it's pretty.)

 

[neonlyte]

My posts in this thread have made two (and only two) simple assertions: Islamic fundamentalists are deeply hostile to the liberal values that are widely shared in the west, and that they are the ones responsible for the most notorious acts of recent terrorism against populations where those values prevail. Introducing all that other stuff in response may be seen as trying to avoid engaging these thorny realities (or in some cases to deny them.)

I guess you are on pretty safe ground Roxanne, I'm betting we're not going to read a response from an Islamic fundamentalist on a porn site.

I don't know enough to refute your opinion re Islamic fundamentalists but some of the values you cite are either not adopted by all liberal western societies or have only recently been accepted by liberal western societies. A great deal of fundamental prejudism exists in liberal western societies against many minority groups. It is masked by the cloak of democracy painting as 'acceptable' the treatment administered to minorities in a so called 'free liberal society' obscurring the vision we share of a self-chosen life.

 

[Brute_Force]

Can you show us proof that she's not right? Not to kick a dead horse, but I've been over there and she is right. They treat the women as chattel. That's a damned fact I've seen with my own two eyes.

I have a question for you Brute_Force. Why do you defend the Islamic Fundamentalists with so much fervor?

It is the person who posts opinions as facts who should be required to explain how their opinions are facts, not the person who disagrees with them.

As to your question regarding why I "defend" Islamic fundamentalists, the answer is two-fold:

1. I am not defending them. I am merely stating that all of the opinions expressed by the worthy RA are not facts subscribed to by all American liberals nor are they facts subscribed to by all Muslims.

2. It is my position that we cannot hold all of Islam responsible for what happened on 9/11.

 

[cloudy]

It is my position that we cannot hold all of Islam responsible for what happened on 9/11.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It is my position that we cannot hold all of Islam responsible for what happened on 9/11.

To repeat, my post only mentioned "Islamic Fundamentalists."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I guess you are on pretty safe ground Roxanne, I'm betting we're not going to read a response from an Islamic fundamentalist on a porn site.

I don't know enough to refute your opinion re Islamic fundamentalists but some of the values you cite are either not adopted by all liberal western societies or have only recently been accepted by liberal western societies. A great deal of fundamental prejudism exists in liberal western societies against many minority groups. It is masked by the cloak of democracy painting as 'acceptable' the treatment administered to minorities in a so called 'free liberal society' obscurring the vision we share of a self-chosen life.

You're right about that first point, Neon, and perhaps that tells you something in itself (noting of course that this isn't really a "porn site").

The fact that there are minority views within western populations that by and large predominantly share these liberal values does not take away from the fact that these values do generally prevail in western societies and clearly represent their "mainstream." The hostility of Islamic fundamentalists to societies in which these values prevail is not because those societies don't always live up to these values. It also is not because of lingering prejudice in our societies toward various minorities.

(Yes, this is my opinion.)

Suggesting that because our western societies sometimes fall short in realizing the democratic vision this is proof that our systems are merely a "cloak of democracy" is presumably a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric. I take it that when measured by the liberal values I have listed, it is not your view that there is no difference between our western societies and those of places like Saudi, Kuwait or Iran.