posted
Wow, five months is more time than I had thought. That's plenty of time to move from a simmer to a boil. It's also plenty of time to arrange for big protests.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, we really can't say for sure whether this is a minority in the Muslim world community. We can say, with some certainty that it is at least a plurality in some Muslim nations of the world, perhaps a majority in a couple.
Whether or not, it is a very vocal and visible segment of the Muslim world. At this time, at least, it is the MOST visible and vocal portion of the Muslim world. In the Middle East, only Prince Abdullah of Jordan seems to speak openly about peace and understanding. Other Muslim leaders in the region either rail against the West and Israel or are conspicuously silent.
It's been said again and again that many of the dictatorships in the region have long used Imams to keep the anger and unrest focused on evils outside of those nations to shunt the pressure off of themselves. They pursued an avenue of giving the troublemakers a new task, a new foe.
Could it be that with decades of building anger and resentment towards the outside world, blaming others for their own government's problems and never turning a critical eye on themselves that they've just been slowly filling the powderkeg that we are all sitting on now?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, Ryan, I think the terrorism and Islamic extremist groups are motivated just as much by politics and economics as they are by religion. The regions where these groups are born are among the most politically/economically important in the world, and the "western" need for oil and their constant meddling in the region cause a lot of bad feelings.
Add on top of this a group of leaders who are using religious division and differences to motivate and rally their extremists to go and slaughter their enemies. Add on top of that a group of militants who are fanatically devoted to their faith and willing to kill those who are "infidels/heretics".
There are more parallels than you expect.
Sure there were economic/political factors motivating the crusades - but the power the Papacy had over the people allowed the church to use faith as a motivator. It allowed the church (as a political entity, not a religion) to manipulate their own militants into attacking outside groups (of different faiths, naturally), rather than challenging each other or the church's authority.
This became an easy justification for slaughter - they're heretics, so kill them. Not just for the crusades into the Holy Land, but also for the Albigensian crusade and the Baltic crusades. Religion was the fulcrum and lever the (political entity of the) church used to launch slaughters, and it is the fulcrum and lever that the dictators/mullahs/extremists use to send suicide bombers against their enemies.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom, we really can't say for sure whether this is a minority in the Muslim world community.
Yes, we can say this. If it was the majority of the Muslim world, then we would be in real trouble. It is only a small geographic area of the muslim world that is filled with extremists.
Just as a snapshot, here is the Muslim world. If all of those people were willing to be suicide bombers and terrorists, there wouldn't be anything left of the non-Muslim world. In terms of world demographics, if 1.3 billion people were willing to give their lives in the pursuit of destroying christianity, there wouldn't be much left of christianity.
quote: Whether or not, it is a very vocal and visible segment of the Muslim world.
This is a valid point.
quote:At this time, at least, it is the MOST visible and vocal portion of the Muslim world.
It is the most vocal, surely. It is the most visible, only because we ignore the more than a billion Muslims who aren't trying to kill us at any given moment.
quote: In the Middle East, only Prince Abdullah of Jordan seems to speak openly about peace and understanding. Other Muslim leaders in the region either rail against the West and Israel or are conspicuously silent.
Sure, but the Middle East is not the entirety of the "Muslim World" - in fact, it's a smallish segment, both in geography and population.
quote:Could it be that with decades of building anger and resentment towards the outside world, blaming others for their own government's problems and never turning a critical eye on themselves that they've just been slowly filling the powderkeg that we are all sitting on now?
Sure, but this is not unqiue to this region. They didn't invent scapegoating or whipping those with extreme points of view into hateful action.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I was straining the metaphor a bit, because I actually consider the "patient" in this scenario to be humanity in general.
------
Rich, I apologize if I came out swinging. In the past, the same questions you asked here have served as smokescreens for semi-troglodytic "drive the Muslims out of Palestine and hammer them with an iron fist" sort of things, and I wanted to head that one off at the pass, if possible.
