Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[Tormod]

my revenge didn't end with three little mass killing bombs...

 

I thought revenge would pop up eventually. The chip on your shoulder is quite big. Little constructive debate comes from venting so much anger, Jackson. Maybe ease up a little bit? :doh:

[PsyCho]

self protection or tyranny. is this the question? if any one wants to cut off my head or that of my family, because they or i will not bow to their or any god, then i will take either you choose as an option. my revenge didn't end with three little mass killing bombs...

 

Have you ever wondered what historical and political events led to people undertaking these so called "mass killing bombs"... The remote tyrannry (remote in the sense the mass populus can effectively deny it is happening through ignorance) causes such desperation (for reasons already given) that one of a few things happen:

 

1) An individual sees no way out, no future, no hope.. And on top of that has seen every member of there family and friends die as a result of tyranny. To cap it off the world turns a blind eye to their plight due to their country and religion of origin. So they choose a very public revenge in one of the few ways available to draw ATTENTION to a plight that is being marginalised and reported in certain "nameless" countries in a dangerously bias fashion. If the roles and history were reversed, I sure phrases such as "duty" and "right" would be used to justify action...

 

2) All of the above makes people more sensitive and receptive of extreamist groups, as they are actually supporting a cause being ignored by those who should care..

 

Result.. Well, the phrase you reap what you sow seems somehow appropriate. Trouble is it never damages/effects the policy/decision makers, and on both sides (though invariably skewed) an unacceptable mortality and morbidity results..

 

Anyone with an interest in complex systems or world history knows that aiming for absolute control through a single model system always collapses, and is infact uncontainable, civilisations have crumbled trying....

[jackson33]

Psy Cho; i guess you talking about the general populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, No. Korea and Iran.

 

the US, cannot handle those living in the conditions you suggest. we can condemn the levels of despair some leaders place their people and even stipulate the rights of women or people that live under dictatorial tyrants. when the United Nations requires we can enforce some actions as we did in Iraq. when the known person resulting in 3000 dead people and thousand more hurt, along with an hurt economy is being refused by a small band of thugs we will respond. the end results may be two free democratic nations.

 

well i don't know about crumbling. Muslim extremism didn't start with OBL. its basically a built in theological concept and has been for at least 1500 years.

my neighbor is a tired depressed, feels like he is backed to the wall but i do not think he will try anything foolish.

 

acceptance of extremest groups, that have a very destructive world wide history. i have been told, now twice, to tone it down. to say what i really feel about this notion, would bring on #3, so i will suggest; it ain't gonna happen...

[Buffy]

Muslim extremism didn't start with OBL. its basically a built in theological concept and has been for at least 1500 years.

"Racism didn't start with the KKK. its basically a built in caucasian concept and has been for at least 5000 years."

 

Shoe on the other foot: now you're a racist by definition. Do you understand why people are asking you to tone it down? Your screeds are not just wrong, they're boring too, and if anything they *promote* the notion that the West "just doesn't understand" Arab concerns.

 

Do you care that your arguments are backfiring?

 

Third time: tone it down. Or better: *think* before you post.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

[sebbysteiny]

 

The War on Terror is undoubtably changing us.

 

The more we are forced to deal with the reality of genocidal suicidal Islamic terror, the more changes are made to our society to deal with it.

 

I do not wish to appear indecorous, but what the frak are you talking about. Terrorism comes in many forms, in different shapes and sizes and is a whole lot more complex than "genocidal suicidal Islamic terror".

 

Once again, it is likely to be Israel that will save the world to the corus of global criticism, disdain and hate.

 

Israel saved the world before? I must have fallen asleep during that episode of 'Wacky history of the world : Revealed!'.

 

The delay is because I am travelling. But despite that, I still have time to find truth with fellow hypographers. I'm usually a modest person, but cmon moderators, that's GOT to be worth some rep points alone

 

Yes, terrorism comes in many forms. Islamic is one of those forms, and in my view by far the worst. It's like the black widow of terror groups.

 

There are many forms of Islamic terror around the world too. I'm not going to pretend they all act under the same brand name. We have, Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Hamas, maybe Al Aqsa Myrters brigade (an apparently secular terror group, but not when you hear what they say in Arabic), Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, terror groups from Pakistan and Chechnia, Al Quaeda in Indianisia, and the Islamic courts of Somalia. Each one has there differences in approach, location and immediate targets.

 

Perhaps I have demonstrated sufficient info to make it beyond doubt that my view is not a simplistic one.

