not spoiling mrs deathlynx' remembrance thread.

[gauchecritic]

Did not expect this. But I do hope it kept it all away from the remembrance thread.

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.

Which is different to the popular perception of: negro ghettoes in predominantly white cities, family structure on 'council estates' here and trailer parks there, quite a few African countries, family structure of the 'upper classes' both here and over there, and the entirety of the western world until the advent of suffrage and for a great many years up until today for a large part of the female population, how?

You've seen exactly the same over here.

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

To quote Rob who quotes someone else: What you fear/oppose you become.

I actually was extremely careful in my original wording for this thread in an attempt to not be seen as defending the actions of 11 september. I cut a couple of paragraphs that I saw as 'reasonable' for the acts. Desperation, motive, the big show and etc. I couldn't include them because I totally disagree with the atrocity and am loathe to be linked in any way with violence as a solution to anything.

But as someone said, there has been little political/diplomatic thought put into this war on fundamentalism. Instead of the spin artists being engaged to show positives for war they should have immediately been put to work on diplomatic policy.

As for the organisation, if you look at the 'extremists' that carried out the London bombings, the aborted London bombings and the rather stupid fucked up attempts at Glasgow airport, you will see that there really isn't any kind of solid, bedrock group of extremists. There are, quite contrarily, many young and pissed off Muslims that are coaxed into whatever actions they can, with virtually no support except words from any kind of radical body within Islam.

The cartoon uproar was just that; uproar, in the seventies we saw that kind of event and a whole lot worse every saturday after the final whistle at football matches.

Why the comparison? Because, just like your 'all they understand is violence' the same is precisely true of a large portion of 14 to 30 year olds anywhere in the world.

It's not the religion, that's a pretext. It's not fundamentalism, that's a 'cause'. It's merely the seeking and showing of power by those that can. On all sides.

Roxleby? BF said it. BF paraphrased me saying it. It's not what the west believes that anyone dislikes, it's what their beliefs lead to. And the main thing that it leads to, and which the US exemplifies, is the message that they have to be like us. And going to Iraq and demanding that they be like us? Where's the freedom in that?

Oh, good points QC (although I tend to come down on Rob's side) I hadn't thought of looking at the situation like that. Well worth considering. (was worth considering before just bombing the fuck out of them)

And that's OK by you Joe? (you give that impression)

And just before I go. Patriot? If Brute Force actually is a Muslim extremist by nature (if not deed) and especially if he isn't why isn't he allowed to defend the opposite of your position?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And that's OK by you Joe? (you give that impression)

Not at all... but OK or not, there we are.

 

[gauchecritic]

Not at all... but OK or not, there we are.

I was referring (without actually saying that I was and expecting you to read my mind) to your 'suggestion' that the US can solve everything by nuking the middle east without fear of dissent or retaliation from anyone?

Not even the Chinese asking for their bill to be paid before you go up in smoke?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I was referring (without actually saying that I was and expecting you to read my mind) to your 'suggestion' that the US can solve everything by nuking the middle east without fear of dissent or retaliation from anyone?

Oh, that's not what I said, though. Or was trying to suggest. I said something more to the effect of "Blowing up Mecca wouldn't cause WWIII because the US Military Machine is more than capable of destroying all of them in a proper--all out--war effort AND I don't see the world taking sides and generating huge theaters of conflict in every hemisphere if we did. Not on the scale that we thought might happen with USSR in the Cold War--/that/ version of 'WWIII'. Past that, if we destroyed most of the regimes and people in the Middle East, we would solve many of our problems."

So not "US can solve everything"--because I didn't say everything. Not "by nuking"--because I didn't say nuking. Not "without fear of dissent or retaliation from anyone"--because I expect lots of dissent and some retaliation... but neither that hazardous to us.

Not even the Chinese asking for their bill to be paid before you go up in smoke?

I think the whole Middle East is incapable of making the US go up in smoke. S'true. I don't think they're organized enough, funded enough, advanced enough, etc.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

But as someone said, there has been little political/diplomatic thought put into this war on fundamentalism. Instead of the spin artists being engaged to show positives for war they should have immediately been put to work on diplomatic policy.