Why?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In particular, your references to "how close is the pot to boiling over" and "is this really a Muslim minority" reminded me of very similar comments made not too long ago that were used to justify some really astounding bigotry, and I'm sorry if I overreached in trying to prevent this from going there in the first place.
Basically, it IS a Muslim minority, but it's very close to boiling over -- and I believe that American foreign policy is determined, right now, to provoke that very reaction.
So not only do you have nothing but apologetics for the Muslims, you even see them as victims in all this.
Un-friggin'-believable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
Kate, the first step would be to actually think of ways to do it. Starting with the question at the end of your post, which is actually a statment: "There is no way to do that without becoming evil ourselves" merely eliminates a possible solution.
Recognizing a problem is often the first step to solving it. Refusing to recognize it because the solution might be drastic merely ensures that it'll go unsolved.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: If all of those people were willing to be suicide bombers and terrorists, there wouldn't be anything left of the non-Muslim world. In terms of world demographics, if 1.3 billion people were willing to give their lives in the pursuit of destroying christianity, there wouldn't be much left of christianity.
Strawman. No one is saying that a majority of Muslims are out there being suicide bombers. But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots. They support, some more actively, some more passively, the carnage and atrocities. Whether they do so because of fear or a sneaking hope that the death-cultists succeed doesn't really matter.
The majority of Germans were most certainly not of one mind with the SS and the death camps. But if German hadn't been stopped, that's who would have won. This is absolutely no different, except in that it isn't too late. Yet.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that anyone fails to recognize that there is a problem. But if we stop our analysis of the problem at "they are just evil", what are we left with? What "possible solution" are you advocating?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether they do so because of fear or a sneaking hope that the death-cultists succeed doesn't really matter.
Even granting that these are the only two possibilities, why not?
BTW, please do me the favor of recognizing that you are, in these discussions, invoking Nazism to justify genocide.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The greatest change would have to come from within the Islamic faithful themselves. Those of a more moderate bent should work to publicly, privately and financially distance themselves from those who spread hate, repression and destruction.
I'd say that the US should provide financial support for moderate Imams, but when you look at it deeper, that's a bad idea. Outside forces meddling in the mosques are a good part of what caused the problem, be they governments, corporations or political movements. Our adding into the mix is more apt to push it even further off kilter.
What America should do, and Europe as well, is become a better neighbor. And that extends well outside of the Middle East. We should be sharing our bounty with Muslim countries in need, whether it be food, medicine, engineering or even just relief from debt. We should provide incentives, heavy financial ones, for establishing peaceful relations with their neighbors, including Israel.
We should start the trials at Guantanamo and return those who are not guilty to their homes with some recompense for their time. And for those guilty, hold them and their punishment to our national laws -- no more, no less.
But considering everything, I'm not sure that your enemy can change themselves in your own eye. It will take someone of stature in the Muslim world to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. We are all brothers and sisters in this world and we must all treat each other as such."
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone has to stand up and be the Martin Luther or the Ghandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr. Someone gentle of spirit, strong of word and loving of humanity.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of a tall order! In the meantime, I think your suggestions for what we can do are good ones.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The majority of Germans were most certainly not of one mind with the SS and the death camps. But if German hadn't been stopped, that's who would have won. This is absolutely no different, except in that it isn't too late. Yet.
Tom, how about dealing with what she's said instead of your belief of what's behind what she said. Why don't you tell us how the two situations are different, since clearly you think so.
I don't know how you can equate this quote to genocide. Was stopping Germany in WWII genocide?
(Unfortunately, here, I feel I have to clarify that I think sL may have a point, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the entirety of everything she posts here. I shouldn't have to clarify that, and probably wouldn't in other cases, but lately you seem to have a penchant for not taking people on their current words, but filtering everything they write through the worst (as you see it) of everything they've ever written. That sounds harsh, I know, but I trust that you know I generally respect you. Take it for what it's worth.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:While you may not be accusing Christianity, it doesn't mean no one is.
