2 of 2
2
The Day After The Next 9/11
Posted: 25 May 2005 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]Ha, what I am arguing against is another fast track reaction.


Then I suggest you do so without allowing your emotions to hijack your intellect.

You’re tossing out fallacies and highly presumptuous, insulting dismissals as if they mean something other than what using them says about you. Please, relax and make your case with a level head. You have one to make, obviously—one that, from what I can decipher amid all your aggressive posturing, I expect I’d personally largely agree with.

Count down from ten, breathe deeply, organize your thoughts, and go for it. You may find your audience more receptive if you don’t insult and attack us—eh?

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2005 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“global village idiot”]And one reason you don’t see millions of Muslims demonstrating in the streets against terrorism is that when they do, the media rarely covers it. But it does happen, especially in Iran, Pakistan and Lebanon.


Not to mention the fact that doing in most cases would put their lives and those of their families in very real, immediate danger. I expect virtually all of the tough talkers would drastically change their tune if they were to face anything resembling any such situation . . . in fact it seems to me that tough talk betrays a lack of understanding regarding what it’s like to face such threats and dangers, and most tough talkers are really just ill equipped to deal with fear (or they’d know better).

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2005 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

Sorry if you felt insulted and attacked, my demeanor was supposed to come across as mostly teasing = )

However this is the internet, so I should warn you when I am being facetious, ironic, and sarcastic.

Anyway I think you get my point SkepticX.  We had world support, we had even the sympathy of the common man in the street in the mid-east.  We lost alot of that, which in my mind makes it even harder to destroy the infrastructure that supports Al-Quida.

This is clear to me because of the people in the Mid-east I talk too.
They are just average people, like you and me.  We are so good at spin wars here in the US, but our ability to play politics on the world stage lacks somewhat. 

The emotional capital from 9/11 outrage could have been used to build a true worldwide anti-terrorism network, instead of being used mostly at home to build support for a war on Sadaam.

Sure military action would have been needed, but how much more politically “playable” would that action have been if it was percieved as the “world united”  with us as the “victims” instead of the “US on a rampage against Muslims” with Muslims feeling like they are the “victims”?

However, we have a mindset in this country to operate from a position of strength, and playing the victim just doesn’t sit well with us, even though the actual results might have been better.  It was contemplating this mindset that brought me to the idea of teasing you guys about your testerone.

Anyway hindsight is always 20/20.  I just hope the next time it happens we think first, and think alot, and take into account the foreign cultures we are dealing with.  Its not necessarily the “governments” of the countries that are the total support of terrorism, its the people in those countries. 

Anyway Skeptic, I am old, and have been paying attention to politics since my first Vietnam protest, and I no longer take myself so seriously. 

Now on to CA.

When the country becomes a Theocracy,  it will be because Republicans like you continue to support a party that pisses on you and tells you its not global warming causing all this freak rain in California.

However, I am not too concerned, as historically those that aren’t marching in lockstep with the party when they take power are the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

(teasing CA now, and that is a quote from Hitchhikers Guide)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2005 06:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]
Now on to CA.

When the country becomes a Theocracy,  it will be because Republicans like you continue to support a party that pisses on you and tells you its not global warming causing all this freak rain in California.

Anyone who does not believe in global warming should just spend a summer in any part of Texas:>)

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2005 10:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2005-05-23

[quote author=“global village idiot”]


“You’re setting the bar way too high, Mark. If you expect every single moderate Muslim on earth to instantly and loudly object to every single act of terrorism, you’ll be perpetually disappointed. Muslims do not all think alike, any more than any other group of people. You are setting a standard that requires all-out, total war. Why don’t you just come out and admit that what you’re seeking here is the elimination of Islam and of Muslims?”

MS: Setting the bar too high???  To expect a religion which governs the morality and behavior of 1.2 billion to condemn unequivocally the random murder of non-combattants and children??? 

I have not advocated the elimination of Islam and Muslims.  The only thing I advocate is to hold Islam directly responsible for what it has clearly advocated in its religious dogmas since the 7th Century: the murder of those who reject its precepts.  And unlike you, I refuse to give Islam a pass in the name of tolerance, or invent the fiction that things are getting any better now. 

