News Message to Terrorists: "You Don't Scare Me

[kyleb]

Make up your bloody mind at least.

Respect the bloody fact that there is options and not everything has to be chizzeled in stone at least.

Anyway, George Soros chimes in with some wise words on the subject:

HE FAILURE OF Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.

In response to Hezbollah's attacks, Israel was justified in attacking Hezbollah to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border. However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel and converted Hezbollah from aggressors to heroes of resistance for many. Weakening Lebanon has also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.

Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches. Israel previously withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates "us" from "them" and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.

http://www.georgesoros.com/article-blinded-8-31-06

 

[franznietzsche]

Respect the bloody fact that there is options and not everything has to be chizzeled in stone at least.

On the contrary, you either think there are conditions under which its acceptable to let him go scot-free, or you don't. So make up your damn mind. That covers all the nuanced possibilities you mgiht like, because I was not in anyway specific about what those conditions might be.

 

[Quadruple Bypass]

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

nah man, I am dead serious. this wasnt the first time i heard this too...its pretty sad

 

[kyleb]

On the contrary, you either think there are conditions under which its acceptable to let him go scot-free, or you don't. So make up your damn mind. That covers all the nuanced possibilities you mgiht like, because I was not in anyway specific about what those conditions might be.

Conditions are conditions, and that is contrary to scot-free.

 

[Burnsys]

I just can't believe how do you all talk about terrorists this terrorists that, but you don't even realize you have terrorists in your own government (Proved.)
Why don't you start by cleaning your own country of terrorists before talking about others?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115264

 

[kyleb]

Why do you think the thread was locked? We don't lilke talk about stuff like that.

 

[Pythagorean]

Violent rebellion is not justifiable, it is the duty of the people under certain conditions. Or maybe I'm the only person still around who believe Jefferson was right. However, the murder of civilians is not justifiable under any conditions, and any who committ murder must be brought to justice.

I agree. My point was that terrorism wasn't justifiable, and that sometimes, justifiable (or dutiful) rebellion is labeled 'terrorism' by the government needing overthrowing.

I don't believe that's the case with the Al Qeda, but I do believe these are terrorists we helped create in the first place.

And yes, I absolutely believe Jefferson was right, I'm actually a libertarian.

 

[Math Is Hard]

There is strong support for terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings among Muslim populations around the globe, see the 2002 PEW survey results below.
I'm not judging you, and if I were - well, let me just say you're at the good end of the spectrum in my book, quite far from proud mothers of suicide bombers.
However, we have a saying: "it's better to be smart than to be right" - we need to make something of this mess. If a clash is necessary, we need to specify goals that will bring a decisive victory and ensure that terrorism is abolished. If we are to learn to coexist with terrorism somehow, we need to identify its causes and minimize them. Either way, we need to stop mothers from raising suicide bombers, and that will be achieved by shedding whatever sense of "normal" and "skewed" when dealing with this problem.

Thank you for posting that informative poll. I am curious about where it came from and what people were thinking in response to the question: Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justifiable? It seems like that could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I have been dismayed that even though so many Muslims don't advocate these actions, neither do they come out against it publicly.

Out of my five closest friends, two are women originally from Iran, of Islamic faith, and they think (like me) that suicide bombing is unjustifiable craziness. We all want it to stop. But they seem to think that there can be no "meeting of the minds" in this problem. Obviously, they understand this much better than I do. What should we do if there is no hope of understanding each other? Or is it too soon to make that judgement?

 

[Anttech]

Terrorism is the Big Boogie man, it will go away with the next political cycle. There is no need for a clash of civilisations.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Is this like some sort of way to like express built up frustrations over current world issues? Or some other thing having to do with some psychological and deep meaning? Because I honestly doubt any terrorists are going to read this stuff. So attempting to insult them (which in the end is what they want, they want a reaction so they know they've affected you) is really just redundant.

 

[slugcountry]

Why do you think the thread was locked? We don't lilke talk about stuff like that.

yes in all honesty that's quite ridiculous - thread after thread about al qaeda et al, and no discussion allowed about the exact same tactics employed and supported by our own secret service agencies.

 

[Yonoz]

Thank you for posting that informative poll. I am curious about where it came from and what people were thinking in response to the question: Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justifiable?

You're quite welcome. Here is some information about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center" , they are quite reputable:

The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" based in Washington, DC, that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the USA and the world. The Center and its projects receive funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Pew Research Center is a strictly non-advocacy organization, while the Pew Charitable Trusts supports advocacy and non-advocacy projects.

The Center's work is carried out by six projects:

* Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
* Stateline.org
* Pew Internet & American Life Project
* Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
* Pew Hispanic Center
* Pew Global Attitudes Project

And here's their http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165".

It seems like that could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I have been dismayed that even though so many Muslims don't advocate these actions, neither do they come out against it publicly.

I have a full stomach when it comes to western media. Don't get me started.

Out of my five closest friends, two are women originally from Iran, of Islamic faith, and they think (like me) that suicide bombing is unjustifiable craziness. We all want it to stop. But they seem to think that there can be no "meeting of the minds" in this problem. Obviously, they understand this much better than I do. What should we do if there is no hope of understanding each other? Or is it too soon to make that judgement?

The Muslim world is quite large and is composed of various religious factions (two of which you probably already know - the Shia and the Sunni) and ethnic groups in a myriad of states with regimes ranging from Turkey's secular democracy, through monarchies such as The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to theocracies such as Iran. It is a very diverse super-society. Before the Islamic revolution, Iran was very western-oriented, and the effects are still felt today. Tehran was the seat of a very modern secular Iranian elite. Many of them left during and after the revolution. Perhaps your friends are such exiles?
In any case, you must realize most Muslims around the globe never really get to know any westerners, and constantly hear of your evil ways in sermons and controlled or religious media - though that's changing lately thanks to the western-modelled Al-Jazeera. Opinions, of course, change much slower. If all Muslims were like your friends, I'm sure we'd have significantly less problems. Unfortunately, your friends and their likes pose a somewhat silent minority in significant parts the Muslim world.
IMO the best thing to do as an ordinary person is to try and learn as much as possible about the structures and dynamics of Muslim societies. It can be quite difficult for a westerner to form a good overview of the Muslim world, the media does not cover it well. When approaching a news report, be methodic: do some basic research on the net (I recommend Wikipedia), ask yourself basic question such as what parties are involved? What are their ideologies/motives? When I read an interesting opinion column by an unrecognised author I look them up. It's difficult to be critical and thorough, but the truth is hard to find.

 

[Anttech]

In any case, you must realize most Muslims around the globe never really get to know any westerners, and constantly hear of your evil ways in sermons and controlled or religious media - though that's changing lately thanks to the western-modelled Al-Jazeera. Opinions, of course, change much slower. If all Muslims were like your friends, I'm sure we'd have significantly less problems. Unfortunately, your friends and their likes pose a somewhat silent minority in significant parts the Muslim world.

What do you mean by "western:" Christian? American? European? White?

 

[Yonoz]

What do you mean by "western:" Christian? American? European? White?

People from western countries. "Getting to know" would also mean a deeper experience than a short conversation.

 

[Anttech]

Yonzo, you'll have to do better than that.

Theres a massive difference between people from:
Cuba to Greece,
Brazil to Canada
Peru to England...
Spain to Senegal

I am sure that Islamic sermons are not talking about those evil doers from Peru.

What would you classify people from New Zealand as? Asian? Easteners?

 

[ray b]

CIA roots of the current terror are something that needs to be discussed
the CIA trained osam beenforgotten and the CIA want you to forget that
locking threads about the CIA and the actions in its history
IS A VERY BAD IDEA
as are the locking threads about the religious part of terror
and the roll of state supported terror
the big picture is important
censorship is allway wrong
let the fools be seen as fools
debate is part of freedom without a free exchange of all ideas
the facts get glossed over
this board locks too much

 

[Kurdt]

Yonzo, you'll have to do better than that.

Theres a massive difference between people from:
Cuba to Greece,
Brazil to Canada
Peru to England...
Spain to Senegal

I am sure that Islamic sermons are not talking about those evil doers from Peru.

What would you classify people from New Zealand as? Asian? Easteners?

The term westerners can have many meanings but in this context I think it means the dominant culture in Europe and those whose culture derive from European culture. That is most European countries and countries in America have their own identity but are bound by a common root culture if you will.

 

[Astronuc]

What do you mean by "western:" Christian? American? European? White?

I think Yonoz was using "western" as most people do - meaning EU+UK and North America primarily, which are all predominantly Christian with a heavy W. European influence. It should be pretty straightforward given the context.

 

[Burnsys]

Westerns may be Countries with an imperialistic history?

 

[Kurdt]

In some applications of the definition western an imperialistic role is implied but in this one its obvious that its is mainly the collective common philosophy of European and some american countries.

 

[Anttech]

Anyway, I don't buy it. Someone in the ME only needs to turn their TV on for 30 mins to have 'our' culture beamed directly into their head. They are *not* as closed a society as Yonzo would have you believe.

We need to separate the "islamist" ideal and Islam!

Islamist ideology and neocon ideology are not so far removed. They both believe that "liberal" ideals are not healthy for society. Islamist believe they corrupt people and subconsciously make them turn their backs on the Koran. One of the first, if not the first *Islamist* group were the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood advocates the creation of Islamic government, believing that God has set out a perfect way of life and social organization in the Quran (as seen in the slogan, "The Quran is our constitution"). It expresses its interpretation of Islam through a strict religious approach to social issues such as the role of women, but also believes that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedoms as defined by the Islamic state. It has previously been and continues to be strongly opposed to colonialism, and was an important actor in the struggle against Western military and economic domination in Egypt and other Muslim nations during the early 20th century. Their goal as stated by founder Hassan al-Banna was the “doctrine of reclaiming Islam’s manifest destiny; an empire, founded in the seventh century, that stretched from Spain to Indonesia.”

Neocons believe that liberalism eventually will decay society until the political system becomes relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism. (Brutalism and gentle). A small peak into the mind of the grandfather of neoconservatism tells us this.

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism. [citation needed] The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. These ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics and moral standards and replace it by force with a supreme authority from which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered. [citation needed] The second type- the ‘gentle’ nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies- was a kind of value-free aimlessness and hedonism, which he saw permeating the fabric of contemporary American society. [citation needed] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this state. The resultant study lead him to revive classical political philosophy as a source by which political action could be judged.

Noble lies and deadly truths

Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are "myths" needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men and women dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche's language, those "deadly truths", flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately, and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth. Strauss has been interpreted as endorsing "noble lies;" myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society

The Islamists and the neocons tell their followers lies. The neocons make the big boogieman stories, like the USSR and now the Terrorists are out to get everyone, and we need to live our lifes in fear, yet they can save us from this threat, if only we will unite behind them. The Islamists believe the same, Muslims are not muslims if they don't reject all that don't follow the Islamist ideal, in the extreme case they then become a non-muslim and are thus not worthy to live. They both tell rather large fibs to cement their ideologies, one tells you "you are being subconsciously taken from the path to paradise", the other tells you "if you don't follow us you will all die, because over their everyone hates you, we must take them out first.

Who is worse? They are as bad as each other, and *need* each other to survive. However I tend to think the neocons need the Islamist more, because the neocons also are far more capitilisticly driven than Islamists

 

[Kurdt]

Why is philosophy not on the curriculum? If more people learned how to discuss ideas and draw conclusions from all experiences then we wouldn't have need for threads to this extreme. it really is depressing.

 

[Anttech]

Why is philosophy not on the curriculum? If more people learned how to discuss ideas and draw conclusions from all experiences then we wouldn't have need for threads to this extreme. it really is depressing.

The reason why having philosophy on the curriculum would stop the need for "threads like this" is because? Prey tell...

 

[Kurdt]

The reason why having philosophy on the curriculum would stop the need for "threads like this" is because? Prey tell...

I was in a mad moment of despair. Just thought if people were exposed to other ideas rather than being lied to or being told this is the only way then there would be a lot more tolerance and no terror.

But on the contrary threads like this are good because they are the discussion of ideas and the discovery of other ways of thinking or at least hopefully.

 

[Anttech]

I concur, discussion and open dialogue is a good thing...

 

[Astronuc]

I was in a mad moment of despair. Just thought if people were exposed to other ideas rather than being lied to or being told this is the only way then there would be a lot more tolerance and no terror.

But on the contrary threads like this are good because they are the discussion of ideas and the discovery of other ways of thinking or at least hopefully.

The last thing politicians and governments want people to do is to think (independently) for themselves.

 

[Kurdt]

I concur, discussion and open dialogue is a good thing...

Shame it has to wait till people decide to do it for themselves, because some never will. If discussion of ideas and open dialogue is not a fundamental educational right then I don't know what is. but then as you quoted a few posts ago its all about the states (any state) control.

Anyway this is miles off original topic I'm just ranting.

EDIT: Astronuc said it before me but just goes to show great minds think alike

 

[Yonoz]

Anyway, I don't buy it. Someone in the ME only needs to turn their TV on for 30 mins to have 'our' culture beamed directly into their head. They are *not* as closed a society as Yonzo would have you believe.

Is "your" culture beamed directly into their head because most of them don't speak English (or Greek in your case)?

 

[Evo]

Why do you think the thread was locked? We don't lilke talk about stuff like that.

No, the reason that particular thread was locked is stated in the thread, if you had bothered to read it, it was basically a repetition of another thread on the same topic.

 

[kyleb]

Yes, threads on that topic are considered done and locked, I read that and that is what I meand when I said we don't like to talk about stuff like that.