I think that in the Crusades, Christianity was used as a rhetorical device alone. In other words there is nothing in Christian doctrine that would demand a war to reconquor Jerusalem. It was a tool. Not to mention the genesis of the whole thing was Pope Urban's sermon which he delivered in order to unify "Christendom" and consolidate his own political power.
It wasn't just that... the Crusades began from a distress call from Constantinople. The Muslim empire was conquering in every direction and was trying to break into Europe. The whole "let's save the holy land" was just a recruitment poster to mobilize a counter attack to save the Eastern Roman Empire and keep the Muslim armies form invading Europe itself.
Eventually the Crusades took on a life of their own and became an excuse to plunder and for political gains back home.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to speak for Tom, but, as I see it, the problem with the "they are evil for no reason" stance is that it leaves us no hope for a solution other than "kill them first". I try not to come to that conclusion and I hope that Lisa has something else in mind by "solution [that] might be drastic" that I am overlooking.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure anyone here has espoused an "they are all evil" stance. Step back, take a deep breath, this is a discussion, not WWE Smackdown... right?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rich Lewis: The greatest change would have to come from within the Islamic faithful themselves. Those of a more moderate bent should work to publicly, privately and financially distance themselves from those who spread hate, repression and destruction.
I'd say that the US should provide financial support for moderate Imams, but when you look at it deeper, that's a bad idea. Outside forces meddling in the mosques are a good part of what caused the problem, be they governments, corporations or political movements. Our adding into the mix is more apt to push it even further off kilter.
What America should do, and Europe as well, is become a better neighbor. And that extends well outside of the Middle East. We should be sharing our bounty with Muslim countries in need, whether it be food, medicine, engineering or even just relief from debt. We should provide incentives, heavy financial ones, for establishing peaceful relations with their neighbors, including Israel.
We should start the trials at Guantanamo and return those who are not guilty to their homes with some recompense for their time. And for those guilty, hold them and their punishment to our national laws -- no more, no less.
But considering everything, I'm not sure that your enemy can change themselves in your own eye. It will take someone of stature in the Muslim world to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. We are all brothers and sisters in this world and we must all treat each other as such."
I don't know. I'm not so sure this is something that we, as in 'the west', can fix. We can be as nice to them as they want, but it isn't something we can fix, and I'm not sure we should fix what they want fixed anyways. Those in the middle east that have a problem with us aren't going to settle for second place, it's all or nothing for extremists. There are a lot of people over there that we can find a dialogue with, and can peacefully coexist with.
But the problem exists within the Muslim faith, and it can only be solved in that faith, and in their culture. Financial solutions from the west aren't going to solve a thing, and will probably just cause more resentment and anger, and make the problem worse.
Pushing, gently, the middle east to solve their own problems is the only way to make sure a long lasting solution will come about. Until then we just have to deal with the symptoms. The west doesn't have the cure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one is saying that a majority of Muslims are out there being suicide bombers. But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots.
So you are saying that majority of Islamic culture supports suicide bombers and terrorists, if only implicitly. Now who's using strawmen?
That's like saying the majority of Christian culture supports burning abortion clinics and killing gays, simply because you don't see John Doe christian getting on television every day denouncing it.
Extremists get the press. Passive disagreement or agreement does not. Any assumption on your part about what the majority of over a billion people think is based on what? The images you see on the media? What you read in the media? What you hear from the media?
Just how wide a window on the Muslim world are you basing your assumptions on? What's word on the street in Mauritania? What's the feelings towards the west in Istanbul? How many terrorists are holed up in Ghana?
I'm hearing a lot of alarmist words from people on the board talking about "the Muslim World" being some unified thing. Well, it's not. Neither is the Christian world. Extreme christians like Pat Robertson don't speak for everyone, just like extreme Muslims like Osama bin Laden don't speak for everyone.
Stop spouting hatred towards countless millions of innocent people.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of the Muslims that I know and work with think that extremists and terrorists are hunky-dory. In fact, they all are kind of dismayed to be perceived as associated with them.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know how you can equate this quote to genocide. Was stopping Germany in WWII genocide?
