Hobby, Worms and Hypocrisy

[Shiv Mathur]

Leaving aside for a moment the question of who is in the right here, why
would anyone consider the 'Holy Bible Old Testament' as some kind of authority?  

In a lighter vein, an oldie but goldie.

[Richard McDonald Woods]

It's a good thing that in each of our societies we have the option of holding all sorts of opinions. Pace.
Creers, R

[Zinger]

Apart from its infinite wisdom, it is the foundation of a mainstream culture, which started with the original monotheistic religion, with two main others splintering from it. About 2/3 of mankind follow those.
An important element defined in it are the principles of human rights. For example, it set, thousands of years ago rules regarding slavery, limiting their exploitation to seven years. Where non-monotheistic religions prevail, one finds human slavery and exploitation of minors common practice, even in democracies.

The Bible similarly set then a high standard of rules for the protection of a country from its enemies, which we follow, a key point of my original post.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of who is in the right here, why
would anyone consider the 'Holy Bible Old Testament' as some kind of authority?  

In a lighter vein, an oldie but goldie.

Regarding the question of who is in the right:
I saw a movie about a subcontinent which struggled for release from occupation and won, through the bravery of its people and wisdom of their leader. Lo and behold, this new state soon split following terrible bloodshed into three, to serve two concentrations of a minority on the far west and east. But that wasn't satisfying, and new demands backed by nuclear weapons are made for certain other portions of the subcontinent, let alone 200 million of that minority quickly multiplying from within. These are the brethren of those peace activists whose cause you doubt.

[Shiv Mathur]

It's a good thing that in each of our societies we have the option of holding all sorts of opinions. Pace.
Creers, R

But that's exactly it ... isn't the option slowly getting eroded ?

Apologies if I seem to be arguing for both sides ... I'm just trying
to make sense of it all.

But, yes, PACE !

Regards,
Shiv

[Zinger]

A report about IHH organized Gaza Flotilla and the US State Dept. probe into IHH ties to the Turkish Government, Parliamernt, and terror.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3920320,00.html


The Turkish Foreign Ministry just released relevant evidence to the State Dept. inquiry, millions of martyrs plans, and who is who here.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3907170,00.html

These and an abundance of similar information, should help alleviate reader concern, that Flotilla info had been censored.

[Will]

PACE everyone, PACE.

[OKD]

Shiv...

I totally agreed with you.  Missing THE POINT..

Unfortunately, the UN and the US or their "peer support" are living in denial...

The whole point or may I ask (if the CIAs / MI 5,6,7 etc.../Israel's agency - forgotten your agency's name) are reading this...WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THESE SO CALLED TERRORISTS FIGHTING FOR...?

So far, so many US Presidents had come and gone...none of them actually had the balls to stand up on stage and answered THE question. From the era of the mid 60s; till the acts in Munich Olympic; hijackings in the 70s; Kuwait invaded by Iraq; 911; the UN never approved  invasion of Iraq & Afghan.....

Looks like nobody will ever answer THE question till THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT...!!

There seems to be some wilful missing of the point here.

I don't imagine anyone says that terrorists should not be fought against.
The question seems to be, were they, in fact, terrorists ?

[Shiv Mathur]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/panel-removes-hurdle-for-mosque-near-ground-zero

Incredible.  How they must be laughing to themselves.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Well, here I am not sure again. Is everything related to Islam by definition meant to kick ass of anything non-Islamic? If so, you have a point in rejecting it. But if not, acceptance is the only way of ever having any hope to stop the stupid fights.

Unless somebody (personal, one human entity or legal body) has proven to be guilty, he's innocent. Right?

If the people building this building do not have dark shades and there is sufficient clearance around them personally and around their organisation, which of course should be reasonably checked due to the sensitivity of the matter, I see only advantages. "Not everybody is like X". It's a message worth to be heard.

However as soon as a shadow appears, up go the eyebrows and out come the excavators.

It's a fine line, but I don't think that a priori rejection is the right answer. In this particular case, they have the chance of making it a monument of peaceful coexistance or even integration. However, stay vigilant -- if it turns out to be a marketing move, even if it is 100% okay on the surface but sneakily funded by the extremists to create a foothold, out it goes.