It's not what the west believes that anyone dislikes . . .

On that second point Gauche, it is my opinion that this is a delusion. Claiming that Islamic fundamentalists do not hate the values I listed is simply not plausible.

On the first, I don't necessarily disagree with you*, but must add that the "spin artists" on both sides have been busy, in the direction you describe, and in promoting what I say is a delusion. I think it is necessary to reject both spins.


* For your "work on diplomatic policy," I would mostly substitute RG's past statements that this is really an "intelligence war" and that's where the resources should go.

 

[SeaCat]

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

Roxanne,

A question.

Are you talking about Fundamentalists or are you talking about Fanatics?

Yes there is a basic difference. A Religious Fanatic follows Their views to the extreme.

I have known fundamentalists of many religions including Islam. They would have no more commited the attrocities we see and have seen than you or I would have.

Cat

 

[Liar]

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

And I'll bet that even a bunch of Islamic fundies' reaction to the 9/11 attacks were "Oh shiiiit what did that crazy son-of-a-goat Bin Ladin do this time?! Doesn't he realize that although America is a bunch of infidels, they're inbfidels with Big Fucking Guns?"

The mayhem in Iraq in recent years paints a clear picture that "Islamic fundamentalists" is a pretty diverse collection of grpups with their own agendas and ideas.

 

[Liar]

On that second point Liar,

Flattered, but for the record, that wasn't my post.

Confusing in the crossfire?

 

[gauchecritic]

Flattered, but for the record, that wasn't my post.

Tis I that are flattered.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne,

A question.

Are you talking about Fundamentalists or are you talking about Fanatics?

Yes there is a basic difference. A Religious Fanatic follows Their views to the extreme.

I have known fundamentalists of many religions including Islam. They would have no more commited the attrocities we see and have seen than you or I would have.

Cat

I am talking about Islamic Fundamentalists. That is a "non-normative" term describing a certain worldview. "Fanatics" is obviously a loaded term, and not very useful because, well, one man's fanatic is another's freedom fighter. It's a relative term.

I don't disagree that there are probably many Islamic Fundamentalists who would not commit terrorist atrocities, and I agree with Liar that there were probably many who reacted to 9/11 with anxiety regarding how a nation with really big guns would react. That does not change what in my opinion is the fact that Islamic Fundamentalists are deeply hostile to the liberal values I listed. It does not change the uncontestable fact that those who have committed the most notorious terrorist atrocities I listed were Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

[gauchecritic]

I am talking about Islamic Fundamentalists. That is a "non-normative" term describing a certain worldview. "Fanatics" is obviously a loaded term, and not very useful because, well, one man's fanatic is another's freedom fighter. It's a relative term.

I don't disagree that there are probably many Islamic Fundamentalists who would not commit terrorist atrocities, and I agree with Liar that there were probably many who reacted to 9/11 with anxiety regarding how a nation with really big guns would react. That does not change what in my opinion is the fact that Islamic Fundamentalists are deeply hostile to the liberal values I listed. It does not change the uncontestable fact that those who have committed the most notorious terrorist atrocities I listed were Islamic Fundamentalists.

If you're not going to use the loaded term 'fanatic' then why insist on the equally loaded term 'islamic'? Why not just 'religious'?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If you're not going to use the loaded term 'fanatic' then why insist on the equally loaded term 'islamic'? Why not just 'religious'?

Because it wasn't Shinto fundamentalists, Jainist fundamentalists, Baptist fundamentalists, or anything other than Islamic fundamentalists who have committed the notorious terrorist atrocities of recent years.

(And sorry, but the isolated abortion clinic bombing or murder committed by a lone fanatic and loudly, universally condemned by the mainstream of the anti-abortion movement is not comparable to 9/11, the London subway or the Indonesian nightclub. For that matter, it doesn't measure up to the Mecca bombing or the burning of hundreds of people in a theater that turned out to be the first shot of the Iranian revolution in 1978.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Jainist Fundamentalists are pussies.

 

[SeaCat]

I am talking about Islamic Fundamentalists. That is a "non-normative" term describing a certain worldview. "Fanatics" is obviously a loaded term, and not very useful because, well, one man's fanatic is another's freedom fighter. It's a relative term.

I don't disagree that there are probably many Islamic Fundamentalists who would not commit terrorist atrocities, and I agree with Liar that there were probably many who reacted to 9/11 with anxiety regarding how a nation with really big guns would react. That does not change what in my opinion is the fact that Islamic Fundamentalists are deeply hostile to the liberal values I listed. It does not change the uncontestable fact that those who have committed the most notorious terrorist atrocities I listed were Islamic Fundamentalists.

Roxanne,

I am but a poorly educated young man who in the views of many here lack intelligence as well as experience.

That being said, when I think of attrocities commited by fundamentalists then I also look back into history. All religions have commited attrocities. All religions continue to commit attrocities. All religions have those who pick and chose sections of their holy texts to show they are right, just as all religions have people who pick and chose sections out of others texts to show they are correct.

You might, by the way, with a little research show how there are some mainline Fundamentalist Christian Sects that hate the same things as the Fundamentalist Muslims.

Cat

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne,

I am but a poorly educated young man who in the views of many here lack intelligence as well as experience.

That being said, when I think of attrocities commited by fundamentalists then I also look back into history. All religions have commited attrocities. All religions continue to commit attrocities. All religions have those who pick and chose sections of their holy texts to show they are right, just as all religions have people who pick and chose sections out of others texts to show they are correct.

You might, by the way, with a little research show how there are some mainline Fundamentalist Christian Sects that hate the same things as the Fundamentalist Muslims.

Cat

I don't disagree with a word you have said about the past, but it's simply not true that "all religions continue to commit attrocities," or that mainline Christian fundamentalists hate the liberal values I have cited. It is true that some Christian sects do hate them, and I suppose we could wrestle with the definition of "mainline." We can also argue about the extent to which condemning homosexuality and certain other beliefs constitutes a rejection of liberal values, but by and large mainstream Christianity and even most Christians of a more fundmentalist cast do not reject the liberal values I listed. It's fair to say that some Christians are more comfortable with them than others.

With Islamic fundamentalists the situation goes much further than just just "uncomfortable." It is my opinion that they very vigorously and explicitly reject these liberal values.

 

[S-Des]

With Islamic fundamentalists the situation goes much further than just just "uncomfortable." It is my opinion that they very vigorously and explicitly reject these liberal values.

Gee, was the the recent incidents in Pakistan where there were threats to murder women who didn't dress "appropriately" your first clue?

 

[SeaCat]

I don't disagree with a word you have said about the past, but it's simply not true that "all religions continue to commit attrocities," or that mainline Christian fundamentalists hate the liberal values I have cited. It is true that some Christian sects do hate them, and I suppose we could wrestle with the definition of "mainline." We can also argue about the extent to which condemning homosexuality and certain other beliefs constitutes a rejection of liberal values, but by and large mainstream Christianity and even most Christians of a more fundmentalist cast do not reject the liberal values I listed. It's fair to say that some Christians are more comfortable with them than others.

With Islamic fundamentalists the situation goes much further than just just "uncomfortable." It is my opinion that they very vigorously and explicitly reject these liberal values.

Roxanne,

I find this discussion interesting. Because of this I will not respond to this now. I wish to work on my answer so it is understandable. I will give my answer the care and effort this discussion deserves.

Cat

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne,

I find this discussion interesting. Because of this I will not respond to this now. I wish to work on my answer so it is understandable. I will give my answer the care and effort this discussion deserves.

Cat

Cool.

 

[neonlyte]

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.

No... I don't quite see western democracy like that (and I hope I don't practice democratic principle by paying lip service to minorities). I contend that a similar mindset exists in all societies generaly along the line of accepting ideologies close to your own and being suspicious of unkown ideology, and culture. The west, in chosing democracy as a device for government, projects their ideal (democracy) on the undemocratic believing it is the right course ignoring the cultural and ideological constructs of the society they wish to influence. At the same time, 'our democracy' - judged to be a fair and reasonable representation of the will of the people - excuses the oversight of minorities whether they be political, religious or the underclass. Yet we (the democracies) cite these same deficiencies when pointing the finger at undemocratic nations where the freedom of political expression, religious practice, and support for the underclass is virtually non-existence claiming democratisation will solve their problems.

Democracy tolerates minorities, it is the mindset of a culture that gives minorities equal status to the mainstream, and few democracies achieve that. This not to say that I condone dictatorships or one party states, just that I think democracies have a long evolution before they can truly claim to set people free.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

No... I don't quite see western democracy like that (and I hope I don't practice democratic principle by paying lip service to minorities). I contend that a similar mindset exists in all societies generaly along the line of accepting ideologies close to your own and being suspicious of unkown ideology, and culture. The west, in chosing democracy as a device for government, projects their ideal (democracy) on the undemocratic believing it is the right course ignoring the cultural and ideological constructs of the society they wish to influence. At the same time, 'our democracy' - judged to be a fair and reasonable representation of the will of the people - excuses the oversight of minorities whether they be political, religious or the underclass. Yet we (the democracies) cite these same deficiencies when pointing the finger at undemocratic nations where the freedom of political expression, religious practice, and support for the underclass is virtually non-existence claiming democratisation will solve their problems.

Democracy tolerates minorities, it is the mindset of a culture that gives minorities equal status to the mainstream, and few democracies achieve that. This not to say that I condone dictatorships or one party states, just that I think democracies have a long evolution before they can truly claim to set people free.

I agree. Democracy that's worth having requires much more than a flow chart of official institutions and voting booths. It requires a set of habits and a faith. At its core is a willingness to submit to civil authority, and to the outcome of elections. From two scholars named March and Olsen:

"The democracies of today are products of yesterday. They involve structures of institutions, beliefs, practices, interests, and resources that have evolved over hundreds of years in special circumstances."

This is from their formulation:

Democratic habits and institutions (broadly defined) are not ingrained in the human soul, but need to be learned. These include broad commitments to personal liberty and individual responsibility; popular sovereignty and political equality (meaning all adults have the right to participate and count as equals); faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs; and an emphasis on procedural reliability and stability, the rule of law, and regulation of authority.

 

[john-the-author]

Either we're a "Christian nation" or we're not. These days we're only using that particular assertion when it's convenient. bijou

We aren't a Christian nation and we never have been. That was clearly stated in so many words in 1797 in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli by President John Adams and ratified by the Congress... and damn, am I pleased about that.

I thought it was impressive in Bush's speech to Congress immediately afterwards that he talked about going on a Crusade to deal with the people who did this and I thought "How fucking stupid is this guy, anyway?" Unfortunately, we've been getting an answer to that one.

 

[Grushenka]

Good lord, what kind of moronic war monger are you???

Wonderful opening, Matriarch.

Yours too, Ouchcritic. Agree with you, and one or two others here. Nope, won't contribute - too difficult to think about all this stuff.

On a positive note, I've increased my 'ignore' list .

 

[shereads]

I think you've (america) been sold a bill of goods about the 'reasons' for 11 Sept.

Not all Americans, gauche. Some of us were shocked twice: first by the events of that day, and a second time by the naivete it exposed.

Blind nationalism and religious extremism are different flavors of the same poison.

May the victims of both rest in peace. There will be mountains more of them .

 

[rgraham666]

May the victims of both rest in peace. There will be mountains more of them .

Sigh. Yes, there will be.

 

[shereads]

They broke our symbol, we should have shattered theirs and use the wreakage to rebuild ours. Then they would have to worship at our symbol.

"Our" symbol? Would that be the six-pack, or the NASCAR lunch box?