I am indeed drawing upon past conversations with starLisa here. If she no longer feels that the destruction of Muslim culture is necessary to secure the safety of her people, I'll gladly look at her words afresh. Otherwise, yeah, I'm going to filter what she says through my knowledge of her position.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: sL, I am frequently disturbed by your continuing refusal to take genocide off the table.
Probably not nearly as disturbed as I am by your incessent attempts to label as "genocide" things that aren't even in the same ballpark.
Making a violent and genocidal (yes, that's a proper use of the term) population go elsewhere is not genocide. Requiring people to take responsibility for their own death-cultists is not genocide.
Nor am I even talking about killing the ones who actually engage in violence and atrocities. I'd be happy to have them confined. As long as they can't hurt other people (and hear me well: as long as they can't hurt other people), I don't care if they're living the good life.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that anyone fails to recognize that there is a problem. But if we stop our analysis of the problem at "they are just evil", what are we left with? What "possible solution" are you advocating?
War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
I advocate punishing them, and yes, punishing them as a group. Some people still believe there's such a thing as nations which act for national purposes, and the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East (at the very least) are among them. Let them accept the repercussions of the actions that reflect their national will, then.
If they demonstrate violently, I advocate shooting at the demonstrators. No more of this restraint that allows them to harm others without risking themselves. That's just stupid. No rubber bullets, no water cannons.
What gets described in the media as "throwing stones" is very often dropping cinderblocks on people from overpasses. Hurling boulders. It's not tossing pebbles, and it has killed people. If they want to do that, they should expect a warning shot to the head.
I did guard duty a few times in Israel. Do you know what the rules of engagement are? If you see a suspicious person, you are to say, "Stop." If they stop, that's great. If not, you are to say, "Stop. Or I shall shoot." If they stop, that's great. If not, you are to fire a single shot in the air. If they stop, that's great. If not, you are to fire a single shot at their legs.
Meanwhile, you're very dead already, and long before you get to the part about the legs.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether they do so because of fear or a sneaking hope that the death-cultists succeed doesn't really matter.
Even granting that these are the only two possibilities, why not?
BTW, please do me the favor of recognizing that you are, in these discussions, invoking Nazism to justify genocide.
Please do me the favor of stopping your vile accusations. I'm "invoking" Nazism because just as genocide was their aim, so too is it the aim of many of the death-cultists. Absolute victory is the aim of all of them.
Maybe you, with your dubious moral sense, see genocide as a legitimate goal. Perhaps that's why you keep attributing it to me. Or maybe you're simply dishonest. I can't figure out which. But quit it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: posted by StarLisa
quote:No one is saying that a majority of Muslims are out there being suicide bombers. But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots.
So you are saying that
When someone starts with a phrase like that, it makes me not want to listen to anything else they have to say. Because it almost always introduces a reformulation of what I've said which distorts and misrepresents what I've said. But yes, in this case, I am saying that the majority of Islamic culture today either actively supports, or by inaction, tacitly supports, the genocidal wars that have been launched by Arab nations in the Middle East and the animalistic atrocities committed by terror groups in the Middle East and around the world.
When the official press of Muslim countries run cartoons that would make Julius Streicher blush, it is a clear statement of intent. When the state run media of Muslim countries broadcast documentaries about Jews murdering children for their blood, they are no different than the Nazis.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: majority of Islamic culture supports suicide bombers and terrorists, if only implicitly. Now who's using strawmen?
Do you have the faintest idea of what a strawman argument is? Because "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: That's like saying the majority of Christian culture supports burning abortion clinics and killing gays, simply because you don't see John Doe christian getting on television every day denouncing it.
Now that's ridiculous. If there were countries run under church law which applauded burning abortion clinics and killing gays, which paid the families of the perpetrators a bounty, which named streets and schools and villages after the perpetrators... then yes, I'd consider those countries to be terrorist nations as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
The day Israel makes this their policy will be remembered as the end of Israel. Because at some point early in the implementation of this vile idea, a village will refuse to leave. And, if you're serious about using force to implement this policy, Israel will have to kill them all.
