London Bombing

[CzinZumerzet]

Radar. Just dont ever ever come looking for friends here in England after that filthy bit of written excrement. That wasn't humour it was a glimpse into something disgusting masquerading as a mind. Don't waste your time trying to explain or justify yourself because foul mouthing dead, maimed and missing people never was remotely funny even among adolescents which I take you to be. I am completely disgusted.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by CzinZumerzet

Radar. Just dont ever ever come looking for friends here in England after that filthy bit of written excrement. That wasn't humour it was a glimpse into something disgusting masquerading as a mind. Don't waste your time trying to explain or justify yourself because foul mouthing dead, maimed and missing people never was remotely funny even among adolescents which I take you to be. I am completely disgusted.

Why would I look for friends in England? I have plenty in America, Japan, Vietnam, Ireland, Israel, France, Holland, Spain, Australia, etc. I'd have to be at the bottom of the barrel to look for friends in England. If you can't take a prostitute joke, it only proves what tightass assholes the English are.

Briana can shove her apology up her ignorant ass too. I don't require an apology, I've done nothing that needs to be apologized for. I make no apologies and don't need to explain anything. Blow me if you don't like it.

Charming as always, aren't we? I'm almost sorry I stuck up for you on the statistics thing. I guess its like the monkey on the typewriter. Bang away long enough and it actually comes up with a correct sentence.

[Radar]

No problem. Just provide me with an accurate body count from all the crusades (when Christians attacked Muslims without cause....again), and I'll add it to the total.

[dar512]

Don't look to me kiddo. You're the one that made the assertion. It's your job to back it up or fold.

[Undertoad]

Radar's construction assumes that Iraq 1/2, Afghanistan, and etc. were specifically Christian actions and nobody calls him on it.

vsp, you whiffed on this obvious blatant grouping of these actions as representative of an entire religion. What do you see and what do you not see?

[vsp]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

vsp, you whiffed on this obvious blatant grouping of these actions as representative of an entire religion. What do you see and what do you not see?

Not sure what you mean by that.

Noodle's rants kept returning to a central argument of "9 out of 10 Muslims hate us and wish we were dead." That is not only a fallacy, but a dangerous one, because what would I wager that a hell of a lot of those Muslims believe in return?

"9 out of 10 Westerners hate us and wish we were dead." (Would've said "Americans" until yesterday's attacks broadened the target circle significantly.)

How many stop and think about WHY the other side "hates" them, much less as to whether that "mass hatred" actually exists? How many scoff at that kind of thinking as "embracing the attackers" or "putting them in therapy for their anger issues?"

99% of these people spouting this nonsense have never even _met_ anyone from the country or countries they're tarring. If not for the actions of these extremists, 99% of these people would live their entire lives without affecting the lives of the other side's inhabitants in any way. (It's difficult to even define "sides" in this argument. Is this Christianity vs. Islam? America vs. Islam? America vs. Iraq? Christianity vs. al-Qaeda?) They're basing their opinions on the actions and statements of these extremists rather than on what everyday people think. Unfortunately, bombs and bullets can't tell the difference between extremists and everyday people.

Are there extremists on both sides? Obviously. But the rank-and-file on both sides are seemingly caught up in this I Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us propaganda loop that collapses when a bit of critical thinking is applied.

That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.

Originally Posted by Hobbs

What we don't see, and this is one part I agree with mrnoodle, is the tens of thousands of muslims marching in the streets to take back the good name of islam. What we don't see is people ratting out their neigbors because they are busy making car bombs in the garage. What we don't see is a very loud voice of the muslim imams denouncing the violence. This to us in the U.S. paints a very grim picture of islam. It's all we have to go on.

And what picture do Middle Eastern Muslims have of America, its leadership, or its Christian citizens? What news do THEY get?

They get the same blurry picture that most Americans get -- that there are Hordes of Scary People Over There From A Violent Religion Who Want To Kill Us, wherever "There" is.

The average Muslim doesn't believe the "Allah wants America dead" bullshit any more than the average Christian believes that "God's word must dominate the world" bullshit. But they don't make the news. Osama and Dobson do.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Radar's construction assumes that Iraq 1/2, Afghanistan, and etc. were specifically Christian actions and nobody calls him on it.

_Specifically_ Christian? No. Iraq 1 had a lot more to do with region politics and oil than any religious concerns. Afghanistan was "Someone hit us hard so we need to bomb something." Iraq 2, well, does _anyone_ have good answers as to why we should've gone there? Dubya hasn't provided much of any, IMHO.

But the elephant in the corner is the religious influence that's in the ear of the Republican party and drives chunks of their agenda, including foreign policy. (A lot in Washington want Israel protected and promoted for reasons that have nothing to do with region politics, the spread of democracy or oil, for instance.) Discount the evangelicals at your peril, particularly when the President and many in his administration are receptive to the This Is A Christian Nation crowd.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by vsp

Noodle's rants kept returning to a central argument of "9 out of 10 Muslims hate us and wish we were dead." That is not only a fallacy, but a dangerous one, because what would I wager that a hell of a lot of those Muslims believe in return?

"9 out of 10 Westerners hate us and wish we were dead." (Would've said "Americans" until yesterday's attacks broadened the target circle significantly.)
________________________________________
Are there extremists on both sides? Obviously. But the rank-and-file on both sides are seemingly caught up in this I Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us propaganda loop that collapses when a bit of critical thinking is applied.

That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.
_________________________________________

The average Muslim doesn't believe the "Allah wants America dead" bullshit any more than the average Christian believes that "God's word must dominate the world" bullshit. But they don't make the news. Osama and Dobson do.

You're applying "critical thinking" but completely disregarding the realities that are occurring on your doorstep. How nice that ALL 1.3 billion muslims don't want us dead. I'm sure ALL Germans didn't want us dead in WWII. Yet they all suffered as a result of war. A war, interestingly enough, that we had no stake in -- what the hell do we care about Poland, anyway? So I suppose, using you and Radar's interpretation of things, we were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and the fact that Nazism was eliminated as a world power doesn't come close to justifying our actions.

Of course, 60 years later we find ourselves again standing between the Jews and another bunch of wackos, which I must admit gives me a bit of a gagging feeling in my throat. However, they have fired upon us, and we should be concentrating on eliminating the muslim extremism that caused them to do so. We don't need to swat at the individual ants that bite us on the feet, we need to get rid of the nest before we're eaten alive (it would be comforting to think that we're not in danger of that, wouldn't it?)

Oddly, that sounds alot like what the muslims say about us. Guess what? We have diametrically opposing values and goals. Of COURSE one side wants the other to fail, because the existence of one threatens the existence of the other. The shop owner in America has no reason to hate the shop owner in Afghanistan. But that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. We have been publicly identified by the leadership of these supposedly "small" groups of extremists as Allah-approved targets of violence. Maybe that's okay with you, but it's not okay with me.

Still, you are very right -- not all muslims want to continue the cycle of violence. They are the ones lining up to work and fight with us in Baghdad, and they're the ones to whom the country of Iraq will be turned over. The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as insurgency is carried out by local citizenry, not by foreign terrorists) won't ever go away, but their efforts can be muted, and the job of keeping them at bay can be turned over to the country of Iraq, once a certain level of training has been achieved.

But now, the liberals are in a quandary. At first, they tried to marginalize the muslims fighting with us and building the new Iraqi govt. as pawns of Bushco, operating a puppet regime for Republican oil-grabbers. Of course, as the number of Iraqis willing to fight for their freedom swelled, that started to look kind of silly, even for the left. So they had to fall back on the second line of defense: "Yeah, well we should've never been there in the first place. It's still all Bush's fault, and no matter what the outcome of the war (a non-extremist government in the heart of the middle east, hopefully), we have to remember to demonize America's presence there.

From that perspective comes the notion that we must never fight muslims, because Not All Muslims Are Bad. Instead, we need to find individual warlords and bring them on Judge Judy to let them know that they've been very naughty and must never do "it" again. That's a fabulous way to lose wars, and I'm really glad that the cut-and-run Democrats are not in charge of this effort.

edit: I interned in the civil engineering department at my college for 3 or 4 years. I saw more muslims in a day than you're likely to see in a year. Most didn't use deodorant, considering it to be unmanly. I'm not saying they're "wrong", but they certainly smelled manly.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You're applying "critical thinking" but completely disregarding the realities that are occurring on your doorstep. How nice that ALL 1.3 billion muslims don't want us dead. I'm sure ALL Germans didn't want us dead in WWII. Yet they all suffered as a result of war. A war, interestingly enough, that we had no stake in -- what the hell do we care about Poland, anyway? So I suppose, using you and Radar's interpretation of things, we were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and the fact that Nazism was eliminated as a world power doesn't come close to justifying our actions.

There was that little "Pearl Harbor" thing. And that "Germany declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor" thing. A lot of Americans _didn't_ give a rat's ass about Poland until after they themselves had been attacked, and quite frankly, if Germany hadn't declared war on us, a lot of Americans would've been satisfied to take out the Japanese and let Europe settle its own affairs.

Now tell me how Saddam Hussein was within lightyears of Adolf Hitler.

Of course, 60 years later we find ourselves again standing between the Jews and another bunch of wackos, which I must admit gives me a bit of a gagging feeling in my throat. However, they have fired upon us, and we should be concentrating on eliminating the muslim extremism that caused them to do so.

Take out the word "muslim" and I'm on board with you.

Here's a question: is al-Qaeda's primary motivation political or religious? Was 9/11 a strike against Christian America in the name of Allah, or was it a terrorist act in the name of specific political demands? The evidence points overwhelmingly to the latter.

Apply Occam's Razor. Which is the simplest explanation?

If Islam is such an inherently violent and xenophobic religion that its adherents may feel compelled to strike out violently against non-believers, if the calling to promote Allah and subdue all others is that strong... then why is 9/11 an aberration in American history rather than a recurring event?

Why did so many Americans think of terrorism as "something that happens Over There" on 9/11, rather than an everpresent threat? You can't say that our security was strong and vigilant for decades before 9/11, because it wasn't. You can't say that there were no Muslims living in or with access to the United States for decades before 9/11, because there were. So when you take Bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of the equation, why _haven't_ other Muslims heard the call and struck at America, The Great Satan, the most powerful Christian-dominated nation on the planet repeatedly in the name of spiritual conquest?

Is Bin Laden spiritually driven to the point of obliterating Christian America, or is he more interested in getting the United States' economic, military and political fingers out of the Middle Eastern pie? Which makes more sense, that this is a true religious jihad (with Bin Laden and his followers the only ones devout and wise enough to interpret the Koran correctly and be called to significant action), or that this is Bin Laden's way of trying to force US interests out of Saudi Arabia, out of Iraq, out of what he considers to be Palestinian land through violent terrorism?

Are there religious overtones? Of course. Bin Laden uses religious language in his speeches. So does Dubya. Is Dubya a raving evangelist? Both know that Joe Average is (sadly) more likely to buy into religion-themed arguments than sophisticated political arguments. It's an easy card to play. A lot of people hear "God/Allah wishes this" and portions of their brains shut off; it's such a _convenient_ self-justification for actions. Is much of their hatred for Israel religiously grounded? Of course. But much of America's _support_ for Israel has similar roots, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how a Christian-dominated nation plunking a new Jewish nation down on traditionally-Arabic land, no matter how laudable the reasons for doing so, could create some long-term grudges and prejudices.

There is a difference between "taking it in the ass from anyone and everyone" and responding to those responsible for terrorism instead of allowing it to escalate into a larger war. This is not some religious cage match, Christianity vs. Islam best of three falls to determine who's the World Deity Champion. This is terrorism by a distinct minority that _welcomes_ overreaction by its target, because that's the best recruiting tool they could ask for. "See? That's what I'm ON about! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by vsp

_Specifically_ Christian? No. Iraq 1 had a lot more to do with region politics and oil than any religious concerns. Afghanistan was "Someone hit us hard so we need to bomb something." Iraq 2, well, does _anyone_ have good answers as to why we should've gone there?

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by vsp

Not sure what you mean by that.

Noodle's rants kept returning to a central argument of "9 out of 10 Muslims hate us and wish we were dead." That is not only a fallacy, but a dangerous one, because what would I wager that a hell of a lot of those Muslims believe in return?

"9 out of 10 Westerners hate us and wish we were dead." (Would've said "Americans" until yesterday's attacks broadened the target circle significantly.)

How many stop and think about WHY the other side "hates" them, much less as to whether that "mass hatred" actually exists?

Oh I see; by saying "what would I wager" you admit you don't know what they think, but having "stopped and thought" what you would wager they think, you have far greater insight into the situation. Got it!

99% of these people spouting this nonsense have never even _met_ anyone from the country or countries they're tarring.

Tarring the 99%, however, is fair game. In fact it's 9% better than Noodle's "9 out of 10." Good work that.

That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.

Discount the evangelicals at your peril, particularly when the President and many in his administration are receptive to the This Is A Christian Nation crowd.

Hey look, there's demonization in your playbook too.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh I see; by saying "what would I wager" you admit you don't know what they think, but having "stopped and thought" what you would wager they think, you have far greater insight into the situation. Got it!

Tarring the 99%, however, is fair game. In fact it's 9% better than Noodle's "9 out of 10." Good work that.

Have I interviewed each and every Iraqi personally? Obviously, no.

Does viewing human beings in Iraq as having similar wants, needs and motivations to human beings in America seem more logical than assuming that they're all a bunch of frothing anti-American religious zealots? A bit.

Do I feel more justified believing that giving the benefit of the doubt to Joe Average in Iraq is more insightful than writing 90% off as "they want us dead"? Yes, I do, without the slightest shame. Some of my arguments as to why _not_ believing that Iraqis and Muslims in general are raving xenophobes seems logical are earlier in this thread.

Hey look, there's demonization in your playbook too.

Come on, now. Are you honestly and seriously suggesting that George W. Bush, his policies, his choices of appointees and many of his fellow Republicans _aren't_ influenced by Christian extremists to any significant degree?

Saying that Bush believes that yoyos like James Dobson know what they're talking about doesn't make me a rabid anti-Christian bigot, because I know very well that the vast majority of Christians don't buy into Dobson's agenda. Am I demonizing if I worry that Bush does?

To clarify: we have extremists (both religious and political) too. To pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that one particular set of extremists (certain strict Christian denominations) do not have significant influence over the predominant political party over the last forty years in the most powerful and influential nation in the world is downright dangerous. I can't wish them into the cornfield any more than I can Bin Laden, and quite frankly, _our_ extremists are capable of doing more damage than Iraq's in the long run.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by vsp

To clarify: we have extremists (both religious and political) too. To pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that one particular set of extremists (certain strict Christian denominations) do not have significant influence over the predominant political party over the last forty years in the most powerful and influential nation in the world is downright dangerous. I can't wish them into the cornfield any more than I can Bin Laden, and quite frankly, _our_ extremists are capable of doing more damage than Iraq's in the long run.

The difference is that in the ME the extremists are in charge, whilst here even they must respect the rule of law which puts enormous power in the hands of the people.

Consider, for example: the #1 issue to all evangelical extremists is abortion, yet abortion remains legal. Why?

Because in order to wield that political power, it's important that it remain legal.

Weird little problem; if abortion were made illegal it would permit the opposition to wield a much larger, much more powerful group, and one that terrifies the righty extremists.

What we've done here is to construct a government that has to respect the will of the majority whilst remaining a representative republic. So in order for the evangelicals to really gain power, they would have to convince a majority of the American public that they are correct. Do you think they can do that? Because it's not going well for them, as their numbers are down.

Now contrast Iran. In Iran, the mulllahs have absolute power over the country. They decide who will go on the ballot to be their puppet President. They make the rulings that govern the country. Iran is going to have nukes soon.

So which one is more dangerous again?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by vsp

...
That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.
...

vsp, your instincts were NOT wrong about that. You (finally) clearly say what fuels the hatred on all sides. It is largely a product lazy weak thinking. Do any of you for a moment think that the criminals responsible for this tragedy specifically targeted any of the victims? Of course not. To the perpetrators, the intended victims were "those people". That was good enough for them. Lazy. And that's practically a compliment compared to the other truthful characterizations of these acts.

This kind of stunted thinking is useful in many ways. It's easy. Conveniently, it is cheap and effective to produce and promote (think FOXNews). It is flexible; Osama bin Laden -> Saudia Arabia -> Afghanistan -> Saddam Hussein -> Iraq...whatever. "If I see brown, it's goin' down."

But useful and effective only applies if you wish to continue the struggle. It does not apply if your goal is to eliminate the conflict. If resolution is your goal, if you are a seeker of peace, then the path of the lazy is closed to you. A harder way lies ahead. This narrow path requires that you open your mind to the point of view of the other side. And I guarantee that those views are held by individuals.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

... scratch any muslim, underneath you are likely to find...if not a terrorist, someone who believes what the terrorists are doing is just.

The usefulness of labels in this way is very limited, and mrnoodle, you has driven them well past their end. Look here for a minute, 'k?

To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.

He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies—and what’s his reason? I am a Jew.

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian
is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute—and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

The Merchant of Venice
--Act III, Scene i, lines 43-61
William Shakespeare

These labels are old, but perfectly interchangable for the events of our own time. Indeed, they do bleed, just as they've shown we do. But when you refuse to acknowledge their very humanity, then you will fail to see a person, seeing only "those people". And the very slipperiness of that concept that drew you to it in the first place DOOMS you to be stuck with it forever. Kill one, bomb one hundred and another thousand anonymously stand up to replace them. You sow the seeds of your own destruction when you fight hate and ignorance with ignorance and hate.

[Hobbs]

Wow! I go on vacation for a week and come back to find this thread still limping along! Egads!

I'll say two things to get myself back into this thread and into trouble.

First, organized religion is the kiss of death. Anytime you have a bunch of people who believe in something get together, you get nothing but trouble. Even if you have a group that starts out with the purest intentions, there will be inevitibly and smaller group who will disagree with the larger and break-out. Christians, muslims, budists, cultists, you name it, they got 'em. Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian who believes in what the bible teaches, but I read it for what it says, not what it should say. I don't look at chapters and verses and try to second guess and make up my own definition or meaning behind it. I don't get caught up in all the machanics of when to kneel, what to say, what to do. If you read the bible, there is nothing that really says, "go out and kill unbelivers" and I'm sure the koran is the same way.

Second, I'll say it again at the risk of sounding like a broken record...
the terrorists won't stop until they are ready to stop. Wheather through re-education, or bordem with bowing up everyone, they have to want to stop. All the raids, bombs, and operation "whatevers" will not convince them it's time to stop.