Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I genuinely don't understand a lot of the positions presented in this thread. I'm like, how are we connecting these same dots but drawing up such different pictures? The idea that the solution is putting more of our own people at risk? It makes no sense to me. Maybe it's just impossible to answer why we all see things so differently.
The goal should not be to convince... the goal should be to learn and understand.
@vinlyn I used the term meddling to refer to our manipulation of other countries-specifically politics-to achieve our ends, despite what ramifications it has on that nations citizens. For example, assisted coups and placement of US supported politicians. The US government has assisted dictators because it suits our needs, not the needs of the countries that have to live with those dictators.
Furthermore, just as with freedom of speech, we should always hold ourselves to a higher standard than "other countries". With freedom of speech comes responsibility to use it skillfully. With having international power, military might, etc comes responsibility to use it skillfully. Just because everybody else is doing something... doesn't mean I should.
You don't feel we have a responsibility to keep our own soldiers safe by the means we have available to us?
Do we have soldiers in Pakistan?
We can argue all day over whether killing one "insurgent" with the air bombing approach justifies the inevitable civilian casualties; however, over time the civilian casualties will lead to the inevitable withering of international support for our occupation, the withering of domestic support, and--something that is absolutely taking place now but almost never discussed--the withering of support from within the combat troops themselves. All these factors push a war in the direction of defeat.
So without even discussing any liberal or humanitarian views directly, it is actually possible to look at these mass civilian casualties over the past ten years and point to serious, perhaps fatal, flaws in military strategy.
Well--it's a flaw in military strategy if the final goal is a peaceful, stable Middle Eastern nation. If the final goal is just getting what we want in the short term and then claiming convenient and now apparently-acceptable defeat, that's a different story.
@Jason, I would offer that the term "meddling" is often being overused, in general. For example, if Secretary Of State Clinton makes statements about what Iran should do in regard to their nuclear reactors, America is accused of meddling. Yet, Iran is constantly making statement, as well, but telling America what it should do. That aspect of meddling goes both ways. And, we have to remember that when the U.S., and when Iran makes such statements, who are they doing it for? Part is for telling the other country what they should do. Part is actually for domestic consumption. Part is for distribution to the world in general.
I think you make a valid point, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. The key difference is that we're a superpower that has the ability to literally meddle in Iranian affairs while they mostly just have rhetoric. Perhaps a better word is intervening. We have military bases that almost surround Iran and they can't even come close to us. We helped back a coup that toppled their democratic government and installed a dictator in its place. We helped to develop and introduce a computer virus that disrupted equipment at their nuclear enrichment facility in an act we'd consider an act of terrorism and war if done to us (May 30, 2011: "The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force").
My point, however, isn't that nobody else 'meddles'; it's that I think we, as a nation, need to be more conscious of the things we've done and continue to do via our foreign policy that help contribute to this anger and material conditions that have nurtured it because that point often seems to get lost in these kinds of discussions. For example, we can say that we have a stake in the stability of the Middle East because they agreed to supply us with our oil (and for what it's worth, I think that's a fair statement); but does that give us the right to depose a government when it decides to nationalize oil production instead? We might feel that the reign of the Shah we helped install (1953-1979) is ancient history and Iran should just get over it already, but I think it's little wonder that our relationship is a bit rocky and there's still a lot of anti-American sentiment in Iran considering our history and continued military presence in the Middle East. I'm not saying they're good and we're bad; I'm just saying look at some of the things we've done and are still doing.
I guess another way of putting it is that the outcome of a war, and the likelihood of future wars, lies primarily with non-combat operations, contrary to what may seem to be the case. Battles may be defined by soldiers, but war is defined by everyone.
Troop movements, weaponry, combat techniques and firefights are very flashy, but they pass quickly, and then you are left with the reality of who has died. In the past ten years, it is absolutely unquestioned, by either side, that the bulk of deaths have been civilian.
The protesters are unreasonable, disruptive and murderous. Most groups don't kill people over insults, and yes, Islam does seem to demand preferential terms of free speech. The question is, what is to be done?
Telling them they're wrong doesn't seem to work. Propping up weak and cruel governments doesn't seem to work. Military shock and awe doesn't seem to work. We don't even seem to know what these people want or need - yes, there are plenty of pundits who explain that the militants want a universal caliphate and sharia law yadda yadda, they want to destroy our way of life yadda yadda yadda... but I don't think that's accurate or helpful.
How can a sensible dialogue begin? Can we trust that at some level everyone can be reached, that everyone has the capacity to be reasonable if the conditions are right? We are supposed to believe this, as Buddhists.
How can a sensible dialogue begin? Can we trust that at some level everyone can be reached, that everyone has the capacity to be reasonable if the conditions are right? We are supposed to believe this, as Buddhists.
And that's the bottom line.
Sile is great at telling "us" what we're doing wrong. I invite him to go over to Iran and do something about it. We'll see how that goes.
How about love and compassion? It works on a personal level with our perceived enemies... why not on a national/cultural level? It won't work immediately, but we wouldn't need to do this if we had been focused on love and compassion in the beginning.
Sile is great at telling "us" what we're doing wrong. I invite him to go over to Iran and do something about it.
People do. I am sure that plenty of individual people have reached individual hearts and minds, even if there is still fury and misunderstanding on a larger scale.
One of my closest friends is a Somalian Muslim, and he has told me that his views have become far more liberal as a result of friendships with a diverse set of people. I read a good article recently; the research shows that economic and educational levels are a better predictor of politically extreme views than devoutness of Islamic faith. I think that would be my friend's experience too.