And this will destroy Israel. Either it will spark it's destruction in nuclear fire or it will mean Israel has changed into what it hates most and destroyed itself that way.
Of course, if you don't advocate using force to implement this, then the policy just flat out won't work.
quote:Meanwhile, you're very dead already, and long before you get to the part about the legs.
So you never saw a suspicious person while you were a guard?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truthfully, I suspect the best solution to help the Israeli people in the long run is to eventually get rid of Israel, at least as an Israeli religious state. If the only other alternatives truly are genocide against the Muslim people of the region and neverending terrorist warfare with those people, neither of those are acceptable in the long run.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, the European reaction in favor of 'freedom of speech' has a lot to do with 'pick on the towel-heads'. A cursory look at the status of Arabic and Muslim immigrants throughout Europe reveals that they're largely disrespected, marginalized, and held in contempt.
You can see examples of this from discussions about entire nations banning the burkha anywhere but in the home (for the entire fifty or so people who actually wear it, and that's not an exaggerated number), to massive rioting in France.
You can further see examples of this in the way that bigotry towards Islamic and Arabic peoples is treated differently than bigotry towards other groups, most notably such as Jews and Christians. Newspapers which publish knowingly offensive cartoons about Islam hesitate to do so with offensive cartoons about Christianity. Banning a couple score of women from wearing a burkha in public is a tolerable issue for debate, the Holocaust is not.
Obviously, the fires of bigotry and nationalism although much cooled from sixty years ago, are still burning brightly throughout Europe. In my opinion, Europe likes to pretend that's a thing they've put behind them, but their willingness to ban any dissenting opinion on things such as Nazism and the Holocaust only goes to show the level of their denial.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I've often had the same thought. If you examine their respective ages, Christianity and Islam bear many similarities as far as devolopment, politics, and philosophy are concerned.
quote:It is the most vocal, surely. It is the most visible, only because we ignore the more than a billion Muslims who aren't trying to kill us at any given moment.
They don't get the massive press their abhorrent brethren get, sure. But they're not ignored, either. Moderate Muslim and Arabic voices are heard. The trouble, though, is that so often right after they're done condemning things like violent 'protests' (riots) of offensive cartoons, or suicide bombers in Israel, frequently they segue right into a speech about how the cartoonists / Israelis / Americans are right bastards.
We don't condone what they're doing, we condemn it, but we can understand why they're so upset and violent.
From the outside looking in, that's a mixed message no matter how strongly the rhetoric opposing violence may be. That's a serious problem even when the condemnation is actually sincere and not just a half-hearted attempt to cover PR bases-which is often is, famously in the case of thankfully dead Y. Arafat.
quote:Sure, but the Middle East is not the entirety of the "Muslim World" - in fact, it's a smallish segment, both in geography and population.
That's true, but you know as well as I do that it's the heart and mind of the Muslim world, just like the majority of Catholics don't live in Italy.
quote:That's like saying the majority of Christian culture supports burning abortion clinics and killing gays, simply because you don't see John Doe christian getting on television every day denouncing it.
The difference is that when a Christian bombs an abortion clinic or lynchs a homosexual, very often it's other Christians running the manhunt that brings the scumbag to justice. There isn't a foreign nation out there composed of homosexuals or abortion rights activists that has to make airstrikes to kill the guy.
quote:I'm hearing a lot of alarmist words from people on the board talking about "the Muslim World" being some unified thing. Well, it's not. Neither is the Christian world. Extreme christians like Pat Robertson don't speak for everyone, just like extreme Muslims like Osama bin Laden don't speak for everyone.
You're right, it's a fine, hazy, crooked line that has to be drawn, and it's moving all the time. But speaking as a Christian, I do feel a bit responsibile for the kinds of things Pat Robertson spouts. As a Christian I do hold myself responsible for correcting, every time I encounter it, ignorance, bigotry, and hatred-because I share the name.
Anyway, it's a very tricky problem. There are indeed serious economic, political, and sociological issues tied in with all of this that will probably only be addressed if ever in terms of generations or centuries, unfortunately.
There are no hard and accurate statistics when it comes to how many Muslims, exactly, support or condemn terrorism or rioting in response to cartoons. There never will be, because there are just far too many factors that taint the results six ways from Sunday.
But there are often times when I feel that moderate Muslim outcries against terrorism and rioting about cartoons has a lot more in common with Jim Crow America and the 'moderates' who faintly condemned lynchings but didn't really do anything, either, than it does with a truly concerned, passionate moderate movement trying desperately to stop the things they speak out against.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
I don't understand this. Maybe if it were being said, "They're just pure evil for no reason," you'd be right: the only response to that would be annhilation. Or maybe it's the 'for no reason' part, in which case I agree with you. If they're truly evil for no reason, I guess that is just about the same as pure evil.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying that they are, I'm saying that when people say that they are, when they say that there isn't any point to understanding why, then we are left with Lisa's solution. Killing them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, etc.
Since I don't want to become that, I am determined to believe that there is a point to understanding what has brought us to this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Boy, that would be great. Nothing like a strong statement to suicide bombers of, "It works!"
I think its been fairly clear for a long time to suicide bombers that their tactics work, as evidenced by the fact that they seem to be using those tactics more and more. Our policy of not rewarding terrorism has existed for a long time, yet terrorism is on the increase, and seems to be targeting bigger and bigger targets.
quote:Xaposert, that's disgusting.
No, genocide IS disgusting. Replacing Israel with a state that serves all of its people is not, and may simply be necessary in the long run. Or maybe not.
There is a very good reason why the U.S. set itself up to be independent from religion and legally forced to allow a large scope of minority differences. For the same reason, it is important that the new Iraqi government represents all ethnic groups and not just one of the three major sects. There is an inherent problem with states that officially back only one culture and religion, yet control lands in which a large percentage of the people belong to a fundamentally different culture, religion, and set of values. Those states tend to be unstable, increasingly so when the cultural values in question conflict directly.
For that reason, the notion of a Jewish Israel may be an idea that simply cannot work, any more than Iraq could ever become an officially Shiite state. There are too many non-Shiite Iraqis that will not be legally bound to a different culture and religion, and there are too many non-Jewish people in Israeli-territory to accept being ruled by a fundamentally different set of cultural values. And given this, there's really only four basic ways around it: (1) Kill everyone who won't accept the Israeli culture, (2) Fight a neverending struggle with everyone who won't accept the Israeli culture, (3) If the differences are drawn over geographic lines then attempt to divide into two states that each represent two different cultures, or (4) Become secular and do not inherently favor one people over another. (1) is outrageously immoral. (2) is what has been going on. (3) is the two-state plan and only work if geography allows it to. If not, that would leave (4), which would be the dissolution of Israel as we know it, since Israel has from its creation been dedicated to one culture and religion above others. Of course, that plan would depend on both sides agreeing to such a state, rather than demanding a state where their ways are supreme - which seems unlikely any time in the near future. But if (3) doesn't end up working, that means Israel is stuck with (2), continuing struggle. I see no solution to this problem until both sides are willing to put more on the table - including reconsidering the necessity of a Jewish Israel and/or a Muslim Palestine.
Note that the U.S. faced a similar problem with Native Americans, who were just too different for European Americans to deal with. (We apparently could accept cultural differences, but not so great a difference as accepting Native Americans would have required.) Their solution? Genocide to some degree. Force them into separate smaller and smaller separate states to another degree. And fight them constantly for hundreds of years, until finally they were so outnumbered that they had difficulty protesting any further. All in all, I think America now regrets most of this. Does Israel want to go the same route? They should keep in mind that if they take that path, it could take just as long (hundreds of years), and they may end up the ones outnumbered rather than the other way around.
quote:So what would be your suggestion for making things better? That is my problem with the "they are just evil and there is no reason for it" argument. It may be right, but it leaves us no hope for anything to get better. If that is the case, the only "solution" is, as Tom said, amputation. How do we do that without becoming evil ourselves?