Please don't respond by "it is KNOWN it is just an extremist foothold, we just didn't discover it yet". I am still not sufficiently scared to drop my belief in innocense until proven guilty.


Jeroen

[Shiv Mathur]

You're right, of course.  

Maybe I'm just upset about how things are going closer to (my) home.
("You know and we know that we support terrorists, but you're
still going to give us money and armaments to 'fight terrorism' ".)
Hah !!

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Yup, there you have a point.

Just for discussion: are these particular terrorists truly fundamentally Islam-inspired and do they truly fight for belief in something Good and Great? Or are these particular terrorists just after personal power, personal wealth, or a personal vengeance and do they use some old book they've never read as an excuse?

I tend to think there's a whole lot of type II and relatively few type I terrorists. Same, of course, for the so-called People's Liberation Something movements.


Jeroen

[Shiv Mathur]

I'm glad you asked this, Hoppie, otherwise I might never have
mentioned it.  It is my considered opinion that these particular
terrorists have only one agenda; to inflict as much harm as possible on India.

If one looks at the genesis of the two countries, one will see that their whole
raison d'être  is to war against India.  Take away India, and they would
collapse in on themselves.

I am too close to this to judge ... if you feel this post is too contentious,
I'd request you to delete it.

Shiv

[Will]

(Avoiding the main argument) Mayor Bloomberg gave a moving speech today about the planned building, saying basically that religious freedom is kinda what got America going in the first place, and if we say no to the mosque simply because it's Islamic, then Osama bin Laden successfully got us to compromise a core value of ours, and he scores a point.  Bloomberg draws a distinction between Muslims and terrorists.  He was right to do that.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

A priori I agree with Bloomberg, as explained above.

Yet, there are many people around (and I think their number is increasing) who choose not to make this distinction, and want to fundamentally (sic) reject everything Muslim from their vicinity. This is what worries me more than the (real) threat from (real) fundamentalists who are mad or desperate enough to blow themselves up etc.

Terrorists should be fought, period.

However, giving up fundamental (sic) values we fought for in the past for this new fight against terrorism is, I think, betrayal to our ancestors.


Jeroen

[Will]

Well said, jeroen.

[Zinger]

A priori I agree with Bloomberg, as explained above.

Yet, there are many people around (and I think their number is increasing) who choose not to make this distinction, and want to fundamentally (sic) reject everything Muslim from their vicinity. This is what worries me more than the (real) threat from (real) fundamentalists who are mad or desperate enough to blow themselves up etc.

Terrorists should be fought, period.
Well said, now let's break it down a tiny bit.
a. First you need to identify the threat/ enemy. Here lies a strength of terrorists, which makes fighting them hard. They wear no uniform, carry no mil identity, and have no identifiable bases. They are civilians so to speak. Can you tell on TV video footage from Kabul, who is Taleban? Can the foot soldier tell who, when patrolling? Only after he is attacked by surprise.

b. Who do they fight for? they fight for civilian Muslims, the terrorist are the army and the civilians are the nation/ culture which sent them. That which gives them refuge, finance, security,cover and a first class place in heaven with young virgins.

c. Ancestors and duty: Why did  the allies bomb to total destruction city centers of Germany, were those military targets? Why did US choose to destroy two civilian Japanese cities? Irrersponsible? or anavoidable! The fact is that Europe and the Pacific are quiet since with a different order. This is what our ancestors who fought evil then, gave us.
Here lies your answer and committment to your ancestors: Preserve what they created, and use whatever it takes in doing so. Otherwise you betray them, and your offsprings. Period.
...civilians, However, giving up fundamental (sic) values we fought for in the past for this new fight against terrorism is, I think, betrayal to our ancestors.


Jeroen

I realize the difficulty to westerners who never got close to war, combat and massacre, to understand this. What is difficult is to understand why they insist on getting that terrible hands-on experience before they can see clearly.

[Will]

Well said, Jeroen.  A further point: there is an appropriate military/security response to terrorism.  But there is also an appropriate sociopolitical response.

If you see a terrorist charging at you with a bomb strapped to him, then you shoot him.