He said he met some Israelis in India and he laughed with me about how surprised they were to be able to debate with him. He said 'I was their worst nightmare, an educated Muslim'.
The protesters are unreasonable, disruptive and murderous. Most groups don't kill people over insults, and yes, Islam does seem to demand preferential terms of free speech. The question is, what is to be done?
Telling them they're wrong doesn't seem to work. Propping up weak and cruel governments doesn't seem to work. Military shock and awe doesn't seem to work. We don't even seem to know what these people want or need - yes, there are plenty of pundits who explain that the militants want a universal caliphate and sharia law yadda yadda, they want to destroy our way of life yadda yadda yadda... but I don't think that's accurate or helpful.
How can a sensible dialogue begin? Can we trust that at some level everyone can be reached, that everyone has the capacity to be reasonable if the conditions are right? We are supposed to believe this, as Buddhists.
No, we can't trust that, and I don't think as Buddhists that we're obliged to believe that.
Some people are simply not capable of reason.
And the militants do want universal Sharia law. It's their raison d'être. I don't see why being aware of that is unhelpful, as it is in fact very accurate.
I didn't intend to be confrontational; what I meant was, what do all of us want from them, not just from the militants, but what do we want for the middle east, for political/religious Islam, for Israel and Palestine, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, and so on? What is a good outcome for us? What are we doing to achieve it or what might we be doing that isn't optimal? Because I don't think that's been considered in our media to anything but a cursory degree.
Sile is great at telling "us" what we're doing wrong. I invite him to go over to Iran and do something about it. We'll see how that goes.
Dude. I'm not a dude.
But with all respect to your statement, I am "we." I am included in the country that is making mistakes, perhaps even more responsible for having served. I'm not chastising people so much as strategy; a strategy which results in this many civilian casualties, in a nonlinear war, has a historic chance of failure, regardless of whether you agree with the strategy.
What I'm really suggesting is that reducing civilian casualties is not only a vital humanitarian goal, but even makes good military sense.
"General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called upon the military to “learn the lessons from the past decade.” Over the past decade, the United States has learned a key lesson: strategic objectives and ethical leadership are undermined if civilian protection is not integrated into the military’s overall approach." (http://bit.ly/QrVJB3)
The protesters are unreasonable, disruptive and murderous. Most groups don't kill people over insults, and yes, Islam does seem to demand preferential terms of free speech. The question is, what is to be done?
Telling them they're wrong doesn't seem to work. Propping up weak and cruel governments doesn't seem to work. Military shock and awe doesn't seem to work. We don't even seem to know what these people want or need - yes, there are plenty of pundits who explain that the militants want a universal caliphate and sharia law yadda yadda, they want to destroy our way of life yadda yadda yadda... but I don't think that's accurate or helpful.
How can a sensible dialogue begin? Can we trust that at some level everyone can be reached, that everyone has the capacity to be reasonable if the conditions are right? We are supposed to believe this, as Buddhists.
No, we can't trust that, and I don't think as Buddhists that we're obliged to believe that.
Some people are simply not capable of reason.
And the militants do want universal Sharia law. It's their raison d'être. I don't see why being aware of that is unhelpful, as it is in fact very accurate.
One day in a kingdom far, far away, a bubble floated down from sky and landed in the king's court.
"What is this bubble doing in my court!" He grunted as he inspected the arrival. "This bubble is trouble and something must be done."
The king had a mighty army and none were to match his three best knights. So he called forth the first knight.
"Knight number one, come forth and dispatch this bubble of trouble." the king commanded.
Knight number one was a green knight. He carried a great lance so pointed it would pierce the very air. He looked at the bubble and laughed. He charged forth and struck the bubble with his lance, but the lance bounced off the bubble and flew into the air. Sorely beaten, the knight slinked away with his head hung low. The king was surprised, but he confidently called forth the second knight.
"Knight number two, come forth and dispatch this bubble of trouble." the king ordered.
Knight number two was the red knight. He carried a great mace so heavy that by merely resting it on a boulder it would be crushed to sand. He looked at the bubble and with determination in his eye raised the mace and struck the bubble, but the mace bounced off the bubble and flew into the air. Surprised, shocked, and shamed the knight left the court. The king was being to get nervous, but as the great military man he was he knew that his final knight would not fail.
"Knight number three, come forth and dispatch this bubble of trouble." The king demanded.
Knight number three was the black knight. He carried a sword so sharp it cut the air and made it bleed. Silently he approached the bubble and slashed with all his might, but the sword bounced off the bubble and flew into the air. With his pride injured and his head hung low, he left the court. The king was now in quite a panic.
"Whatever will I do with this trouble of a bubble?!" He said with exasperation and fear.
Then from atop a nearby hill, a small girl came running toward the court: it was the kings daughter. When she began to get close to the bubble, the king leapt forward to block her and with great concern said.
"Stay back, this bubble is nothing but trouble. Not one of my great knights could dispatch it."
Gentle she pushed her father aside. Then with her forefinger and thumb, she pinched the bubble and the bubble popped.
"See father," She said softly. "If you treat it like a bubble, it will act like a bubble."
(Paraphrased from memory from a Jay O'Callahan story I used to listen to on a tape (Little heros) borrowed from my local library.)
But how much can we ignore terrorists? How long can we allow them to kill people? What we view as strength - compassion, understanding, logic - they view as weakness.
Had we not retaliated to 9/11 all it would have meant to the terrorists is that we submitted to them.
Teach them Love and Compassion rather than attempting to punish them for Ignorance.