I don't understand this. Maybe if it were being said, "They're just pure evil for no reason," you'd be right: the only response to that would be annhilation. Or maybe it's the 'for no reason' part, in which case I agree with you. If they're truly evil for no reason, I guess that is just about the same as pure evil.
The thing is, not only do I not believe they are evil by nature, I don't believe that anyone is evil by nature. Furthermore, in the case of Arabs and/or Muslims, I know for a fact that it's not innate.
It's a choice. And they're making a bad one. And they need to be defeated. Not killed, as Tom keeps blathering, except, of course, actual combatants and active supporters, and even then, only if imprisonment isn't possible.
It's not evil to stamp out evil. That's like saying there's no difference between the government putting a murderer in prison and me kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for years. It's the same action, but it's not the same thing at all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not saying that they are, I'm saying that when people say that they are, when they say that there isn't any point to understanding why, then we are left with Lisa's solution. Killing them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, etc.
Since I don't want to become that, I am determined to believe that there is a point to understanding what has brought us to this.
You know what, Kate? The ****[heck] with you. You're as bad as Tom. I expected better of you. I never suggested any such thing, and you ****[darn] well know it. I expect an apology. From you; not Tom. Dogs bark and bees sting, and I expect nothing from Tom.
posted
Lisa, I really don't want Papa's mailbox to jammed full of whistles when he comes back from the hospital. How about editing the curse words out now, instead? This is the PG-13 forum. Thanks.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I didn't see where starLisa actually suggested rounding "them" up and putting them in camps. I think that she said that they could go wherever they wanted, implying that no camps would be available to them...
The killing them bit I think can be inferred from the idea of Israeli soldiers going in to evacuate Palestinian villages. Death and violence would be the natural consequence of such an action.
On the whole, this whole diatribe
quote:War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
posted
Lisa, I do apologize for upsetting you and I am sorry that you are hurt. I hope that you do know me well enough to know that I don't take that lightly and it is never my intention.
But how are you going to do this:
quote: War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
I advocate punishing them, and yes, punishing them as a group.
without this?
quote: The day Israel makes this their policy will be remembered as the end of Israel. Because at some point early in the implementation of this vile idea, a village will refuse to leave. And, if you're serious about using force to implement this policy, Israel will have to kill them all.
And this will destroy Israel. Either it will spark it's destruction in nuclear fire or it will mean Israel has changed into what it hates most and destroyed itself that way.
Of course, if you don't advocate using force to implement this, then the policy just flat out won't work.
I know it isn't that you wish them ill. I should have been more clear about stating that and I'm sorry that I wasn't. I think you just want them to "be elsewhere". But they aren't going to just vanish. If they are forced out of villages, where are they going to go? And how will that do anything but work to create more terrorists? We would just be making sure they have even less to lose.
posted
Not only is Lisa's village eradication plan a horrible idea, it violates specific UN treaty obligations Israel has to not punish groups for an individual's actions.
It wouldn't work for a variety of reasons.
Lisa, how would you re-write the rules of engagement you quoted? "If you see a suspicious person, you are to empty your clip at them"?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, let's go gently here. Anger and frustration at the situation are justified - there is a lot of hurt here.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could we at least start with the assumption that we are all trying our best to understand each other rather than to score points?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, I do want to understand where Lisa is coming from, and I apologize for the tone in my last two posts.
I still don't see how emptying villages helps, and I would like to know how Lisa would rewrite the rules of engagement.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by FlyingCow: majority of Islamic culture supports suicide bombers and terrorists, if only implicitly. Now who's using strawmen? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have the faintest idea of what a strawman argument is? Because "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
You're right, Lisa, after looking it up, I stand corrected. I really had misunderstood the term.
See, I had believed a straw man argument to be an argument so hyperbolically absurd that any passing efforts at reason would knock it to the ground like a straw man.
I stand corrected. Your statement was not a straw man.