 

But every single one of these groups have one thing in common. They are all genocidal maniacs who's main aim is to convert or kill all infidels in the world to estabilsh a global Islamic calophite through global means. As soon as they've destroyed one infidel entity, they will move on to the next, and the next, like a cancer. The Islamic courts took control of Somalia, so they immediately threatened Jihad against Ethiopia. I can't wait to see if Ethiopias subsequent invastion is successful at winning the peace as well as the war.

 

There can never be any compromise with these people. They only thing they will accept is your death or conversion or maybe, at the very most, your submission to sharia law and the complete destruction of Western Civilisation, human rights, and freedom.

 

When did Israel save the world? How about 1981 .

[InfiniteNow]

I'm usually a modest person, but cmon moderators, that's GOT to be worth some rep points alone :shrug:

Since you do not know what has or has not been done behind the scenes, please stick to the topic at hand and PM if needed. :cup:

[InfiniteNow]

But every single one of these groups have one thing in common. They are all genocidal maniacs who's main aim is to convert or kill all infidels in the world to estabilsh a global Islamic calophite through global means. As soon as they've destroyed one infidel entity, they will move on to the next, and the next, like a cancer....There can never be any compromise with these people. They only thing they will accept is your death or conversion...

Your stance doesn't seem to leave any room for improvement, and I can say with certainty that there's always room for improvement. :shrug:

[IDMclean]

Now I just wanted to point out that it is presupposed in the title of this thread that war on terror is a factor in changing us. I would argue that war is a effect of causation, that it is projection of the internal panic (irrational fear, or suppressed issues manifest in irrational behavior).

 

Therefore I would likewise argue that the war on terror is the effect of us (on a whole) trying to deal with our suppressed issues like globalization and other such things. It is an effect of our changing, not the cause and therefore not a factor in changing us.

[Dov Henis]

∞ňǿω,

 

Just one additional diversion from the topic:

I love yr peace emblem but I think it is completely unrealistic to hope for peace via religious attitudes. How about a Science/International-Law -Enforcement emblem?

 

Dov

[jackson33]

"Racism didn't start with the KKK. its basically a built in Caucasian concept and has been for at least 5000 years."

 

Shoe on the other foot: now you're a racist by definition. Do you understand why people are asking you to tone it down? Your screeds are not just wrong, they're boring too, and if anything they *promote* the notion that the West "just doesn't understand" Arab concerns.

 

Do you care that your arguments are backfiring?

 

Third time: tone it down. Or better: *think* before you post.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

 

 

very poor analogy; the Muslim history, along with every religion has history built on slavery. the most diabolical being the invasion of India by Muslims and i think its thought 9-10 million dead Indians, with the rest held in slavery. all but the Muslims have since dis-avowed this practice. according to your post, any Christan, should then be racist. the women remain slaves to the men, under any interpretation.

 

it may be the west does not understand the Muslim theology. most we have been told is hard to digest and the their concepts do seem a little out dated.

no other religion, seems to take on the ultimate meaning and long prison terms or death for even the practice of another faith. an accusation of any man against any woman, is all the law requires for termination. education has to be by Islamic law and of course no females allowed. now the best part, 72 virgins and eternity...just kill an infidel. if you understand this and it makes sense to you then just fine. myself and any other rational westerner is going to question if not condemn, what you understand.

 

i have avoided replies to your post, to prevent seeing your contempt for my views. the idea this contempt is based on something else, since i am new here has crossed my mind. since i am boring, why even answer my post. if it is a vendetta, get me removed. however i do see many more pointed statements then those of mine....

[InfiniteNow]

∞ňǿω,

 

Just one additional diversion from the topic:

I love yr peace emblem but I think it is completely unrealistic to hope for peace via religious attitudes. How about a Science/International-Law -Enforcement emblem?

 

Dov

Well, thanks, but it's not mine. Came from a woman named Elmira Dianati. She writes:

The peace logo that you see on the home page was created out of the devastation I felt by the senseless loss of innocent lives over the years.

I was born and raised in Iran and have seen what war can do to a country first hand. I wanted to come up with a symbol that people all over the world could display, and express the unity of cultures in conflict. The above design, which consists of the following five symbols, is what was finally created.

Above taken from:

Peace for Humanity

 

 

Anyway, hope is often unrealistic. That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold it closely to keep us motivated toward improvement. :)

[Dov Henis]

Thank you, InfiniteNow.

 

And re the present turn of this thread:

 

My view/attitude re the clash between fundamental Islam and "Western civilization" is that it is a classical Darwinian evolution scenario of groups' survival competition between Cultures, ways of life, values and attitudes. This view is further explained, briefly of course (I'm allergic to verbiage), in

 

Yahoo! 360° - Dov's Blog - Terrorism, Fundamental Islam, and Darwinian Evolution

 

Sadly,

 

Dov

 

PS: Re the subject of the thread, attitudes and values are biological entities thus everything that happens/evolves around us and in us effects/modifies them. DH

[sebbysteiny]

"Racism didn't start with the KKK. its basically a built in caucasian concept and has been for at least 5000 years."

 

Shoe on the other foot: now you're a racist by definition. Do you understand why people are asking you to tone it down? Your screeds are not just wrong, they're boring too, and if anything they *promote* the notion that the West "just doesn't understand" Arab concerns.

 

Do you care that your arguments are backfiring?

 

Third time: tone it down. Or better: *think* before you post.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

 

Enough is enough. I really do wish the political correct brigade would stop trying to cry 'racist' simply because somebody makes a point about racial differences.

 

I read Jackson's post and the points he is trying to make and I see nothing racist in them.

 

Jackson has pointed out the undesputable truth that womens rights in Middle Eastern countries are an absolute disgrace. And this is not just the case for a few Muslim countries: every Muslim country (with the possible exception of Turkey [who are not arabs]) has an abysmal womens rights record. Further, the amount of 'honour' killings and wife beating in Muslim minorites living in Western countries is extremely high compared to the rest of us.

 

It might be the culture, it might be the religion, it might be a bacteria in the air, but whatever it is, Islam seems to me to have an enormous problem understanding and accepting the concept of Womens rights.

 

We can ignore this and brand anybody who actually cares for the welfare of Women a racist simply for daring to add the correct address to the criticism. Or we can actually deal with it and help promote Womens rights in Islamic societies. But we can't do the latter until we actually acknowledge the problem.

 

His other comment about the 72 virgins is also not racist to point out. When one is confronted with Islamic extremism, one is entitled to be repulsed by it and express that revulsion without being branded a racist.

[sebbysteiny]

The delay is because I am travelling. But despite that, I still have time to find truth with fellow hypographers. I'm usually a modest person, but cmon moderators, that's GOT to be worth some rep points alone

 

Since you do not know what has or has not been done behind the scenes, please stick to the topic at hand and PM if needed.

 

CraigD [neg rep]

 

Okay it needs to be said. What was a tongue and cheek comment about my devotion to hypography has been completely misinterpretted. I think some of the moderators (not all) need an urgent sense of humour transplant.

 

Oh no, am I going to lose more rep points :).

 

Maybe I will be banned.

 

It happened to Galilao.

 

It happened to Darwin.

 

There is always a penalty for pointing out uncomfortable truths.

[InfiniteNow]

I read Jackson's post and the points he is trying to make and I see nothing racist in them.

Well thanks for the feedback, Sebby, but it's ultimately up to the staff to decide.

 

Quite a comparison you're making, you and Darwin/Galileo. :)

[Buffy]

Enough is enough. I really do wish the political correct brigade would stop trying to cry 'racist' simply because somebody makes a point about racial differences.

 

I read Jackson's post and the points he is trying to make and I see nothing racist in them.

All Jews think that way. :) <whispers>Let's see if he gets that its just a joke! Well, may be he doesn't have a sense of humor!</whispers>

Jackson has pointed out the undesputable truth that womens rights in Middle Eastern countries are an absolute disgrace.

That's not what I was commenting on, silly! What I was referring to--and quite explicitly picked out the line so there should not have been any misunderstanding--was his comment that "Muslim extremism" and therefore support for the likes of OBL is "built into" Islam. I know this is a pet theory of yours, so you need to support it endlessly. No matter how you slice it, you're both sitting there saying "all Muslims are misogynists who believe all non-Muslims should be murdered." There's no doubt that some do, but your phraseology keeps saying "all": its never qualified in any way.

 

It might be the culture, it might be the religion, it might be a bacteria in the air, but whatever it is, Islam seems to me to have an enormous problem understanding and accepting the concept of Womens rights.

"Islam." Not "some Muslims." Not "some cultures." "Islam" period: no qualifiers, all the damn Muslims, every one.

 

What's odd is that you don't see this attitude as racist. Screaming that you're being persecuted by the "politically correct" is a nice smoke screen, but it has nothing to do with the fact that you're simply being asked to have some respect for the fact that many--indeed arguably *most* Muslims, some of whom are members of this forum--do not resemble your stereotypes any more than you resemble a money-grubbing power-hungry Jew. You're being asked to respect that.

 

You will find that you're much more successful in life if you don't go around making broad absolute statements that do not hold up to scrutiny. If you want to put the blame elsewhere when people call you on it, that's your right, but don't expect people to put up with it for very long.

 

When one is confronted with Islamic extremism, one is entitled to be repulsed by it and express that revulsion without being branded a racist.

I'll skip commenting on your odd definition of "Islamic Extremism," but say that refering to "extremism" I do agree with this completely that its fine to express revusion, but you need to express that revulsion against the *actual perpetrators* not all members of the largest definable groups they belong to unless there's real evidence of the entire group--every last one of them--being a party to that extremism.

 

Lack of self-awareness can be devastating,

Buffy

[sebbysteiny]

I was commenting on .... his comment that "Muslim extremism" and therefore support for the likes of OBL is "built into" Islam. I know this is a pet theory of yours, so you need to support it endlessly. No matter how you slice it, you're both sitting there saying "all Muslims are misogynists who believe all non-Muslims should be murdered." There's no doubt that some do, but your phraseology keeps saying "all": its never qualified in any way.

 

I want to clear up one thing. I never have, am not and never will say 'all Muslims are misogynists'. This is obviously correct. But at the same time, the conclusion that abuses of womens rights are far more widespread in Islamic culture / civilisation than any other major world culture is equally unavoidable in my view.

 

The trick in expressing these two extremely valid views is to walk the linguistical tight rope of pointing out the criticisms of Islam without generalising too much. Stray too far and you will be branded a racist. Don't stray far enough and you will be spreading dangours disinformation. And even if you use accurate words well balenced words, the political correct brigade in an almost paranoid instinctive response, are likely to twist the meaning of those words and interpret you as saying something you have not.

 

In my experience, walking this tight rope is extremely difficult. But it is not racist for trying.

 

eg,

 

It might be the culture, it might be the religion, it might be a bacteria in the air, but whatever it is, Islam seems to me to have an enormous problem understanding and accepting the concept of Womens rights.

"Islam." Not "some Muslims." Not "some cultures." "Islam" period: no qualifiers, all the damn Muslims, every one.

 

If I had wanted to say 'every damn Muslim has a problem ....', I would have said it. But I did not say it. Instead, I said 'Islam has a problem ....'. It does not follow that the criticism of a community amounts to a criticism of every individual within that community. If I said that a football team is bad and going nowhere, does that mean that every player within the team is bad and going nowhere? Of course not. So why do you make that very interpretation when I criticise Islam as a community for, say, unjustifiable oppression of women?

 

BUT THERE IS HOPE.

 

I was doing some pondering whilst stroling around the streets of central Salvador and I think I have found new phasing that can appease both arguments. And I have come to the conclusion that my whole approach was COMPLETELY WRONG FROM THE CORE.

 

People who have noticed widespread extremism within many Islamic communities and who wish to point it out have already gone wrong. The word extremist, by definition implies that only a very small fringe minority share that views. If we even USE the word extremist to describe those with 'extreme' views, we have already fallen into the linguistical trap that will result in forever dealing with criticisms of 'racism'. Infact, it is also wrong, because technically, in some Islamic (and non-Islamic) communities, it is the person who treats his women well and does not wish death to infadels who is the 'extemist'.

 

So as soon as one even uses the word 'extremist', you have fallen off the tightrope at both ends.

 

The same is true for the word 'fanatics'.

 

But I found it, the key to staying on the tightrope.

 

The word of the day which I will be adopting permenantly into my diction to be used whenever I discuss these issues, now and forever is......

 

CONSERVATIVES.

 

It is the conservative Muslims that beat and oppress their women. It is the conservative Muslims that hate America, Israel and infidels in general and it is the conservative Muslims who will praise and support the suicide bomber and it is the conservitives who have their homosexual sons beaten up and murdered.

 

The attitude of the conservative Muslims is a complete disgrace and my and others criticisms of Islam both regarding human rights abuses AND political extremism is really entirely focused on CONSERVATIVE Muslims.

 

And finally, the conservative Muslim population cannot be dismissed as a small minority like one can when we use the word 'extremist' or 'fanatic'. The conservatives in many places actually make up the majority.

 

In Islam right now, I say is that there is a knife edge battle between the conservatives and the more liberal Muslims which is both passionate and bloody. The conservatives have more in common with Osama Bin Ladin, whist the liberals have more in common with the attitudes of Western consensus.

 

I still acnknowledge that branding people in a population into 2 catagories of conservative and liberal is still a bit rough and ready and there will always be people that do not fit into either catagory perfectly. But it is a damned sight better than the other 2 catagory model of extremist and moderate.

 

And the Muslim liberals usually not as liberal as western liberals. As an example of this, I point to one of the most extreme liberals within Middle East politics at the moment: Mahmood Abbas, the Palestinian president. He is a major force of moderation in Palestinian politics at the moment. He also wrote a postgraduate disertation denying the holocaust.

 

Now, Buffy [and others] I ask, do you think what I have just said is racist?