Sile is great at telling "us" what we're doing wrong. I invite him to go over to Iran and do something about it. We'll see how that goes.
Dude. I'm not a dude.
But with all respect to your statement, I am "we." I am included in the country that is making mistakes, perhaps even more responsible for having served. I'm not chastising people so much as strategy; a strategy which results in this many civilian casualties, in a nonlinear war, has a historic chance of failure, regardless of whether you agree with the strategy.
What I'm really suggesting is that reducing civilian casualties is not only a vital humanitarian goal, but even makes good military sense.
"General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called upon the military to “learn the lessons from the past decade.” Over the past decade, the United States has learned a key lesson: strategic objectives and ethical leadership are undermined if civilian protection is not integrated into the military’s overall approach." (http://bit.ly/QrVJB3)
I don't disagree. But I think you underestimate the difficulty in just changing the dialogue. I've never lived in a predominantly Muslim country, but I did live in Thailand for 2 years, and a simple conversation can be very scary. For example, ask a Thai on the street what he thinks about the current PM or some other government official, and no problem...they'll probably tell you. Ask that same person what he thinks of a particular police official or military figure...and unmistakable fear is there...they'll start fidgeting and looking all around. Ask how they feel about the Crown Prince, and they might just run away from you.
Changing the conversation...or even having a conversation...in some countries can be very scary.
We might not be able to go over there and change the conversation. But we can extend a hand and change the conversation in our own countries, and yet we choose to stay segregated. Many Muslims who live here still have family in their homelands. If we can extend love and compassion to them here, word gets back to their families, and then it spreads. I've seen this happen in families of my few Muslim friends. Yet, too often we continue to make them feel unwelcome, like telling them they cannot build a mosque down the street from the twin towers. Most of us cannot go over to Iran and change anything. But what is anyone doing to change what they CAN change, and extend a hand, a smile, etc to someone who is different from them at home? People are too wrapped up in protecting their own way of life, to worry about extending themselves and learning about a different way of life.
Important also to not overgeneralize a "Muslim" issue; Iran is not even an Arab country. There are many old animosities between Arab and Persian, and even Arab and Pakistani, running along ethnic lines. While there is certainly shared emotion over religion, these nations are very, very different in many ways. Iraq presents different problems than Afghanistan; Afghanistan than Pakistan, Pakistan than Iran, not to mention the Arab Spring nations--each, again, with its own tribes and ethnicities within ethnicities.
Meanwhile, China and Russia watch, and wonder when we'll be at our most overextended; perhaps not watching with an eye to military action, or, perhaps, with such an eye.
Another bottom line rarely talked about is that we simply do not have the ground troops to support these forays; so we go around with jets and drones, becoming a ghostly menace from the sky. What population could be expected to accept this, even if it were not fundamentalist or anti-Western to begin with? There are loads of moderate Muslims who are rarely or never heard from, but little by little, as the civilian toll rises, they are more likely to tolerate violent resistance.
At any rate, no matter what one's perspective on the Mideast, the military agrees that civilian death rates must be reduced, and reduced rapidly. So, warmonger or peacemonger or anything in between, we (hopefully) all share this common goal and recognize it as vital.
If I were China, I'd probably go for Taiwan right about now--or, more likely, once the Iran War has begun. Sad times all around.
I don't disagree. But I think you underestimate the difficulty in just changing the dialogue. I've never lived in a predominantly Muslim country, but I did live in Thailand for 2 years, and a simple conversation can be very scary. For example, ask a Thai on the street what he thinks about the current PM or some other government official, and no problem...they'll probably tell you. Ask that same person what he thinks of a particular police official or military figure...and unmistakable fear is there...they'll start fidgeting and looking all around. Ask how they feel about the Crown Prince, and they might just run away from you.
Changing the conversation...or even having a conversation...in some countries can be very scary.
Totally agree that changing a conversation is incredibly difficult. Unfortunately the conversation has already been set for so long, that even if we do change things, it will take people a long time, imho, to believe it.
That's why something like reducing/eliminating certain highly visible actions--i.e. drone strikes--is so important. It doesn't require much faith in a conversation change. It's an immediate statement on our part.
Even if we don't fully understand the loud reaction to drones--and that reaction has been domestic, too--it's worth paying attention to something which, in a sea of chaos and anger, manages to causes a spike in that chaos and anger. It's worth at least considering a reduction of that particular strategy. It's just not that fruitful--the "valid target/civilian+reaction" ratio is far, far too low, imo. But it's almost impossible to hold back the tide of the defense industry.
Coming soon to a town near you...
"The FAA recently issued streamlined licensing rules for drones for police and other public safety agencies and the Department of Homeland Security is working to speed their introduction. The FAA is expected to finalize a new rule next year for small drones weighing less than 55 pounds."
@vinlyn... Really? So when the law changes so that you are breaking it... what will you say then? You are an educated and thoughtful person, how many times do you think we have to repeat history before we learn?
So let me ask you, if your child was being physically bullied on the school bus, and a video surveillance camera could be installed on the bus...you'd say no...let the bullying continue?
If there were frequent thefts in teachers desks, and a video camera could catch the thief, you'd say no...let the theft continue?
It's kind of like the idea of not allowing citizens to have M60 machine guns. Yes, it's a suppression of individual liberty. But the killing power of an M60 is simply too great to allow ownership as a hobby.
Drones are worse than M60s in many senses. One doesn't even need to be physically near the victim to kill, so finding the guilty part would be incredibly hard.
They don't arm police with M60s, and they shouldn't arm police with drones.
Seriously, if my nation "goes drone," I'm moving to Sweden. A drone-infested sky is not freedom, is not liberty, is not privacy, is not America.
There are two ways to do things: with trust, and with surveillance.
It's difficult to change a fractured society with high crime levels into a trusting society with low crime levels, but it appears that it's even more difficult to change a surveillance society into a society which functions based on trust. Moreover, history, for a myriad of reasons, hasn't been kind to surveillance societies.
@Vinlyn Actually many years ago my son was bullied on the bus. It really wasn't a big deal. The driver usually tried to control things, but I see your point. I am not a teacher so I can't speak to the problem of thefts in the classroom, but surely locks on the desk and classroom door might help. I am a fisherman. We have full time video surveillance of the operation whenever we are fishing for bottomfish. I don't like it, its expensive, but no one can accuse us of overfishing or discarding fish, because of it. It keeps us honest. Video surveillance has it's place. The day I need to have drones watching my neighborhood to feel safe, well, I hope I don't live so long.
I agree, @robot. Cameras can be necessary in some areas. Our local bar has one because they kept having breakins. They had another one, and caught the people and it led to them busting a major meth operation. But even the google van driving around capturing images for their street view is a little creepy to me. I don't break the law either. But sometimes at 4am I'll run the dog out to potty when I'm in my nightgown (we live in a very, very small rural village, no one is up at 4am, lol). Sometimes when we have a bonfire, I might have a drink and I might kiss my hubby. I don't want random people having the option to view moments of my life in that way. It feels invasive, and it doesn't/wouldn't make me feel safe. I hope the world doesn't arrive at a point that I feel safer in a case like that, before I pass on.
Lol sometimes at 4am my husband will run out to potty He says it's "peaceful" -- and I believe him. The other morning he was out doing his woods thing and looked over and saw the neighbor's dog who'd been let out to do her woods thing. They looked at each other, finished, and everyone went back inside. You can still do that in some places, and I hope it stays that way.
And the militants do want universal Sharia law. It's their raison d'être.
What do you want from them?
I want them to stop, obviously.
Islam is a very beautiful religion, and the Qur'an (minus all the wacko stuff) is a beautiful book.
But at the hands of the extremists everyone suffers, from the people at the other end of their attacks to the peaceful Muslims who are being painted black to non Muslims who can't get past the atrocities committed in the name of Islam.
So yeah, I want them to quit it already Isn't that what everyone wants?
But how much can we ignore terrorists? How long can we allow them to kill people? What we view as strength - compassion, understanding, logic - they view as weakness.
Had we not retaliated to 9/11 all it would have meant to the terrorists is that we submitted to them.
Teach them Love and Compassion rather than attempting to punish them for Ignorance.
Terrorists have no interest in love and compassion. They view it as weakness. Some people are born without conscience and terrorists are among those people.
But how much can we ignore terrorists? How long can we allow them to kill people? What we view as strength - compassion, understanding, logic - they view as weakness.
Had we not retaliated to 9/11 all it would have meant to the terrorists is that we submitted to them.
Teach them Love and Compassion rather than attempting to punish them for Ignorance.
Terrorists have no interest in love and compassion. They view it as weakness. Some people are born without conscience and terrorists are among those people.
Also, it has nothing to do with punishment, but dealing with them in a way they understand.
Someone mentioned dog training earlier... You let your dog sleep on the bed with you, the dog sees himself as equal to you. You've "lost the war" and you're inviting disobedience. To keep the respect of the dog you have to kick him off the bed, sometimes forcefully. It has nothing to do with punishment, it's merely saying "this behavior will not be tolerated".
Except a huge part of dog training is showing them their place in the pack...to show them they have to listen because they are lesser than you. Is that really how we want to treat people? I need to guide my children to make correct choices, but that doesn't mean I need to treat them as lesser than me, as stupid, as unworthy of respect in order to get them to tow the line. I'm not saying I have the answer, lol, just saying there are a lot of ways to accomplish the same goal. And a lot of people with perfectly well behaving dogs, allow their dogs to sleep in their beds. People used to say the same thing about babies-that once you pick them up when they are crying, it teaches them that crying gets them affection and attention. OMG, not affection and attention! Let's make sure babies don't cry when they need that!
Well I don't want to push the metaphor too far, obviously we can't compare people with dogs. The main point was that there are appropriate ways of dealing with things and they're not always fluffy. To some, pushing the dog off the bed would be heartless, but in terms of training, it's better for everyone. Again, I'm not comparing people with dogs
And you have to communicate with different people in different ways. If you want to get the attention of a particular group you have to speak to them in a language they understand.
Extremists view fire power as strength. That's why when Obama sent friendly little notes to Ahmedinejad he was ridiculed. AJ didn't view Obama as courteous or respectful, but weak and submissive.
Tolerance, compassion, kindness, these things are anathema to terrorists.
But they have to accept certain things to stop. To accept that the palestinians are forgotten, accept that Islam can be ridiculed and attacked, not once but constantly in the media, for a number of years; to accept that their country's resources will be developed and sold by outside agencies, accept earning a dollar a day while the people their resources benefit drive big cars, accept the death of every man, woman and child who has so far been killed by American and British rifles, bombs, boots and drones.
That last one is what you say you couldn't do, after 9/11. You couldn't roll over and submit, couldn't stop being the big dog. Too much at stake for wisdom to prevail.
There is a great rage bearing down on America. You can't fight or make peace effectively until you meet its eyes.
Who are these people who hate America? Are they cartoon characters with the most basic and mechanical of motivations, zombies who can only bite, tear and infect Liberty's flesh? Do you really believe you could never see what they see, how they see?
If you could, you might understand what a many-splendoured thing 'stop' has to be.
And that perhaps, just perhaps, the other side of the conflict has their own 'stop'. Their own version of 'why can't you just stop and let life and love go on?'. Most of us don't even want to know, because then we might have to sacrifice our sense of superiority, instead of our soldiers' lives.
The issues considered may be explained in a variety of languages, each differing in perspective – any explanation however is a rationalisation of a fluid interdependent reality – by offering such a crystallised explanation, static state errors are inevitably introduced.
So perhaps one way is to collect together the static explanations and try to consider each as a frame within a moving picture - time is of course the great enemy - one has scarcely sufficient opportunity to absorb the vast data available before check out – at best, this cognisance may be captured by a more lasting medium (say literature) though again this static state falls with all other static states – one more drop in the vast ocean.
Individually we are often treading old ground thought we are largely unaware of it – our experiences will lead us along a path of discovery however we are discovering static states – it is our own personal responsibility to incorporate these to our fluid reality but of course our fluid reality is fluid… it has its own demands moment by moment – multiply by innumerable variations and one has a glimpse of the chaotic nature of the complexity of our reality.
Example – it’s easy for me to say, ‘war is terrible, I don't agree with any war'... however, much more challenging in action – I rely on the spoils of war for my lifestyle – I try my best not to but it is everywhere from the oil used to run my car to the investments held safe by my bank – from the relatively crime free streets offered to the relative freedoms enjoyed – I would be naïve to consider there isn’t a ‘price’ to pay for the ‘things’ I ‘value’.
Whenever we consider static states, we are invited to accept a corresponding fiction – perpetuated in the main by the agency of 'self' - take away the notion of self and perhaps then static states will lose their allure – what a challenge that is.
In playing the human game, we play by human rules and achieve the human result – if we wish for another result, we have to play a different game - but we're only human... what other game is there? Is it possible to explain to a tiger that it shouldn't eat you? the tiger will say, I am hungry, you are meat, I need to live – you cannot deny that – all you can say is perhaps, I have a family and they need me, I like my life, I am not ready to die yet - these issues do not feature for the tiger - it is not a tiger's reality - it will eat you - so should tigers be annihilated as they pose a danger to humans? Should they be kept separate to avoid deaths? Should humans accept death as part of life so accept tiger deaths also?
There is no true / correct answer – just a set of static explanations ready to adopt to make sense of existence.
Blaming extremists / terrorists is as misguided as blaming the elite – blame itself is misguided – there is cause and effect – the cause of conflict is human nature – the solution lies in our supposed intellectual ability to transcend automatic behaviours - perhaps progress is plodding toward this supposition.
Terrorists have no interest in love and compassion.
I'm sorry but you sound like George Bush with that statement.
Some people are born without conscience and terrorists are among those people.
I believe there is no evil only ignorance. Everyone of us has Buddha-Nature.
For some, the suffering is so great that they buried it along with their love and compassion but it is still there.
What kind of experience would it take for someone to want to strap a bomb to themselves, walk into a place full of people and... ?
Who said anything about evil? I said born without conscience. Sociopaths/psychopaths and narcissists for example. (An interesting side note - narcissistic personality disorder is the only one without a found connection to the brain's physiology itself.)
So no, in some people it isn't there. Their brain simply doesn't allow it.
As for Bush... I think he's a good guy with a lot of heart. He's not the most eloquent guy on the planet but I don't really mind sounding like him.
But they have to accept certain things to stop. To accept that the palestinians are forgotten, accept that Islam can be ridiculed and attacked, not once but constantly in the media, for a number of years; to accept that their country's resources will be developed and sold by outside agencies, accept earning a dollar a day while the people their resources benefit drive big cars, accept the death of every man, woman and child who has so far been killed by American and British rifles, bombs, boots and drones.
That last one is what you say you couldn't do, after 9/11. You couldn't roll over and submit, couldn't stop being the big dog. Too much at stake for wisdom to prevail.
There is a great rage bearing down on America. You can't fight or make peace effectively until you meet its eyes.
Who are these people who hate America? Are they cartoon characters with the most basic and mechanical of motivations, zombies who can only bite, tear and infect Liberty's flesh? Do you really believe you could never see what they see, how they see?
If you could, you might understand what a many-splendoured thing 'stop' has to be.
And that perhaps, just perhaps, the other side of the conflict has their own 'stop'. Their own version of 'why can't you just stop and let life and love go on?'. Most of us don't even want to know, because then we might have to sacrifice our sense of superiority, instead of our soldiers' lives.
See... You're working on the assumption that terrorist attacks are simply retaliatory, which is exactly what I've been arguing against this entire thread.
They're not simply retaliatory, it's part of the extremist mandate to convert or kill.
Yes, they should accept that in free countries everything is a viable subject for criticism. Religion, religious leaders, politicians... That's what freedom is speech is about, and why we have it, nobody is above criticism. Their resources? Like oil? That's how trade works. Canada sells most of its oil to America to be refined and used over there. Canada then imports most of its own oil from other countries. Trade and diplomatic leverage if needed.
It's like you're making an excuse for terrorism or something, whether you mean to or not when you ignore the facts of the extremist mandate.
It's really nothing like we buy their oil and they get mad and decide they have the right to operate outside the law.
No. It's because they believe they have to bring Sharia to the west. To convert us, and failing that, to kill us. Sound extreme? Yeah. Because we're talking about extremists.
It has nothing to do with some wacko superiority complex, and we really have to let go of this notion that all ideas are created equal. Moral relativism serves nobody and nothing. There is such a thing as right and wrong and it's not a matter of perception.
I think you all should put your ideas together, because the reality of the situation is really a combination of many factors. It's not this way or that way, but all of the above.
Comments
@vinlyn I used the term meddling to refer to our manipulation of other countries-specifically politics-to achieve our ends, despite what ramifications it has on that nations citizens. For example, assisted coups and placement of US supported politicians. The US government has assisted dictators because it suits our needs, not the needs of the countries that have to live with those dictators.
Furthermore, just as with freedom of speech, we should always hold ourselves to a higher standard than "other countries". With freedom of speech comes responsibility to use it skillfully. With having international power, military might, etc comes responsibility to use it skillfully. Just because everybody else is doing something... doesn't mean I should.
We can argue all day over whether killing one "insurgent" with the air bombing approach justifies the inevitable civilian casualties; however, over time the civilian casualties will lead to the inevitable withering of international support for our occupation, the withering of domestic support, and--something that is absolutely taking place now but almost never discussed--the withering of support from within the combat troops themselves. All these factors push a war in the direction of defeat.
So without even discussing any liberal or humanitarian views directly, it is actually possible to look at these mass civilian casualties over the past ten years and point to serious, perhaps fatal, flaws in military strategy.
Well--it's a flaw in military strategy if the final goal is a peaceful, stable Middle Eastern nation. If the final goal is just getting what we want in the short term and then claiming convenient and now apparently-acceptable defeat, that's a different story.
My point, however, isn't that nobody else 'meddles'; it's that I think we, as a nation, need to be more conscious of the things we've done and continue to do via our foreign policy that help contribute to this anger and material conditions that have nurtured it because that point often seems to get lost in these kinds of discussions. For example, we can say that we have a stake in the stability of the Middle East because they agreed to supply us with our oil (and for what it's worth, I think that's a fair statement); but does that give us the right to depose a government when it decides to nationalize oil production instead? We might feel that the reign of the Shah we helped install (1953-1979) is ancient history and Iran should just get over it already, but I think it's little wonder that our relationship is a bit rocky and there's still a lot of anti-American sentiment in Iran considering our history and continued military presence in the Middle East. I'm not saying they're good and we're bad; I'm just saying look at some of the things we've done and are still doing.
Troop movements, weaponry, combat techniques and firefights are very flashy, but they pass quickly, and then you are left with the reality of who has died. In the past ten years, it is absolutely unquestioned, by either side, that the bulk of deaths have been civilian.
Telling them they're wrong doesn't seem to work. Propping up weak and cruel governments doesn't seem to work. Military shock and awe doesn't seem to work. We don't even seem to know what these people want or need - yes, there are plenty of pundits who explain that the militants want a universal caliphate and sharia law yadda yadda, they want to destroy our way of life yadda yadda yadda... but I don't think that's accurate or helpful.
How can a sensible dialogue begin? Can we trust that at some level everyone can be reached, that everyone has the capacity to be reasonable if the conditions are right? We are supposed to believe this, as Buddhists.
Sile is great at telling "us" what we're doing wrong. I invite him to go over to Iran and do something about it. We'll see how that goes.
One of my closest friends is a Somalian Muslim, and he has told me that his views have become far more liberal as a result of friendships with a diverse set of people. I read a good article recently; the research shows that economic and educational levels are a better predictor of politically extreme views than devoutness of Islamic faith. I think that would be my friend's experience too.
He said he met some Israelis in India and he laughed with me about how surprised they were to be able to debate with him. He said 'I was their worst nightmare, an educated Muslim'.
Some people are simply not capable of reason.
And the militants do want universal Sharia law. It's their raison d'être. I don't see why being aware of that is unhelpful, as it is in fact very accurate.
But with all respect to your statement, I am "we." I am included in the country that is making mistakes, perhaps even more responsible for having served. I'm not chastising people so much as strategy; a strategy which results in this many civilian casualties, in a nonlinear war, has a historic chance of failure, regardless of whether you agree with the strategy.
What I'm really suggesting is that reducing civilian casualties is not only a vital humanitarian goal, but even makes good military sense.
"General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called upon the military to “learn the lessons from the past decade.” Over the past decade, the United States has learned a key lesson: strategic objectives and ethical leadership are undermined if civilian protection is not integrated into the military’s overall approach." (http://bit.ly/QrVJB3)
One day in a kingdom far, far away, a bubble floated down from sky and landed in the king's court.
"What is this bubble doing in my court!" He grunted as he inspected the arrival. "This bubble is trouble and something must be done."
The king had a mighty army and none were to match his three best knights. So he called forth the first knight.
"Knight number one, come forth and dispatch this bubble of trouble." the king commanded.
Knight number one was a green knight. He carried a great lance so pointed it would pierce the very air. He looked at the bubble and laughed. He charged forth and struck the bubble with his lance, but the lance bounced off the bubble and flew into the air. Sorely beaten, the knight slinked away with his head hung low. The king was surprised, but he confidently called forth the second knight.
"Knight number two, come forth and dispatch this bubble of trouble." the king ordered.
Knight number two was the red knight. He carried a great mace so heavy that by merely resting it on a boulder it would be crushed to sand. He looked at the bubble and with determination in his eye raised the mace and struck the bubble, but the mace bounced off the bubble and flew into the air. Surprised, shocked, and shamed the knight left the court. The king was being to get nervous, but as the great military man he was he knew that his final knight would not fail.
"Knight number three, come forth and dispatch this bubble of trouble." The king demanded.
Knight number three was the black knight. He carried a sword so sharp it cut the air and made it bleed. Silently he approached the bubble and slashed with all his might, but the sword bounced off the bubble and flew into the air. With his pride injured and his head hung low, he left the court. The king was now in quite a panic.
"Whatever will I do with this trouble of a bubble?!" He said with exasperation and fear.
Then from atop a nearby hill, a small girl came running toward the court: it was the kings daughter. When she began to get close to the bubble, the king leapt forward to block her and with great concern said.
"Stay back, this bubble is nothing but trouble. Not one of my great knights could dispatch it."
Gentle she pushed her father aside. Then with her forefinger and thumb, she pinched the bubble and the bubble popped.
"See father," She said softly. "If you treat it like a bubble, it will act like a bubble."
(Paraphrased from memory from a Jay O'Callahan story I used to listen to on a tape (Little heros) borrowed from my local library.)
This is more shocking that you could ever imagine.
Changing the conversation...or even having a conversation...in some countries can be very scary.
Meanwhile, China and Russia watch, and wonder when we'll be at our most overextended; perhaps not watching with an eye to military action, or, perhaps, with such an eye.
Another bottom line rarely talked about is that we simply do not have the ground troops to support these forays; so we go around with jets and drones, becoming a ghostly menace from the sky. What population could be expected to accept this, even if it were not fundamentalist or anti-Western to begin with? There are loads of moderate Muslims who are rarely or never heard from, but little by little, as the civilian toll rises, they are more likely to tolerate violent resistance.
At any rate, no matter what one's perspective on the Mideast, the military agrees that civilian death rates must be reduced, and reduced rapidly. So, warmonger or peacemonger or anything in between, we (hopefully) all share this common goal and recognize it as vital.
If I were China, I'd probably go for Taiwan right about now--or, more likely, once the Iran War has begun. Sad times all around.
That's why something like reducing/eliminating certain highly visible actions--i.e. drone strikes--is so important. It doesn't require much faith in a conversation change. It's an immediate statement on our part.
Even if we don't fully understand the loud reaction to drones--and that reaction has been domestic, too--it's worth paying attention to something which, in a sea of chaos and anger, manages to causes a spike in that chaos and anger. It's worth at least considering a reduction of that particular strategy. It's just not that fruitful--the "valid target/civilian+reaction" ratio is far, far too low, imo. But it's almost impossible to hold back the tide of the defense industry.
Coming soon to a town near you...
"The FAA recently issued streamlined licensing rules for drones for police and other public safety agencies and the Department of Homeland Security is working to speed their introduction. The FAA is expected to finalize a new rule next year for small drones weighing less than 55 pounds."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/28/drone-lobbying-companies_n_1546263.html
It will be interesting to see how we feel about drones in 20 or so years.
What a way to live.
I love Canada.
If there were frequent thefts in teachers desks, and a video camera could catch the thief, you'd say no...let the theft continue?
Drones are worse than M60s in many senses. One doesn't even need to be physically near the victim to kill, so finding the guilty part would be incredibly hard.
They don't arm police with M60s, and they shouldn't arm police with drones.
Seriously, if my nation "goes drone," I'm moving to Sweden. A drone-infested sky is not freedom, is not liberty, is not privacy, is not America.
It's difficult to change a fractured society with high crime levels into a trusting society with low crime levels, but it appears that it's even more difficult to change a surveillance society into a society which functions based on trust. Moreover, history, for a myriad of reasons, hasn't been kind to surveillance societies.
I am not a teacher so I can't speak to the problem of thefts in the classroom, but surely locks on the desk and classroom door might help.
I am a fisherman. We have full time video surveillance of the operation whenever we are fishing for bottomfish. I don't like it, its expensive, but no one can accuse us of overfishing or discarding fish, because of it. It keeps us honest.
Video surveillance has it's place.
The day I need to have drones watching my neighborhood to feel safe, well, I hope I don't live so long.
I want them to stop, obviously.
Islam is a very beautiful religion, and the Qur'an (minus all the wacko stuff) is a beautiful book.
But at the hands of the extremists everyone suffers, from the people at the other end of their attacks to the peaceful Muslims who are being painted black to non Muslims who can't get past the atrocities committed in the name of Islam.
So yeah, I want them to quit it already
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI18Ak02.html
Someone mentioned dog training earlier... You let your dog sleep on the bed with you, the dog sees himself as equal to you. You've "lost the war" and you're inviting disobedience. To keep the respect of the dog you have to kick him off the bed, sometimes forcefully. It has nothing to do with punishment, it's merely saying "this behavior will not be tolerated".
And you have to communicate with different people in different ways. If you want to get the attention of a particular group you have to speak to them in a language they understand.
Extremists view fire power as strength. That's why when Obama sent friendly little notes to Ahmedinejad he was ridiculed. AJ didn't view Obama as courteous or respectful, but weak and submissive.
Tolerance, compassion, kindness, these things are anathema to terrorists.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Sigh. Double sigh. Super mega sigh.
For some, the suffering is so great that they buried it along with their love and compassion but it is still there.
What kind of experience would it take for someone to want to strap a bomb to themselves, walk into a place full of people and... ?
For some, the suffering is so great that they buried it along with their love and compassion but it is still there.
What kind of experience would it take for someone to want to strap a bomb to themselves, walk into a place full of people and... ?
Okay, so you feel terrorists are filled with love and compassion?
Perhaps they are not evil. Perhaps they are amoral.
How about the difference between a suicide bomber and the pilot of an F18?
A possible answer being that one is a hero and the other a terrorist.
Another possible answer is that they are no different at all.
That last one is what you say you couldn't do, after 9/11. You couldn't roll over and submit, couldn't stop being the big dog. Too much at stake for wisdom to prevail.
There is a great rage bearing down on America. You can't fight or make peace effectively until you meet its eyes.
Who are these people who hate America? Are they cartoon characters with the most basic and mechanical of motivations, zombies who can only bite, tear and infect Liberty's flesh? Do you really believe you could never see what they see, how they see?
If you could, you might understand what a many-splendoured thing 'stop' has to be.
And that perhaps, just perhaps, the other side of the conflict has their own 'stop'. Their own version of 'why can't you just stop and let life and love go on?'. Most of us don't even want to know, because then we might have to sacrifice our sense of superiority, instead of our soldiers' lives.
So perhaps one way is to collect together the static explanations and try to consider each as a frame within a moving picture - time is of course the great enemy - one has scarcely sufficient opportunity to absorb the vast data available before check out – at best, this cognisance may be captured by a more lasting medium (say literature) though again this static state falls with all other static states – one more drop in the vast ocean.
Individually we are often treading old ground thought we are largely unaware of it – our experiences will lead us along a path of discovery however we are discovering static states – it is our own personal responsibility to incorporate these to our fluid reality but of course our fluid reality is fluid… it has its own demands moment by moment – multiply by innumerable variations and one has a glimpse of the chaotic nature of the complexity of our reality.
Example – it’s easy for me to say, ‘war is terrible, I don't agree with any war'... however, much more challenging in action – I rely on the spoils of war for my lifestyle – I try my best not to but it is everywhere from the oil used to run my car to the investments held safe by my bank – from the relatively crime free streets offered to the relative freedoms enjoyed – I would be naïve to consider there isn’t a ‘price’ to pay for the ‘things’ I ‘value’.
Whenever we consider static states, we are invited to accept a corresponding fiction – perpetuated in the main by the agency of 'self' - take away the notion of self and perhaps then static states will lose their allure – what a challenge that is.
In playing the human game, we play by human rules and achieve the human result – if we wish for another result, we have to play a different game - but we're only human... what other game is there? Is it possible to explain to a tiger that it shouldn't eat you? the tiger will say, I am hungry, you are meat, I need to live – you cannot deny that – all you can say is perhaps, I have a family and they need me, I like my life, I am not ready to die yet - these issues do not feature for the tiger - it is not a tiger's reality - it will eat you - so should tigers be annihilated as they pose a danger to humans? Should they be kept separate to avoid deaths? Should humans accept death as part of life so accept tiger deaths also?
There is no true / correct answer – just a set of static explanations ready to adopt to make sense of existence.
Blaming extremists / terrorists is as misguided as blaming the elite – blame itself is misguided – there is cause and effect – the cause of conflict is human nature – the solution lies in our supposed intellectual ability to transcend automatic behaviours - perhaps progress is plodding toward this supposition.
For some, the suffering is so great that they buried it along with their love and compassion but it is still there.
What kind of experience would it take for someone to want to strap a bomb to themselves, walk into a place full of people and... ?
Who said anything about evil? I said born without conscience. Sociopaths/psychopaths and narcissists for example. (An interesting side note - narcissistic personality disorder is the only one without a found connection to the brain's physiology itself.)
So no, in some people it isn't there. Their brain simply doesn't allow it.
As for Bush... I think he's a good guy with a lot of heart. He's not the most eloquent guy on the planet but I don't really mind sounding like him.
That last one is what you say you couldn't do, after 9/11. You couldn't roll over and submit, couldn't stop being the big dog. Too much at stake for wisdom to prevail.
There is a great rage bearing down on America. You can't fight or make peace effectively until you meet its eyes.
Who are these people who hate America? Are they cartoon characters with the most basic and mechanical of motivations, zombies who can only bite, tear and infect Liberty's flesh? Do you really believe you could never see what they see, how they see?
If you could, you might understand what a many-splendoured thing 'stop' has to be.
And that perhaps, just perhaps, the other side of the conflict has their own 'stop'. Their own version of 'why can't you just stop and let life and love go on?'. Most of us don't even want to know, because then we might have to sacrifice our sense of superiority, instead of our soldiers' lives.
See... You're working on the assumption that terrorist attacks are simply retaliatory, which is exactly what I've been arguing against this entire thread.
They're not simply retaliatory, it's part of the extremist mandate to convert or kill.
Yes, they should accept that in free countries everything is a viable subject for criticism. Religion, religious leaders, politicians... That's what freedom is speech is about, and why we have it, nobody is above criticism. Their resources? Like oil? That's how trade works. Canada sells most of its oil to America to be refined and used over there. Canada then imports most of its own oil from other countries. Trade and diplomatic leverage if needed.
It's like you're making an excuse for terrorism or something, whether you mean to or not when you ignore the facts of the extremist mandate.
It's really nothing like we buy their oil and they get mad and decide they have the right to operate outside the law.
No. It's because they believe they have to bring Sharia to the west. To convert us, and failing that, to kill us. Sound extreme? Yeah. Because we're talking about extremists.
It has nothing to do with some wacko superiority complex, and we really have to let go of this notion that all ideas are created equal. Moral relativism serves nobody and nothing. There is such a thing as right and wrong and it's not a matter of perception.