The Koran today is the same Koran it was 1300 years ago, and all Muslims still accept it as their holy text.  The Koran still advocates the murder of infidels and even Muslims who abandon Islam.  The Koran still absolves Muslims of the murder of non-Muslims.  The Koran still preaches jihad.  The Koran still condones slavery and the oppression of women.  All Muslim clerics—whether extremist or moderate, whether Sunni or Shiites, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Malaysia—all of them teach the Koran.  And they don’t skip any pages.

Yes, I expect every one of those 1.2 billion Muslims to reject those murderous teachings—because it is beyond dispute that they are wrong and immoral by any standard of human rights. I don’t delude myself that I can change anyone—and I am not holding my breath.  But I will call a spade a spade and condemn Islam for its murderous beliefs.  These aggressive beliefs in the Koran, some of which I quoted in an earlier post, pose a direct threat to everyone else who shares the planet with Muslims.

You invent fatuous excuses for moderate Muslims who haven’t blown up anyone yet.  If Sam Harris has made only one point that should open up your eyes, it is this:  it is the silence and the inaction of the moderates that has allowed this murderous theology to persist until today unaltered. 

If the moderates do not reform Islam, who will—the radicals?  Islam has had 1300 years to clean out its theology.  With the imminent possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Musilim terrorists, time has run out. 

You foolishly try to divide Islam into good Muslims and bad Muslims.  Even though it is split into various sects, Islam is one theology derived from the Koran.  And until Islam rids itself of its murderous texts, its hands are covered in blood and it represents a threat to mankind..

Regards,
Mark Starr

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 02:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]Sorry if you felt insulted and attacked, my demeanor was supposed to come across as mostly teasing = )

However this is the internet, so I should warn you when I am being facetious, ironic, and sarcastic.


It’s hard to communicate that sort of thing purely in text (particularly without emoticons).

It’s good to “hear” it was humor, though.

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]Anyway I think you get my point SkepticX. We had world support, we had even the sympathy of the common man in the street in the mid-east. We lost alot of that, which in my mind makes it even harder to destroy the infrastructure that supports Al-Quida.


I agree completely. It demonstrated Bush’s lack of perspective and one reason why it’s dangerous to have an idealogue in the White House (of the worst variety for the given situation).

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]The emotional capital from 9/11 outrage could have been used to build a true worldwide anti-terrorism network, instead of being used mostly at home to build support for a war on Sadaam.


I think history will show that to be the case, and a “shining” example of Bush’s lack of perspective—his defining moment may turn out to be his utter failure (due to his mental/idealogical rigidity) to take advantage of a strong international anti-terrorist coalition that was practically handed to him.

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]However, we have a mindset in this country to operate from a position of strength, and playing the victim just doesn’t sit well with us, even though the actual results might have been better.


In other words arrogant, athoritarian idealogues have the reins firmly in hand here in the US. I agree.

Miscommunications aside, that was a far better presentation of your case, and as I expected, it would appear you and I are in pretty close agreement.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 10:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]The emotional capital from 9/11 outrage could have been used to build a true worldwide anti-terrorism network, instead of being used mostly at home to build support for a war on Sadaam.

I’m not convinced of this, even apart from the question of the Iraq war’s justification. Everyone agrees—in principle, anyway—that terrorism is bad. The problem comes in when you start talking about punishing the states who support it, and also when you start making it a war against terrorism generally rather than one against Al-Qaeda specifically. That means going after Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia and, eventually, yes, Iraq, too, just to name a few. And all of those countries have cards to play to split any potential coalition. Once we refuse to take the option of military action off the table, the “sympathy” engendered by 9/11 disappears like a toot in the wind.

Going after reactionary states who support expeditionary death squads means shaking up a global status quo that no one wants messed with—not even us, half the time.

The “sympathy” we gained was one that expected us to simply “get over it,” perhaps after one lash back—just like the rest of the world does. As soon as it became clear that we weren’t willing to do that, all such sympathy would have vanished, no matter who our president was or which party he belonged to.

Like I’ve said before, everybody wants to be Frodo, but nobody wants to kill any orcs.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ Bravo!      Harris Q&A ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed