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.
See... You're working on the assumption that terrorist attacks are simply retaliatory,
No, what our governments are doing is looking at everything they want and saying 'well, we obviously can't budge an inch on any of that, so they're just being spiteful'. That attitude is handed down to the media, and then to us, but without any discussion of the first part.
Their resources? Like oil? That's how trade works.
Does it have to work like that? I mean, if it's not working for the people, it's not working, right?
It's really nothing like we buy their oil and they get mad and decide they have the right to operate outside the law.
Did they have a say in the making of those laws? Did we have too much say?
Ok, I'm going to be silly here, but RebeccaS, just stop for a moment and look at this as if you aren't part of it. We have killer robots. Who uses killer robots to shoot up peasant goat farmers? The bad guys, that's who. Moral relativism? You need a whole bucketful of that crap to justify killer robots and torture of detainees.
There really isn't a monolithic "they." There are as many flavors of Islam as there are Christianity, and Muslims disagree just as strongly with one another on points of faith, or on issues such as liberalism vs. orthodoxy, as any Abramic religion does. Many Muslims themselves have been questioning and resisting Shari'a law as a basis for government since the 13th century, sometimes violently.
Some southern Baptists have as much in common with fundamentalist Muslims as each does with its respective liberal counterparts. I always think this is kind of sad--a super fundamentalist homeschooling family in Georgia shares loads of cultural and social instincts with a fundamentalist Yemeni family; yet they see each other as enemies, while all around them are people in their own neighborhoods who actually disagree with them more strongly.
Most fundamentalist Muslims are not terrorists. Most fundamentalist Muslim families sit at home in the evening just like Baptist families, both worrying the world is going down the toilet and that their kids are going to be raised in a filthy environment.
Many people protesting right now though, are not even fundamentalist. It's inaccurate to say Muslims are fundamentalist, and fundamentalists are terrorists. You can go the other direction, true--terrorists in the Mideast are often fundamentalist, and these fundamentalists are often Muslim. If your logic follows this path, you reflect reality; if one reverses it, one over generalizes and solves nothing.
One could blow this all off as liberal Pollyanaism were it not for the fact that mischaracterizing "the threat" is a serious military liability. We learned that lesson in Vietnam, hopefully.
Though regional dictators have occaionally gone on local sprees--often an ethnic dominance spree as much as religious (e.g. Sudan)--there really isn't a fundamentalist-wide "convert" message in Islam. But some fundamentalist regimes do cause severe problems for those who attempt to convert away from Islam.
I always find its in intriguing how the Saudis seem to largely escape scrutiny in these discussions, especially given that Saudi Arabia is one of the primary Muslim nations to actually govern solely via Shari'a law.
Actually, I think there is, but it's a group that, as you rightly point out, can't be defined only as fanatical Muslims or even political Islamicists. There is a we as well, and it includes the peace campaigners.
They know our strength is that we have the guns, and our weakness is that we fear death.
They can't get the guns to fight on equal terms, so they embrace death.
We are trying to continue providing for our needs. They are rejecting their own needs, because they know that they are powerless to fulfill them while we provide for ours in the muscular, exclusionary way we have been doing.
In an odd way, they are trying to have dialogue. They are trying to become a credible threat to us, because we have always refused to talk to anyone who isn't.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I am reminded during this discussion, of Martin Luther King's famous words:
"True Peace is not merely the absence of Tension; it is the Presence of Justice".
we must evaluate what true Justice is, and not confuse it with dominant retaliation.
See... You're working on the assumption that terrorist attacks are simply retaliatory,
No, what our governments are doing is looking at everything they want and saying 'well, we obviously can't budge an inch on any of that, so they're just being spiteful'. That attitude is handed down to the media, and then to us, but without any discussion of the first part.
Their resources? Like oil? That's how trade works.
Does it have to work like that? I mean, if it's not working for the people, it's not working, right?
It's really nothing like we buy their oil and they get mad and decide they have the right to operate outside the law.
Did they have a say in the making of those laws? Did we have too much say?
Ok, I'm going to be silly here, but RebeccaS, just stop for a moment and look at this as if you aren't part of it. We have killer robots. Who uses killer robots to shoot up peasant goat farmers? The bad guys, that's who. Moral relativism? You need a whole bucketful of that crap to justify killer robots and torture of detainees.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" and amen to that. Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior. I'll pull the scissors out of your hand, sure, but as for what you want? No. You'll find another way to address those issues.
As for laws... There are international laws and treaties signed by all the countries involved.
I don't get the robot thing
@Sile, I kind of agree, but we're not just blanketing and saying Muslims here. There are of course many kinds of Muslims, many "flavors" of Islam, but the conversation is about the extremists and their actions. Some argue that given the nature of their scripture there is no difference (why we see so many anti-Islam attitudes) but I disagree.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" and amen to that. Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior.
Oh come on. It's not just terrorists who've suggested changes in U.S. foreign policy. Obama campaigned for such changes, and then forgot that he had done so. There is a whole bunch of non-terrorists who think our governments are making prideful, ignorant, antagonistic choices.
Just because the terrorists are idiots doesn't mean we have to be careful not to do anything they agree with.
Another answer is that one operates within international law, the other does not.
I'll have to disagree slightly on this one, @vinlyn. The US drone assassinations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia violate international law, or at least many lawyers to date have given this opinion. There's some interesting discussion here of the nitty-gritties:
Ian Seiderman, director of the International Commission of Jurists, has given the opinion that "immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law":
According to Mary Ellen O'Connell, professor of international law at Notre Dame, over 2200 people have been killed by targeted drone attacks in Pakistan alone. This means we either targeted roughly 2200 people for assassination, or have killed an awful lot of bystanders. As much as I've been griping about drones, I had no clue the number was this high.
On a much lighter note, China crashed a drone a summer or two ago and the townspeople ran out and snapped a bunch of pics on their iPhones before the incident could be "erased." I don't know why but that just cracked me up. It's like, not even Beijing can separate people and their iPhones.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" and amen to that. Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior.
Oh come on. It's not just terrorists who've suggested changes in U.S. foreign policy. Obama campaigned for such changes, and then forgot that he had done so. There is a whole bunch of non-terrorists who think our governments are making prideful, ignorant, antagonistic choices.
Just because the terrorists are idiots doesn't mean we have to be careful not to do anything they agree with.
They're hardly merely suggesting changes. It's not like they send memos or something
Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior. I'll pull the scissors out of your hand, sure, but as for what you want? No. You'll find another way to address those issues.
Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior. I'll pull the scissors out of your hand, sure, but as for what you want? No. You'll find another way to address those issues.
Do you think extremists know they're extremists?
I'm not sure. Narcissism tends to be blind to itself, so I would guess, no. I'm not sure what the relevance of that is though.
They're hardly merely suggesting changes. It's not like they send memos or something
I don't think you're reading posts carefully before you respond, so I'm going to sign off this debate for now.
Well your posts don't make a lot of sense. You really think Obama just forgot about the things he proposed? Or do you think it more likely that after meeting with the security council he realized that his ideas weren't so good after all?
Okay, so you feel terrorists are filled with love and compassion?
Perhaps they are not evil. Perhaps they are amoral.
May I ask you what the difference is between a "patriot" and an "insurgent?"
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.
Another answer is that one operates within international law, the other does not.
The question is, which one? Lol.
No, that really isn't up for question. There is a long-standing set of legal treaties and documents that set up international organizations that governments -- generally -- work within.
Has anyone noticed that although the flag is burnt, and the people calling for death, no cross or bible has been burnt or denegraded. Although the whole situation ignited over a religious issue.
Has anyone noticed that although the flag is burnt, and the people calling for death, no cross or bible has been burnt or denegraded. Although the whole situation ignited over a religious issue.
Yes, which is why I've tried to stress the underlying political reasons Muslims (which @Sile has pointed out is actually a diverse group of people lumped under a single, religious label) in the Middle East and around the world are so angry with the US in the first place, and why this isn't simply an expression of religious anger or extremism, but frustration with our fairly aggressive foreign policy in the region over the past 60+ years.
Politics and religion are the same entity in a lot of these countries. They don't all have the separation of "church" and state. Their political leaders are also their religious leaders so it's not a case of religion or politics or religion vs politics.
Politics and religion are the same entity in a lot of these countries. They don't all have the separation of "church" and state. Their political leaders are also their religious leaders so it's not a case of religion or politics or religion vs politics.
Certainly, but many of the issues they're angry about have little if nothing to do with religion.
For example, being angry that a foreign nation is using drone strikes to kill targets in their country and/or neighboring countries they're not even at war with (e.g., Pakistan, Yemen, etc.), and that routinely kill innocent bystanders, doesn't have much to do with religion. Being pissed that a foreign nation has invaded and occupied their country and/or neighboring countries doesn't have much to do with religion. Being upset that a foreign nation has materially supported dictatorships in their country and/or neighboring countries (e.g., Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.), or helped depose a democratic government (e.g., Iran), doesn't have much to do with religion.
The main issue that does have to do with religion is the foreign nation provoking much of this anger in predominately Muslim countries, the US, happens to be predominately Christian, and soldiers and citizens of this particular nation have repeatedly denounced Islam, Mohamed, desecrated and burned the Koran, etc., which has been hyped by religious leaders along with everything else to produce an extremely volatile situation. But I'm fairly convinced that the anger at the US is mostly because of what many perceive to be its imperialist policies in the Middle East, not the fact that it's predominately Christian.
As for the anger at, and frustration with, the US's seemingly unconditional support of Israel, which arguably has a religious aspect to it, it's also due to a host of other things that have little to do with religion, such as the fact that Israeli policies have negatively impacted the growth of the Palestinian economy, from its blockade of Gaza (an area smaller than Portland, OR, with twice the population) via its almost complete control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and territorial waters to its occupation of the West Bank, replete with over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints obstructing Palestinian movement. And that doesn't even address the disputes over territory, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, the US's blocking of the Palestinian UN membership bid, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's much more complicated than 'they're Muslims'; and I think it's a mistake to frame this as a predominately religious issue because doing so has the tendency to obscure the decades of underlying political issues that have provided much of the fuel for such explosive reactions in the first place.
Some history . The U.S. involvement in the Middle east, and support of Isreal didn't happen until the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty; where Isreal attacked a U.S. ship in open waters.
But again, we come back to extremists. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a known extremist group. Israel imposed the blockade in Gaza after Hamas came to power. Who are Hamas? A militant religious political organization, and again we find ourselves coming away from politics and back to their extremist views - the point of origin.
But again, we come back to extremists. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a known extremist group. Israel imposed the blockade in Gaza after Hamas came to power. Who are Hamas? A militant religious political organization, and again we find ourselves coming away from politics and back to their extremist views - the point of origin.
Well, I suppose one can narrow it all down to religion if they want; but I think broadening our perspective and acknowledging the vast array of underlying socio-economic and political issues is the best way to understand the complexities of the situation and help identify possible solutions.
But again, we come back to extremists. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a known extremist group. Israel imposed the blockade in Gaza after Hamas came to power. Who are Hamas? A militant religious political organization, and again we find ourselves coming away from politics and back to their extremist views - the point of origin.
Well, I suppose one can narrow it all down to religion if they want; but I think broadening our perspective and acknowledging the vast array of underlying socio-economic and political issues is the best way to understand the complexities of the situation and help identify possible solutions.
Kind of, but not really, because you've got it a bit backwards.
The underlying issue is the extremist viewpoint, the politics and socio-economic issues lie on top of that.
It isn't politics that color and build the religion, it's the religion that colors and builds the politics.
They're both important, but not equally so when trying to understand the extremist viewpoint. When trying to understand them (and it's in understanding that we can figure out solutions) we have to realise that the religion comes first - the politics are a part of that because of how many Islamic nations are governed - because as I said, it's the religion that colors the politics, not the other way around.
It's not negating the importance of political factors, it's just putting them into context.
But the extremist viewpoint is present in wildly different amounts across the Islamosphere, from a lot, to almost not at all; in other words, you're leaving the rest (and often the bulk) of the population in these nations out of the equation. Sort of like trying to deal with American issues by only considering the Tea Party's behavior, and ignoring all else.
There are extremists in Turkey, but the Turkish government is largely secular. There are extremists in Saudi Arabia, and that government is actually sourced in an incredibly strict and often barbaric interpretation of Shari'a Law, but they're, for some reason, an openly-acknowledged ally of the West.
Then there are the loads of countries/regions in between from Iraq to areas of China to Malaysia which have varying degrees of both extremist, moderate, and liberal influence.
It's not possible to say religion is at the root of all government activity in Malaysia, for example, even though that government is partially based on Shari'a law, with separate legal systems--secular, and Shari'a--operating side by side.
It's really not feasible to generalize the Muslim world, any more than one can generalize the Christian or Buddhist worlds. One can certainly see why a rotten film about Mohammed would anger Muslims, or why a rotten film about Christ would anger Christians, but that doesn't actually have much to do with the comprehensive and very individual issues each region presents in other matters, imho.
No - Chinese atheist/Taoist extremists in the third or fourth straight day of rioting, torching Japanese businesses and destroying anything else they can find that seems remotely Japanese. The have been pulling Japanese people out of their cars--as well as Chinese people driving Japanese cars--and beating them, in brought daylight, with impunity.
I don't know if anyone's seen these riots on the news in the past few days--I haven't, but it's very possible I missed them. I do feel it's clear that these riots, easily as violent as those in many Muslim regions currently, are for some reason not getting the equivalent newsplay.
At any rate, the main point is that extremism and anger and racism and social unrest can happen anywhere, anytime--it is not a Muslim issue.
@Sile At any rate, the main point is that extremism and anger and racism and social unrest can happen anywhere, anytime--it is not a Muslim issue.
I would never say otherwise and I don't think anyone has said it at all on this thread. That was a bit of a straw man.
I just mean that extremism can appear anywhere - violence isn't limited to Muslim extremism, so it's hard to say that all violence in the Muslim world is rooted only in religion, when it could be rooted in other factors, such as poverty an its attendant pressures, which can certainly be lit on fire by religion, but religion isn't the only factor.
@Sile I just mean that extremism can appear anywhere - violence isn't limited to Muslim extremism
Nobody has said otherwise.
so it's hard to say that all violence in the Muslim world is rooted only in religion,
We're not talking about all violence in the Muslim world, we're talking about the actions of extremists.
when it could be rooted in other factors, such as poverty an its attendant pressures, which can certainly be lit on fire by religion, but religion isn't the only factor.
Nobody has said religion is the only factor.
This is why what you wrote looked like a straw man to me - nobody is saying any of these things that your post appears to be refuting. I'm not saying that's what you were trying to do, just what it looked like in the context of the thread.
I am reminded during this discussion, of Martin Luther King's famous words:
"True Peace is not merely the absence of Tension; it is the Presence of Justice".
we must evaluate what true Justice is, and not confuse it with dominant retaliation.
Good job, @federica. Reminds me of another Martin Luther King, Jr. quote: "The choice today is no longer about non-violence and violence. It is either non-violence or non-existence."
I don't see how someone who aspires to live from compassion could view the choice any differently. Conditionary compassion isn't compassion. It's just playing the suffering game out to yet another degree and justifying state sponsored violence by calling it "defense". That's poppycock.
It's so funny, and sad - if you got the aforementioned fundamentalist Muslim and Baptist moms together in the same room, they would agree on almost everything. Cover your legs, no movies with boys, say your prayers, what Dad says goes, no rap music, marry a nice Muslim/Baptist man, and there is no god but God. About the only core difference would be the words "Mohammed/Jesus" and "Quran/Bible."
On defense - we don't pet a dog exhibiting aggressive behaviour, we wrestle it to the ground and sit on top of it. We don't ignore our dog attacking another dog, we pull the dogs apart and assert our dominance.
We don't pray that our dog will leave the other dog alone, we don't try and coax it with treats, we don't pretend it will understand the words "but biting other dogs is mean". We deal with it appropriately.
Bad analogy, in my opinion. Muslims (or any other group of people we're in conflict with) aren't dogs to be petted. We don't own them. We're not their masters. They're human beings who deserve to be treated as such.
Perhaps. I just find the analogy a bit offensive and don't really think we should be comparing a whole group of people to disobedient dogs that need to be trained by us. Too reminiscent of colonial mentality for my comfort.
I once got to meet an enlightened master. Fully awakened. My husband asked him a question about negative people in our lives and the master said to him "if a dog bites you, stay away from that dog".
If dog analogies are good enough for a fully awakened sage they're good enough for me so I don't mind using them
Aside from that, it's not really about training, but standing firm about what behaviour will be tolerated and what won't. It's setting boundaries, the same as you would in any relationship.
That's the whole problem with our approach. We deal with these populations and factions as if they are dogs, with shallow, simplistic behavior and needs. We push them into corners which dogs, bred and trained to be servile, will tolerate, but which people cannot.
The first question to ask in a potential conflict is 'who am I dealing with?'. And the answer in this case is 'humans'. In our everyday life, which methods of conflict resolution tend to be more successful when dealing with other human beings?
Are we using those methods in the Middle East, or are we doing something else?
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.
Their resources? Like oil? That's how trade works.
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.
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.
Some people are born without conscience and terrorists are among those people.
born without conscience. Sociopaths/psychopaths and narcissists for example.
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.
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.
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.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" and amen to that.
Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior. I'll pull the scissors out of your hand, sure, but as for what you want? No. You'll find another way to address those issues.
we come back to extremists. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a known extremist group. Israel imposed the blockade in Gaza after Hamas came to power.
On defense - we don't pet a dog exhibiting aggressive behaviour, we wrestle it to the ground and sit on top of it. We don't ignore our dog attacking another dog, we pull the dogs apart and assert our dominance.
We don't pray that our dog will leave the other dog alone, we don't try and coax it with treats, we don't pretend it will understand the words "but biting other dogs is mean". We deal with it appropriately.
There are differences with people, too. It doesn't come down to just "humans".
Like, I'm British, and I married into an Eastern European family, and they kiss each other allllll the time. I was brought up in a pretty reserved family, and the whole kissing thing freaks me out. My husband's cousin's wife is also a Brit, it freaks her out, too
But, when we're with the family we kiss the family. That's how they do things. We interact on their level, in their way. But sometimes we have to set boundaries and say we don't do this and it makes me uncomfortable and its pretty impractical so I'll kiss you all hello, but I'm going to wave goodbye. (It's a huge family, leaving can be a nightmare and take forever because you're supposed to kiss everyone )
Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior. I'll pull the scissors out of your hand, sure, but as for what you want? No. You'll find another way to address those issues.
Yes, pull the scissors away, but if we don't then consider why the child feels the need to seek attention, it won't be the last time he or she acts up. And we can't be there to pull the scissors away every time an accident is waiting to happen.
Of course we do, and that's why we have things like human rights treaties (not that terrorists pay any attention to them). Those basic human rights are the things we all have in common.
Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior. I'll pull the scissors out of your hand, sure, but as for what you want? No. You'll find another way to address those issues.
Yes, pull the scissors away, but if we don't then consider why the child feels the need to seek attention, it won't be the last time he or she acts up. And we can't be there to pull the scissors away every time an accident is waiting to happen.
I totally agree, we have to find out why this behaviour is being exhibited, and I would argue that's what this entire thread has really been about.
Of course we do, and that's why we have things like human rights treaties (not that terrorists pay any attention to them). Those basic human rights are the things we all have in common.
How about watching the sunrise? Hunger, thirst, love, pain. Tripping over. Being embarrassed when we fart. Enjoying a good story, or catching up with friends. Toothache. Watching our families grow up. Running to get out of the rain.
Of course we do, and that's why we have things like human rights treaties (not that terrorists pay any attention to them). Those basic human rights are the things we all have in common.
How about watching the sunrise? Hunger, thirst, love, pain. Tripping over. Being embarrassed when we fart. Enjoying a good story, or catching up with friends. Toothache. Watching our families grow up. Running to get out of the rain.
Things like that.
We all bleed red at the end of the day, absolutely, but how we approach these things differs from person to person, culture to culture. For example, some people have no shame about farting. Yeah, we all fart (except girls, who never fart) but we don't all deal with it in the same way. It's not the things that happen to us that define us (like accidental farting) but the way we deal with them.
It doesn't mean I'm negating the importance of our similarities, but it isn't our similarities that lead us to conflict.
Very interesting new piece in Asia Times today from Stephen Zunes:
"It seems bizarre that right-wing pundits would be so desperate to use the recent anti-American protests in the Middle East - in most cases numbering only a few hundred people and (except for a peaceful Hezbollah-organized rally in Lebanon) in no cases numbering more than two or three thousand - as somehow indicative of why the United States should oppose greater democracy in the Middle East. Even more strangely, some media pundits are criticizing Arabs as being "ungrateful" for US support of pro-democracy movements when, in reality, the United States initially opposed the popular movements that deposed Western-backed despots in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, and remains a pre-eminent backer of dictatorships in the region today.
But what I'm saying is, they're not strange creatures. What makes them tick could make us tick in the same way (No pun intended).
I don't know about the same way, but I get what you're saying.
Looking at the religious aspect of things... I'd say what all religions have in common is the promise of some kind of peace/happiness/heaven. Even beyond religion, I think as human beings personal happiness is what we all ultimately strive for.
But striving for happiness isn't a problem, until we look at how people seek it.
Islamist twelvers for example, believe that they will find peace and happiness after the twelth imam has risen from the flames and ashes of the world, killed the non believers, martyred some believers and saved the rest to live in his glory. To bring about that happiness, they must create the conditions for the rising of the twelth imam - basically set the world on fire. (Ahmedinejad and the Mullahs are twelvers, this is why we can't allow them a nuclear program. The history of Iran and nuclear technology is absolutely fascinating, I highly recommend reading about it). The killing of none believers and apostates is virtuous in this extremist sect, and they believe that in virtue they will find happiness and a place by Allah's side.
The striving for happiness... It's what we all do, every day. I can't remember who it was, but a philosopher said "all that men do, they do it in the belief that it is for the highest good". Whatever action we take, whether we come to regret it later or not, at the time, seemed like the right thing to do.
I don't doubt for a second that extremists believe that they are doing things for the highest good, and I think they think it will lead them to happiness and glory.
But it doesn't mean it's true.
But in that way, that striving for happiness, I propose that that's the thing that makes us all tick.
Comments
Ok, I'm going to be silly here, but RebeccaS, just stop for a moment and look at this as if you aren't part of it. We have killer robots. Who uses killer robots to shoot up peasant goat farmers? The bad guys, that's who. Moral relativism? You need a whole bucketful of that crap to justify killer robots and torture of detainees.
Complexity is by comparison, a series of simplicities.
Some southern Baptists have as much in common with fundamentalist Muslims as each does with its respective liberal counterparts. I always think this is kind of sad--a super fundamentalist homeschooling family in Georgia shares loads of cultural and social instincts with a fundamentalist Yemeni family; yet they see each other as enemies, while all around them are people in their own neighborhoods who actually disagree with them more strongly.
Most fundamentalist Muslims are not terrorists. Most fundamentalist Muslim families sit at home in the evening just like Baptist families, both worrying the world is going down the toilet and that their kids are going to be raised in a filthy environment.
Many people protesting right now though, are not even fundamentalist. It's inaccurate to say Muslims are fundamentalist, and fundamentalists are terrorists. You can go the other direction, true--terrorists in the Mideast are often fundamentalist, and these fundamentalists are often Muslim. If your logic follows this path, you reflect reality; if one reverses it, one over generalizes and solves nothing.
One could blow this all off as liberal Pollyanaism were it not for the fact that mischaracterizing "the threat" is a serious military liability. We learned that lesson in Vietnam, hopefully.
Though regional dictators have occaionally gone on local sprees--often an ethnic dominance spree as much as religious (e.g. Sudan)--there really isn't a fundamentalist-wide "convert" message in Islam. But some fundamentalist regimes do cause severe problems for those who attempt to convert away from Islam.
I always find its in intriguing how the Saudis seem to largely escape scrutiny in these discussions, especially given that Saudi Arabia is one of the primary Muslim nations to actually govern solely via Shari'a law.
They know our strength is that we have the guns, and our weakness is that we fear death.
They can't get the guns to fight on equal terms, so they embrace death.
We are trying to continue providing for our needs. They are rejecting their own needs, because they know that they are powerless to fulfill them while we provide for ours in the muscular, exclusionary way we have been doing.
In an odd way, they are trying to have dialogue. They are trying to become a credible threat to us, because we have always refused to talk to anyone who isn't.
"True Peace is not merely the absence of Tension; it is the Presence of Justice".
we must evaluate what true Justice is, and not confuse it with dominant retaliation.
Ok, I'm going to be silly here, but RebeccaS, just stop for a moment and look at this as if you aren't part of it. We have killer robots. Who uses killer robots to shoot up peasant goat farmers? The bad guys, that's who. Moral relativism? You need a whole bucketful of that crap to justify killer robots and torture of detainees.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" and amen to that. Like a poorly behaved child, you don't get my attention with poor behavior. I'll pull the scissors out of your hand, sure, but as for what you want? No. You'll find another way to address those issues.
As for laws... There are international laws and treaties signed by all the countries involved.
I don't get the robot thing
@Sile, I kind of agree, but we're not just blanketing and saying Muslims here. There are of course many kinds of Muslims, many "flavors" of Islam, but the conversation is about the extremists and their actions. Some argue that given the nature of their scripture there is no difference (why we see so many anti-Islam attitudes) but I disagree.
Just because the terrorists are idiots doesn't mean we have to be careful not to do anything they agree with.
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/06/08/international-law-and-drone-strikes/
Ian Seiderman, director of the International Commission of Jurists, has given the opinion that "immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un
According to Mary Ellen O'Connell, professor of international law at Notre Dame, over 2200 people have been killed by targeted drone attacks in Pakistan alone. This means we either targeted roughly 2200 people for assassination, or have killed an awful lot of bystanders. As much as I've been griping about drones, I had no clue the number was this high.
On a much lighter note, China crashed a drone a summer or two ago and the townspeople ran out and snapped a bunch of pics on their iPhones before the incident could be "erased." I don't know why but that just cracked me up. It's like, not even Beijing can separate people and their iPhones.
Sorry to drone on.
Killer robots shooting up peasant farmers = drone attacks.
Just because the terrorists are idiots doesn't mean we have to be careful not to do anything they agree with.
They're hardly merely suggesting changes. It's not like they send memos or something
Well your posts don't make a lot of sense. You really think Obama just forgot about the things he proposed? Or do you think it more likely that after meeting with the security council he realized that his ideas weren't so good after all?
For example, being angry that a foreign nation is using drone strikes to kill targets in their country and/or neighboring countries they're not even at war with (e.g., Pakistan, Yemen, etc.), and that routinely kill innocent bystanders, doesn't have much to do with religion. Being pissed that a foreign nation has invaded and occupied their country and/or neighboring countries doesn't have much to do with religion. Being upset that a foreign nation has materially supported dictatorships in their country and/or neighboring countries (e.g., Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.), or helped depose a democratic government (e.g., Iran), doesn't have much to do with religion.
The main issue that does have to do with religion is the foreign nation provoking much of this anger in predominately Muslim countries, the US, happens to be predominately Christian, and soldiers and citizens of this particular nation have repeatedly denounced Islam, Mohamed, desecrated and burned the Koran, etc., which has been hyped by religious leaders along with everything else to produce an extremely volatile situation. But I'm fairly convinced that the anger at the US is mostly because of what many perceive to be its imperialist policies in the Middle East, not the fact that it's predominately Christian.
As for the anger at, and frustration with, the US's seemingly unconditional support of Israel, which arguably has a religious aspect to it, it's also due to a host of other things that have little to do with religion, such as the fact that Israeli policies have negatively impacted the growth of the Palestinian economy, from its blockade of Gaza (an area smaller than Portland, OR, with twice the population) via its almost complete control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and territorial waters to its occupation of the West Bank, replete with over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints obstructing Palestinian movement. And that doesn't even address the disputes over territory, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, the US's blocking of the Palestinian UN membership bid, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's much more complicated than 'they're Muslims'; and I think it's a mistake to frame this as a predominately religious issue because doing so has the tendency to obscure the decades of underlying political issues that have provided much of the fuel for such explosive reactions in the first place.
The underlying issue is the extremist viewpoint, the politics and socio-economic issues lie on top of that.
It isn't politics that color and build the religion, it's the religion that colors and builds the politics.
They're both important, but not equally so when trying to understand the extremist viewpoint. When trying to understand them (and it's in understanding that we can figure out solutions) we have to realise that the religion comes first - the politics are a part of that because of how many Islamic nations are governed - because as I said, it's the religion that colors the politics, not the other way around.
It's not negating the importance of political factors, it's just putting them into context.
There are extremists in Turkey, but the Turkish government is largely secular. There are extremists in Saudi Arabia, and that government is actually sourced in an incredibly strict and often barbaric interpretation of Shari'a Law, but they're, for some reason, an openly-acknowledged ally of the West.
Then there are the loads of countries/regions in between from Iraq to areas of China to Malaysia which have varying degrees of both extremist, moderate, and liberal influence.
It's not possible to say religion is at the root of all government activity in Malaysia, for example, even though that government is partially based on Shari'a law, with separate legal systems--secular, and Shari'a--operating side by side.
It's really not feasible to generalize the Muslim world, any more than one can generalize the Christian or Buddhist worlds. One can certainly see why a rotten film about Mohammed would anger Muslims, or why a rotten film about Christ would anger Christians, but that doesn't actually have much to do with the comprehensive and very individual issues each region presents in other matters, imho.
As for why we're "friends" with Saudi Arabia... Well... Oil. I don't like it, either.
Iraq? Libya?
No - Chinese atheist/Taoist extremists in the third or fourth straight day of rioting, torching Japanese businesses and destroying anything else they can find that seems remotely Japanese. The have been pulling Japanese people out of their cars--as well as Chinese people driving Japanese cars--and beating them, in brought daylight, with impunity.
I don't know if anyone's seen these riots on the news in the past few days--I haven't, but it's very possible I missed them. I do feel it's clear that these riots, easily as violent as those in many Muslim regions currently, are for some reason not getting the equivalent newsplay.
At any rate, the main point is that extremism and anger and racism and social unrest can happen anywhere, anytime--it is not a Muslim issue.
I just mean that extremism can appear anywhere - violence isn't limited to Muslim extremism, so it's hard to say that all violence in the Muslim world is rooted only in religion, when it could be rooted in other factors, such as poverty an its attendant pressures, which can certainly be lit on fire by religion, but religion isn't the only factor.
This is why what you wrote looked like a straw man to me - nobody is saying any of these things that your post appears to be refuting. I'm not saying that's what you were trying to do, just what it looked like in the context of the thread.
I don't see how someone who aspires to live from compassion could view the choice any differently. Conditionary compassion isn't compassion. It's just playing the suffering game out to yet another degree and justifying state sponsored violence by calling it "defense". That's poppycock.
We don't pray that our dog will leave the other dog alone, we don't try and coax it with treats, we don't pretend it will understand the words "but biting other dogs is mean". We deal with it appropriately.
This is compassion.
If dog analogies are good enough for a fully awakened sage they're good enough for me so I don't mind using them
Aside from that, it's not really about training, but standing firm about what behaviour will be tolerated and what won't. It's setting boundaries, the same as you would in any relationship.
The first question to ask in a potential conflict is 'who am I dealing with?'. And the answer in this case is 'humans'. In our everyday life, which methods of conflict resolution tend to be more successful when dealing with other human beings?
Are we using those methods in the Middle East, or are we doing something else?
Like, I'm British, and I married into an Eastern European family, and they kiss each other allllll the time. I was brought up in a pretty reserved family, and the whole kissing thing freaks me out. My husband's cousin's wife is also a Brit, it freaks her out, too
But, when we're with the family we kiss the family. That's how they do things. We interact on their level, in their way. But sometimes we have to set boundaries and say we don't do this and it makes me uncomfortable and its pretty impractical so I'll kiss you all hello, but I'm going to wave goodbye. (It's a huge family, leaving can be a nightmare and take forever because you're supposed to kiss everyone
So it doesn't boil down to just humans at all.
Yes, pull the scissors away, but if we don't then consider why the child feels the need to seek attention, it won't be the last time he or she acts up. And we can't be there to pull the scissors away every time an accident is waiting to happen.
I totally agree, we have to find out why this behaviour is being exhibited, and I would argue that's what this entire thread has really been about.
Things like that.
Things like that.
We all bleed red at the end of the day, absolutely, but how we approach these things differs from person to person, culture to culture. For example, some people have no shame about farting. Yeah, we all fart (except girls, who never fart) but we don't all deal with it in the same way. It's not the things that happen to us that define us (like accidental farting) but the way we deal with them.
It doesn't mean I'm negating the importance of our similarities, but it isn't our similarities that lead us to conflict.
"It seems bizarre that right-wing pundits would be so desperate to use the recent anti-American protests in the Middle East - in most cases numbering only a few hundred people and (except for a peaceful Hezbollah-organized rally in Lebanon) in no cases numbering more than two or three thousand - as somehow indicative of why the United States should oppose greater democracy in the Middle East. Even more strangely, some media pundits are criticizing Arabs as being "ungrateful" for US support of pro-democracy movements when, in reality, the United States initially opposed the popular movements that deposed Western-backed despots in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, and remains a pre-eminent backer of dictatorships in the region today.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI20Ak03.html
Looking at the religious aspect of things... I'd say what all religions have in common is the promise of some kind of peace/happiness/heaven. Even beyond religion, I think as human beings personal happiness is what we all ultimately strive for.
But striving for happiness isn't a problem, until we look at how people seek it.
Islamist twelvers for example, believe that they will find peace and happiness after the twelth imam has risen from the flames and ashes of the world, killed the non believers, martyred some believers and saved the rest to live in his glory. To bring about that happiness, they must create the conditions for the rising of the twelth imam - basically set the world on fire. (Ahmedinejad and the Mullahs are twelvers, this is why we can't allow them a nuclear program. The history of Iran and nuclear technology is absolutely fascinating, I highly recommend reading about it). The killing of none believers and apostates is virtuous in this extremist sect, and they believe that in virtue they will find happiness and a place by Allah's side.
The striving for happiness... It's what we all do, every day. I can't remember who it was, but a philosopher said "all that men do, they do it in the belief that it is for the highest good". Whatever action we take, whether we come to regret it later or not, at the time, seemed like the right thing to do.
I don't doubt for a second that extremists believe that they are doing things for the highest good, and I think they think it will lead them to happiness and glory.
But it doesn't mean it's true.
But in that way, that striving for happiness, I propose that that's the thing that makes us all tick.