It was, however, hyperbolically absurd.
quote:But the majority culture in Islam today doesn't see it as something that needs to be ripped out by the roots. They support, some more actively, some more passively, the carnage and atrocities.
You really believe that 700 million people (a majority of the over 1.3 billion muslims in the world) actively or passively support the carnage and atrocities? That's greater than the population of North America... all supporting carnage and atrocity.
Right.
quote:War. I'm advocating telling them to control their maniacs or be lumped in with them. I'm advocating a zero tolerance policy.
In Israel, for instance, I advocate this. If a terrorist attack is committed, no more bulldozing the house of the terrorist. Whatever town the terrorist came from, it gets evacuated. The inhabitants can go wherever the hell they want. To another town, to another country, to hell. But they forfeit their village. If nothing else will teach them to take the minimum civic responsibility to clamp down on their maniacs, maybe that will.
Because might makes right, of course.
That will surely end the conflict. After the bloodshed of clearing the villages, there will be peace.
And after the creation of untold refugees who now hate those who killed their family members and evicted them from their homes, who now have no place to call home and a lot less to live for, there will be *fewer* suicide bombers.
And once all of this territory has been cleared out, and the villages abandoned (razed?), there will certainly be no need to constantly patrol these regions with military forces to prevent these people from returning. Jewish and western families could surely move in without fear.
Tres makes a good point about the US dealings with the Native Americans - that was handled in a similar manner. A band of native american warriors might attack a stage coach, the cavalry would wipe out a village.
StarLisa, it is obvious to me that your anger, hate and prejudice towards Muslims has cast your opinions in such a way that they are unbreakable, secure from any doubts that all out war is the only recourse.
I actually am sorry you believe this way. You're more part of the problem than any solution, and the options you present would only exacerbate the situation. It seems you are taking the Keyser Soze role, trying to "show these men of will what will really is".
You are beyond reason in your pursuit of some "final solution" that abides no compromise and offers no quarter. It sounds awfully similar to conversations I had with two young Palestinian men when I was living in Ireland.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh, the UN. That bastion of freedom, decency, and consistency...that only Israel should be beholden to.
Arabic terrorists, well they're going to do whatever the hell they want anyway, so why try holding them to some standard, right?
I think the point what what starLisa was saying-which you knew all along, I suspect-was that Israel massively restrains itself in order to avoid killing civilians, even when doing so puts Israel at serious risk of serious bodily harm or even death.
If Israel had adopted the same policy towards Palestinians as the government of Palestinians has adopted towards Israel, there would be no more Palestinians in Israel, period. They'd be very, very dead.
------
FlyingCow,
quote:You really believe that 700 million people (a majority of the over 1.3 billion muslims in the world) actively or passively support the carnage and atrocities? That's greater than the population of North America... all supporting carnage and atrocity.
Is this really so difficult to believe? For most of recorded human history, passive support of carnage and atrocity has been the rule rather than the exception.
As for your Tresopax's comparison to US treatment of Native Americans...well, that's an interesting stance to take. Because I think we know how that ended up. It worked. It was terrible, it was monstrous, but it was also very effective.
I have a real problem with equating Israeli zealotry with Palestinian zealotry. See, Israelis aren't the ones dancing in the streets throwing ticker-tape parades for targeted murders of unarmed women and children. When Israelis get fanatical about Palestinians, they don't go and double-tap a bunch of kids.
So your comparison doesn't hold much water, really, except to point out that there are diehards on both sides-which isn't exactly news.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. It was silly of me to bring up the toothless UN.
I should have just said her village eradication plan was silly, unfair, and wrong. And wouldn't accomplish her goals.
No, I don't expect terrorists to abide by any civilized standards, by definition. I do hold governments to a higher standard than terrorists. Don't you? What's your point?
I would not characterize the IAF using bombs and missiles to kill an individual as "massively restrained." Just as the US government screwed up recently when it blew up that house in Pakistan in hopes of killing a terrorist, who wasn't even there.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