But if the terrorists are invisible, blended into the masses, and silently lurking, then you simply can't (and shouldn't) concentrate primarily on the military/security response.  (For one thing, that perpetuates the terrorist's sense of victimhood, which is usually a central motivating force of terrorist ideology.)  Instead, when the terrorist is silently invisible, that's the time to move beyond the guns, fences, and drones, and use other means to reduce their motivation for turning to violence.

Much of the Islamic violence has its origin in people of poor countries who have been disenfranchised by their political class, who have then conveniently served up surrogate enemies to deflect the political heat from themselves.  Working on fixing that problem would be one of several great starting places, and wouldn't perpetuate the victimhood that drives the terrorist rage.

[Zinger]

Will,
if certain masses were deprived by class or leadership, shouldn't the former take it up one way or another with the latter? How does this deprivation relate to 9/11 attacks?
It doesn't, nor in the Paris Metro, the Spain train system, tourists in northern Africa and Bali. It is a cultural wave fueled by religious motives, designed to end western culture dominance and go back wherever possible to the 7th century AD.

It is motivated by the failure of Muslim states to make good on the fortunes they have been sitting on. Look at the Pakistani flood photos, the people did nothing nor did their governments to improve their lives (with certain Gulf area exceptions), like India as example is now doing.

[Will]

"If certain masses were deprived by class or leadership, shouldn't the former take it up one way or another with the latter?" Of course.  But right now they're taking it up with us.

"It is a cultural wave fueled by religious motives, designed to end western culture dominance and go back wherever possible to the 7th century AD."  I completely agree with you that this is more about a cultural wave than about a religion, nationality, or ethnicity.   Therefore, defining the 'enemy' in religious, national, or ethnic terms is needlessly over-inclusive, and will backfire by creating righteous indignation and more victimhood.

"It is motivated by the failure of Muslim states to make good on the fortunes they have been sitting on."  Again, I agree completely; the primary failure is not with Islam, but with the political institutions in some Muslim states, as you say.  The states in question tend to be totalitarian, with no tolerance of political, cultural, or religious dissent.  Hardly an environment for a people to feel empowered or to enjoy the optimism that comes with a sense of secure self-determination.  The West is a convenient surrogate enemy, and everybody profits: the disenfranchised populace gets to vent its rage, while the political class isn't threatened by revolution.  (Well, the West doesn't profit, of course.)

The good news in all of this is that cultures change over time, in response to internal and external incentives and pressures.  The West should act in its own best interest by using the security apparatus where appropriate, but minimally so (so as not to create any more victims), while simultaneously carrying out a more important and longer term mission: to help create and nurture incentives for healthy cultural change.

[Hardy Heinlin]

b. Who do they fight for? they fight for civilian Muslims, the terrorist are the army and the civilians are the nation/ culture which sent them. That which gives them refuge, finance, security,cover and a first class place in heaven with young virgins.

c. Ancestors and duty: Why did  the allies bomb to total destruction city centers of Germany, were those military targets? Why did US choose to destroy two civilian Japanese cities? Irrersponsible? or anavoidable! The fact is that Europe and the Pacific are quiet since with a different order.

I didn't read the whole thread, mainly just that red part. I'm not sure I have interpreted your comments correctly, Zinger.

Re b) -- So, in your opinion, all civilan Muslims on this planet support terrorists, i.e. every Muslim is, directly or indirectly, a terrorist?

Re c) -- You conclude that without the bombs on those civilan targets at the end of World War II those regions would not have been quiet ever since?

This conclusion is, in my opinion, incorrect in two respects:

1. Incorrect interpretation of the history: True is that those terror regimes were already powerless before those final bomb attacks.

2. Incorrect application of the principle of Cause and Effect: An effect, in this case a quiet Europe and Pacific, surely has its causes, i.e. events that cause this effect. But this doesn't necessarily suggest that any precedent event whatsoever is the cause. Concluding that Danzig and Hiroshima be the cause of all post war peace is as irrational as concluding that supernova XY be the cause of the fall of the Iron Curtain just because it exploded shortly before.


In short: Are you suggesting to bomb the entire Muslim world?


|-|ardy


P.S.: To illustrate my possibly too abstract comment with a concrete example (one of many, obviously): Although civilian targets got bombed in Vietnam, the region didn't get quiet.